[ SECRET POST #6313 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6313 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.

































Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 10 secrets from Secret Submission Post #902.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, there is nuance here but this still feels off to me. Like "disabled characters are not going to be able to accomplish the tasks done by protagonists in the type of stories I enjoy" makes sense for certain disabilities for some characters. Like sure maybe the main characters of an action thing aren't gonna have major physical disabilities, not saying they have to. That doesn't mean that there can't be side characters who do, or they can't have non-physical disabilities. (Or the major characters could have physical disabilities ANYWAY and it can make the story more interesting bc you get to explore how they deal with that. I'm just saying, there are options, genre doesn't necessitate the nonexistence of disabled people.)

And "either magic/technology should be available to fix the problem in that setting so why is it still there OR the setting is not set up to accommodate the needs of someone with a major disability and they're not going to functionally exist at all" I don't really get how you can say this and act like eugenics is irrelevant to the conversation. IRL, people have been helping other people with disabilities survive since we were hunter gatherers, so like being in a harsh survival situation doesn't mean there aren't disabled people. A setting that ACTIVELY prevents disabled people from existing is one that's doing eugenics. If there's magic/technology to fix physical problems, that's a bit different, but there are people who are considered disabled now who wouldn't want their bodies/brains altered. Like, if a setting canonically has no autistic people because they're all cured now, that is in fact, bad and horrifying. And I think even with that kind of thing there are interesting stories to be told about the details of it, what happens if the technology breaks down, how does the magic create weird new problems, etc.

Sorry for wall of text, I'm not saying that every story has to fill a disability representation quota. I don't actually give a shit if a given fantasy story doesn't have any disabled characters. I'm just annoyed at the idea that disabled people don't/shouldn't have a place in a whole-ass genre of fiction.

[(Anonymous)]

This seems reasonable to me.

[(Anonymous)]

All of this. Any premise of "disabled people shouldn't exist in this world" is inherently a eugenics argument (not to mention disability is a minority that's always taking new members, so even if you want to argue about genes, accidents and illness still happen)

[(Anonymous)]

+100000

[meadowphoenix]

yeah, i think OP is missing an understanding of community, even writ small!, that is pretty prevalent in sci-fi and fantasy. sci-fi and fantasy tend comment on or deal with societies. and the level of "ability" you have in an environment is going to be dependent on the society of that environment and how they have developed day to day activity. that's going to comment on disability inherently. that's especially true if there's a level of danger for which the consequences are not complete non-existence. if there's sci-fi and fantasy which doesn't seems to consider that, that's actually a particular conceit on the genre that comes with particular tropes. considering it a default of the genre isn't great (and to me makes for very shallow sci-fi, specifically).

[(Anonymous)]

+1, "how do disabled people live in this setting" is way more interesting that just not having any. DS9's story with Dr Bashir was an especially interesting take on this: he may have been learning disabled as a young child (or possibly just not as developmentally advanced as his parents' expectations) and they got him illegally genetically modified. It worked pretty well in his case, but not so well in some other people, and we get to see the emotional fallout from both "unsuccessful" and "successful" cases.

[(Anonymous)]

I always feel weird about the discussions around a cure for autism, and it makes me think that it was a huge mistake for us to conceive of it as a broad spectrum disorder.

When we think of autistic people now, we think of someone like Temple Grandin; or someone who has some social problems or sensory issues but who is otherwise high-functioning. We don't think of the deeply, profoundly disabled people who have it, the people who can't speak or take care of themselves at all; people who repeatedly bang their heads against the wall (or engage in other such harmful behaviors), or who sit in a room doing nothing but tearing paper into shreds and react aggressively when someone comes to feed or change them, or who go into violent rages and seriously hurt their caregivers, etc. The idea that it would be "horrific" to cure those people sits poorly with me.

I dislike that people have in recent times advocated for doing away with "high-functioning" and "low-functioning," because there really is a distinction and a world of difference between the two. And on the low-functioning end, there really are those who need something much, much more than just society becoming more welcoming and understanding of neurodiversity.

[kaffy_r]

I know I should have something more intelligent to say than "Agreed" ... but... Agreed.

[(Anonymous)]

I think because to a lot of people, especially those on the spectrum, the problem is that the current society is... Very, very ableist. You can't even get into some buildings with wheelchairs despite the laws around that. It's just not doable.

I think a lot more should go into understanding autism and what causes them to become so violent in those cases vs "just cure 'em and make 'em normal" and IF there's no way for society to be better for them to function in, then we can talk about cures. But right now, the idea of a cure is centered solely around parent who don't want disabled children and making people more productive cogs in the proverbial machine. It's not for the betterment of their own life, but for the betterment of the fat cats up top who want worker drones.

[(Anonymous)]

Hi, I'm on the spectrum. I'm what used to be called "high-functioning" and I agree with every bit of what the user you're replying to said; every autistic person has a different opinion on these things.

And my opinion is: It's not inherently ableist to not want to be hit, bitten, or screamed at by your own child for the rest of your life. It's human to be disappointed that you can't have a conversation with them as an adult without laboriously working through every possible communication method in existence. It's normal to dislike the prospect of changing your teenager's diapers. There's plenty of ableism inherent in organizations like Autism Speaks, and parents who talk about wanting to kill their child or something equally horrifying should never be platformed, but a little nuance is called for here. Parents, caregivers, and others who interact with a "low-functioning" autistic person are people, too.

Sometimes there is no underlying reason that someone's coping mechanisms veer to violence other than that their brain is so profoundly affected by their disorder. Trying to figure that out when the person in question isn't actively displaying that violence may be a tall order, and trying to figure it out when they are being violent can lead to serious injuries for them or for you. Studies are great, but they would also involve a lot of serious ethical issues for someone who may be inherently unable to consent.

Personally, I don't like the idea that someone has to take the House. M.D approach of figuring out an underlying reason for violent or otherwise deeply socially inappropriate actions rather than being allowed to say "I wish these behaviors didn't exist." If neurotypical people should have empathy for us, then we owe the same respect and consideration to them.

[(Anonymous)]

Not to mention the fact that there are in fact plenty of higher-functioning people who would like to be cured, too - people who are tired of having to deal with said social problems and sensory issues and would love to not have those and to be able to live a normal life without having to constantly worry about that kind of thing.