Wibbly-Wobbly Ramblings

Getting a lot of asks about the BBC’s latest documentary ‘Sickness and Lies’ and what I think of it. And honestly? I wasn’t expecting it to be good. The BBC has a bad history with this sort of thing. But I also wasn’t expecting the absolute nightmare that aired.

It’s every hate message and death threat I’ve ever had in regards to being openly disabled online amplified times a million.

It’s disabled hate content, pure and simple. It demonizes disabled and chronically ill people while holding up online hate groups that have harassed people to death--something they conveniently leave out-- as some sort of paradigm of unsung heroics and justice against welfare frauds. Specifically against those with invisible chronic illnesses, and believe me, the timing is not a coincidence.

In the wake of Covid, we are about to witness a mass disability event the likes of which haven’t been seen on a global scale for nearly 100 years. In creating this documentary that seeds doubt and anger into the minds of the general public, the BBC is helping to further the Tory regime in their dehumanization of disabled and chronically ill folk. By portraying them as frauds and fakers, they further enable the Tory justification of denying benefits to the most vulnerable, ensuring that their blatant disregard and abandonment of duty of care is normalized as acceptable because look, look how prevalent faking is! We have a documentary about it! It’s on the BBC so you know it’s legit… even thought they based all their research on a reddit hate forum…

But their incompetence and immorality doesn’t end there, oh no. Along with the title and presentation being outright disgusting and irresponsible, they’ve also stolen content from creators who declined to be involved and voiced their concerns over the creation of such a documentary. @jessicaoutofthecloset said on Twitter that she refused to be a part of it, yet her image is used to promote it. And some of the other featured creators (I’m not going to link to them, their social feeds are already a nightmare) have claimed that their interviews were edited in such a way to make them sound ableist or twist the meaning of their words to fit the “us vs them” dynamic the documentary was trying to instill against “real” disabled people (i.e. visibly disabled) and chronically ill people, which is not at all what they were saying—especially because the person involved is both disabled AND chronically ill.

It’s disgusting, and frankly all the journalists involved should be fired. There is not a shred of ethics or care to be seen for any of the people they have opened up for attack online by listing them openly as disabled content creators. But that won’t happen. Because disabled and chronically ill lives don’t matter. Not when you’ve got ratings and dangerous propaganda to uphold.

I’m not going to say don’t watch it to anyone who is curious. But I will say make sure you’re in an okay headspace to handle it. I was barely able to get through it in the end. And if you’re able bodied and healthy, please watch it with the knowledge that what is being shown is a highly skewed and ableist outlook based on literal hate forums that have harassed people to death for being vocal online about disability activism. These people want us dead. What they are doing is not moral or even needed. Please don’t fall for their lies. Please be better than that. Please be kinder.

Please, I’m so heartbroken and tired.

If anyone has the time and energy, you can help by making a formal complaint to the BBC here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/complaints

I would especially urge able bodied and healthy people to complain and show that this kind of ableist misrepresentation and hate content against the disabled and chronically ill community will not be tolerated without major pushback. Thank you.

Abled gays celebrating marriage equality: well we sure do have nowhere to go from here when it comes to marriage rights. Gay rights!

Me, a disabled lesbian trying to get on ssi thinking about how I will not be able to marry my girlfriend if I do because I can't have more than $2000 to my name at a time and they count a spouse's income towards that: wow .. gay rights ...

Just wanna say if you fought for and support marriage equality for gay people its your responsibility to do the same for disabled people. Abled people can and should rb this

I'm going to guess that this is an American issue..?

op mentioned ssi/ssdi, which is american, but this isn't a strictly american issue. marriage can disqualify you for disability benefits in the uk and most (if not all, i don't know specifics for every province) canadian provinces. this includes common-law marriage, which means disabled people can't even live with their partners without risking losing our benefits

marriage & partnership disqualify from disability benefits in new zealand & they're notorious assholes about enforcement + their interpretation of what a partnership is, its not even safe to date without risking losing your benefit & people have had their benefits cut off for having long term flatmates. meaning numerous disabled ppl in nz are effectively not even permitted a relationship let alone marriage

This is also true in Denmark to a degree, they count a spouse's income against your disability benefits, even if you're both disabled. I can't marry either.

in Ontario, Canada, disability benefits consider you married if you're living together for only THREE MONTHS as opposed to, you know, the how common law is defined in family courts.

I wanted to ask you this question specifically because I think we’re in similar situations. I’m applying for a four month intensive that will give me a Developmental Disability Counselor certification and a fast track to employment in this field. The only catch is that I will have to take a course called “Introduction to ABA”. I realized that in order to get to what I really want (changing the system from the inside and being able to truly live “Nothing about us without us”), I’m going to have to submit to the ABA course and recognize that it’s probably not the venue to start explaining why it’s bad. I was also advised to use “Asperger’s” on my application (since disclosing is actually my selling point in this situation) instead of “Autistic”. 

The actual question is: Is it OK for me to do these things? I feel like I’m betraying my community by doing this, but I do have my eyes on the prize, and I realize that in order to get through the door, I’ll have to make some sacrifices. My adviser told me that once I’m employed there will be room for me to start improving things for us, but do you think the community will accept that I’m doing this for the time being?

Oh gosh, I love this question so much because it deals with a whole lot of really big things that are also really hard things.

When it comes to ABA, you are right. You have to get through the class in order to make the changes you want to make. Without, you are excluded from the positions of power that allow you to affect the most change.

So take the course. Don’t just take it though, excel in it. Be the best student you know how to be. Ask questions - not to be subversive or discredit the practice - but to learn everything about it that you can. It is perfectly valid to learn the ins and outs of ABA so that you can undermine it.

It is so exceptionally important that the people who have been abused by ABA are the people that lead to fight against ABA. But having working knowledge of the practice from the other side is another important aspect of that fight.

Pathos and ethos are equally important in that each has a role in affecting the people around us. Some people are going to be swayed by the emotionally charged appeals of those who have suffered abuse, while others are going to be swayed by the appeal to authority. Those of us who have been through ABA are the emotion, those of us who learn it are the authority.

When you put those two together, you have the most universally convincing argument possible. I wish we could just take people at their word, but I’m also a realist, and recognize that in the world we live in, we need both voices.

Even so, there are ways that you can be subversive while also attending the classes. Let’s take person first and identity first language, for example. Most people are going to push for person first. You can say that you prefer to use autistic, which is the standard used by the self-advocacy groups like ASAN.

If anyone calls you on it, you have two routes: 1.) state that APA guidelines allow for identity first language or that 2.) if they would like you would be happy to provide a citation for the use of identity language. In fact, it is not exactly uncommon in academic publications that use identity language to see a citation for a study on the need for identity first language. I suggest adding one of the common citations for that into MS Word so you can insert it easily in your preferred (presumably APA) formating.

You can also reframe questions in ways that don’t make accusations but do get other students thinking. Instead of saying, “ABA causes PTSD,” for example, you can ask a questions like, “I read that some people that went through ABA were later diagnosed with PTSD. Obviously ABA does what it is supposed to, but how do I address parents’ concerns about harmful effects? Are there any studies you can recommend regarding long term effects?”

I have yet to have anyone do anything other than blow that question off, but honestly? That’s all you need to start changing the minds of people who are open to change.

Keep yourself educated on studies in other types of therapy. CBT has proven effective, and so has putting the parents through “Awareness” training (put another way, ABA to make the parents understand autistic perspectives). Seek things studies out, and if you have the opportunity use them. Have to write a paper on ABA? Rather than frame it as ABA is bad, frame it as self-advocacy groups have pushed back against ABA, do their arguments have any merit? Cite long term studies on ABA or the lack thereof, and frame it as, “if the advocacy groups are ever going to be onboard, these studies need to be done to address these concerns.”

This, btw, is pretty much how I handle all of my psych classes. Rather than assault the institution directly, I ask questions that I know are loaded or unanswered and leave it at, “it seems prudent to address these concerns.” This is especially important with ABA because while it is awful for many reasons, it is effective. Like, it does what it claims it does. So don’t even try, at least not in that setting. But that doesn’t mean you can’t be subversive even as you toe the line.

As for the whole Asperger thing, I wouldn’t personally do it because I’m that girl who would dare someone to turn me down on the basis of my autism, but I absolutely do believe that when you’re dealing with the hierarchy of stigma it is okay to call yourself an aspie or an HFA.

The simple reality of it is that people who want to work in that field are a dime a dozen. There just is not a shortage of people. In order to Change the World from the inside, you have to play by their rules, at least for a little bit. If you don’t, they will just ignore you.

Put another way, respectability politics of any kind is bullshit. But I have no problem at all playing respectability politics to subvert an institution.

There’s a theme in all of this that I want you to consider: You are using their tools against them. That is so, so, powerful when fighting for marginalized individuals, and there is nothing wrong with it. It is and always has been the primary strategy of subversives throughout history, for good or bad.

I have a lot more thoughts on this, but this is already long so I’m going to call it here. Keep your eye on the long fight. Let those of us who can fight the now fight. We need both.

it might be a little more confrontational, but from what I can see in autism research, studies don't actually hold up to scientific quality. A lot of studies done on small groups, which are then held up as proving to support ABA works. In my research methods class, I was told that a study needs to have at *least* 2000 participants in order for the results to have significance. So it's not even that ABA is supported by science, it's only supported by the low-quality of studies that wouldn't be looked at as significant in other fields. And they claim that they have to do small studies because gathering a sample size is "too hard" with the way autistic people are so diverse. So that might be another angle you can look at, if you're feeling up to it.

Big congrats to Robert and Nathan from Glasgow. They were refused access to a bar in Glasgow because of disability. 

THEY TOOK THE CASE TO COURT AND WON

From the original tweets:

Robert: “Removed from the Polo Lounge, Glasgow tonight by POLICE because I am disabled. #outraged Nathan: “Denied entry to Polo Lounge BECAUSE we are disabled. They sent two police vans to remove us. Their bouncer carried me out and left Robert crawling around the floor. Gutted.

Posted by Robert after winning the case from on facebook group:

"This was never about us. We didn’t do this for us. What happened that night has already had it’s impact on us and nothing can change that. We took this case in the hope that it would give people faith that discrimination law can work, that as disabled people we don’t just have to accept the treatment we receive. We took this case for that young LGBT disabled person whose first experience of trying to access their so called community is to be told that they’re not wanted. We took this case to show every company who thinks it can get away with treating disabled people like they are unworthy of using their services that they can’t. And today, a year after we tried to go for a celebratory drink in the Polo Lounge and were told we couldn’t go in, Glasgow Sheriff Court ruled that we were unlawfully discriminated against - we have won our case. We hope the fear of being litigated against and having to pay compensation will encourage other companies to be more proactive in providing for all their customers, including the disabled ones. Nathan and I know this won’t be the last time we’ll face discrimination. But for today, we won.  We are so incredibly grateful to the unwavering support that everyone has given us. Without the Faculty of Advocates’ Free Legal Assistance Unit, and our amazing lawyer Russell Bradley, we couldn’t have done this. Tom French, who was with us that night has stood by us all the way through and was an amazing witness. Rachel Amey was there in court to support us, help maintain our sanity, and even brought a pack of straws so I could have a drink! And Nic brought Brownies! Our heartfelt thanks to everyone who has been there for us this year.”