A lot of the time when people say that neurodiversity "excludes" people w/ intellectual disabilities or high support needs or nonspeaking people, what they're really complaining about is that we refuse to exclude those people.
We refuse to say "we're okay but they're not."
We refuse to say "we're okay but they're not."
https://twitter.com/SueReviews/status/1341892637670912000
When we say "these are also fine & acceptable ways to be human" they assume we're discounting that some of us have more challenges or higher support needs than others of us do.
No, we're saying "these are also fine & acceptable ways to be human."
No, we're saying "these are also fine & acceptable ways to be human."
"But some people are *really* disabled!"
Right. We don't think those people don't exist; we believe it's not wrong or shameful to be disabled. We think we all deserve autonomy, respect, and the support & accommodation we need.
Right. We don't think those people don't exist; we believe it's not wrong or shameful to be disabled. We think we all deserve autonomy, respect, and the support & accommodation we need.
We're not "excluding" people when we say no one belongs in an institution, and that many different ways of communicating and living in the world are valuable.
We WOULD be excluding people if we said "well some people are too disabled for rights, to be part of our communities, or for their communication to count."
But what people are mad about when they claim we "exclude" some disabled people is that we WON'T say that.
But what people are mad about when they claim we "exclude" some disabled people is that we WON'T say that.
In some ways we're failing because we don't know enough about how to more fully & truly include everyone.
Not because we won't admit that some people just really need to be institutionalized or cured or prevented.
Not because we won't admit that some people just really need to be institutionalized or cured or prevented.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
