Jerry Springer on a Bus

I want to tell you how I managed to start a race war just by being disabled. It's just too darn WTF not to share:

So I was on the bus coming home after taking a philosophy exam and I was sitting in the very back of the bus, which I usually do in order to avoid people with cell phone cameras trying to get video of "that funny crazy lady." Anyway, pretty normal bus ride until this black woman and her boyfriend enter the bus and the couple sit next to me on the big long bench seat in the very back.

The woman is very, very friendly and talkative to the other passengers on the bus and I suppose it was pretty inevitable that she talk to me. I was a little surprised that she was able to identify my neurological condition that causes me to twitch and bark as Tourettes. I was much less surprised when, following the identification, came the intrusive questions, including the rare, but not unexpected, questions about my disabilities and my sexual life. Anyway...

After this exchange I was feeling a little bit self conscious about my tics so I was doing my darnedest to not bark and, for the most part, I was more or less successful. I was more or less able to, with great concentration and fortitude disguise my barks as something else that I felt much more comfortable with. Eventually, I just couldn't keep up with it anymore and I let out a good, loud, series of high-pitched barks.

A couple of stops back, a white man entered the bus and sat a few rows in front of me, far enough in front of me where he didn't notice me until I barked. When I did bark, however, the real fun started: The jerk decided that it would be funny to start taunting me by howling like a wolf.

Naturally I found very offensive. ...and so did the black woman who proceeded to shout something, riddled with profanity, that there was only *one* person on the bus with Tourettes and that the person who was making fun of me was a jerk. After a few seconds she located the man who was causing me torment and proceeded to ask him what his problem was. To which he responded:

"What the fuck is your problem you black-assed nigger whore!"

She hit him. He stood up and started threatening her, calling her a prostitute and dropping N-bombs left and right while pantomiming and demanding lewd acts while her boyfriend and myself stood angrily trying desperately to form words. Things got very, very close to being very, very violent and I commend the two people whom I was with for their self-restraint.

Someone pulled the cord and the bus stopped. All three of us got off, we all had enough. I'm sure that if things had been a little different and that if we had not had the opportunity to disengage like we did, things would have been a lot different.

And that's how you nearly start a race war just by being disabled.

It was one of the most frightening moments of my life.

Alpha Xi Delta: Autism Speaks

The following is an open letter written to the SJSU chapter of Alpha Xi Delta, a sorority which has been raising money for Autism Speaks on my campus:

Dear SJSU chapter of Alpha Xi Delta,

Earlier today I learned about Alpha Xi Delta's efforts to raise money for autism. As an autistic woman I understandably feel that this is a worthy goal and that as much money and effort should be contributed as is necessary to ensure that myself, and individuals such as myself, are able to exercise our civil rights to participate in society as equals with our neurotypical brothers and sisters.

In this, I applaud you and thank you.

I do, however, have concerns. Understand that I, like every autistic person, am a human being and as such have humanity. Understand that I, like every autistic person, have a voice as well. As an autism self-advocate I am concerned with your choice of Autism Speaks. I am concerned that you affiliate yourselves with an organization which has consistently and systematically denied us our humanity, portraying us as tragedies incapable of true human interaction or empathy who destroy and scourge the families and communities which we are thrust into, while silencing our ability to speak for ourselves.

Additionally, I am concerned that an organization affiliated with my campus would associate themselves with an organization whose publicity materials actively encourage an image of tragedy, invalidity, and subhumanity.

As an autistic person I feel these messages, which you are indirectly endorsing, directly undermine my dignity, humanity, and civil rights.

I refer you to a letter decrying Autism Speaks which is undersigned by no less than 67 state, national, international, and local autism and disability organizations and services:
http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=61

Earlier today myself and another autistic individual attempted to voice our concerns regarding Autism Speaks with members of your organization during your bake sale fundraiser. I feel we were met with hostility and that our voice and experiences were dismissed as invalid and that instead we were instructed on what we, as autistic people, ought to "understand."

We are human beings and, as such, we ask that you empower us by selecting organizations which respect our humanity, which encourage our diversity, and which respect our ability to make decisions both in our own lives and in our own quest for civil rights. At the very least we ask that you do not actively undermine our efforts as you do by supporting Autism Speaks.

Sincerely,
[name redacted]

DSM V Proposed Revisions: Initial Reactions

The DSM V Proposed Revisions came out this morning which means that us, the general public, are finally able to get a little bit of transparency to what has been a traditionally very secretive process. I went and had a look this morning and, baring my commentary on the secrecy of the DSM V development process, I thought I would share some of my first impressions with some of the diagnoses that I find particularly close to home:

First, Transvestic Fetishism:

* Still requires the individual to be male. Still a hold-back from the DSM IV reinforcing the double standard of acceptable gender bending behaviour.

* Requires "significant distress or impairment." I suppose this is good in that it does not pathologize normal, healthy, nondistressing play. On the other hand, it reminds me of certain "reparative therapy" doctrines which hold that they do not treat homosexuality, per se, but "unwanted homosexuality." Ergo, the DSM V criteria pathologize the behaviour itself rather than stressing that the disorder lies in the discomfort.

* Here's a gem: specifiers towards whether the behaviour is fetishistic (towards the clothing) or from autogynephilia. TS Roadmap for more information regarding autogynephilia and why it is problematic.

Second, Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder in Women and the same only in men.

* Homosexuality isn't a psychiatric disorder but apparently asexuality is.

Paraphilic Coercive Disorder. If you get off on fantasies of raping people you are psychiatrically disordered but only if:

* You are upset about said sexual urges. or...

* You have raped at least three people. (Rape one or two people, apparently it's okay)

* Also of note: as a DSM V diagnosis, what implications would this have in regards to the ADA. Would sexually motivated rapists be protected by the ADA?

Tourette's Disoder criteria was an improvement:

* Removed the criteria for maximum tic-free period. Tourette's waxes and wanes, this fix is good.

* However, criteria still require onset to be below age 18, which is completely arbitrary and for no real reason other than statistical observation. News flash: there are a lot of Tic Disorder NOS people out there who match a TS diagnosis perfectly except for age of onset.

Gender Incongruance (formerly GID) in Adolescents and Adults:

* Finally, "disorder" is not part of the name.

* Finally, in the eyes of psychiatry, you can be transgender without being gender binary. WIN!

* Finally, you can unquestionably be classified as transgender just by asserting your transgender feelings or stating your wish to transition.

* Not so great: some of the language ("other gender") fails to recognise transgender peoples' actual gender.

* Fail: it's still listed alongside the sexual disorders.

Gender Incongruance in Children:

* Criteria now state that the child absolutely must express a conviction that they are a member of the opposite sex.

* Not so great: Requires transgender children to be gender typical in regards to their target gender.

* Does not recognise nonbinary genders, which is odd given that the adolescent/adult version does.

Asperger's Disorder: It's being eliminated and being merged with vanilla autism.

* Win in terms of recognition that Asperger's is "real autism."

Dissociative Identity Disorder:

* Possible addition of "significant distress or impairment" clause. Cool!

I haven't had a chance to read all of the proposed revisions, just some of the ones I'm particularly interested in. I'll probably write more in depth about some of these changes on a later date or add to this as I read more of the draft DSM V. In the mean time, enjoy!

Edit: My previous claim that the DSM IV diagnosis of mental retardation will still be called "mental retardation" was due to my misreading of the proposed revisions. It was a mistake and has been removed.

Picoult: Irony in Prejudice

I've been following some of the buzz surrounding Jody Picoult's new book House Rules over at Cat in a Dog's World. Interesting, but unfortunately more of the same regarding how disabled people are treated in mainstream, abled, discourse. Her analysis of a discussion question for the book, however, caught my attention.

The question:

Do you know anyone with Asperger's syndrome? Did the descriptions of Jacob fit what you know of that person?

As Cat in a Dog's World already explained, the principle problem with this question is that it assumes that all Asperger's individuals are fundamentally identical, which, from a social scientific point of view, is a symptom of the fallacy of out-group homogeneity.

The idea of the cognitive miser holds that, as individuals, we have limited ability to think about the world around us and that we are simply not able to take into consideration everything around us. As cognitive misers, the theory holds, we conserve cognitive resources by creating mental shortcuts concerning the nature of the world around us, stereotypes, which allow us to predict our environment.

Additionally, those of us who spend the least amount of effort thinking about a certain aspect of our world create the most generalising, or stereotypical, cognitive shortcuts. Therefore, according to the idea of the cognitive miser, prejudice stems from an unwillingness to exert the effort to challenge our preconceptions.[1]

Anyway, I was musing on the idea that a stereotyping question in a book club which is meant to invoke critical thought could, in itself, be based on the unwillingness to think critically.

[1]Think about that in terms of privilege for a moment.