Someone DM'd me talking about their Autistic and Down Syndrome brother, who was dismissed with "severe retardation" by doctors. They have since learned to understand that his inner life is different than they were taught, thanks to neurodiversity.
But problem:
They offered to write a post for my website about the ways that "Profound" Autism would impact their brother, and the ways that medical erasure of complex inner life has caused irreparable harm to him.
But he's not able to really contribute himself, so I declined.
I declined because I am committed to publishing #ownVoices perspectives.
But the very real truth is that there are people out there whose stories need to be told and who simply cannot tell them themselves.
So by sticking to this principle, am I erasing them?
I'm genuinely perplexed. Maybe I can have a "friends and family" or "allies" section on the site? But I worry that those articles would be in some way privileged, and anyway doing that contradicts my whole theme.
So I feel a bit stuck.
How would you reason about this?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
recommitting to getting better at validating what people are saying even if I don't agree with it.
Validation is not agreement. Someone can say something you disagree with profoundly, the conversation will still go better if you validate them.
To validate is to bear witness and affirm that someone is feeling what they're telling you they're feeling.
They may be factually incorrect, their feeling may be a response to a misunderstanding etc -- but you can still validate the feeling. It makes everything else easier.
If someone says "I feel X" and your response is to launch into why they shouldn't feel X -- which is a thing I'm pretty guilty of, though I've worked hard at doing it less -- then you're invalidating them in addition to disagreeing with them.
This is the agents in the matrix metaphor -- any normal sensible person you meet, until and unless they've been liberated from the reductive dominant culture, is a potentially violent defender of said culture when exposed to challenging ideas.
That "agents" thing resonates hard from an ND perspective, too. I'm sure other oppressed demographics have their own variations, I can imagine racism is similar, sexism, etc.
You can't know someone's commitment to violent defense of dominant taxonomy until it's been tested.
But queerness and e.g. autism are more similar than either is to race, for instance, because these are purely internal truths.
Queerness is about having a different subjective experience than people expect.
That line about “I thought you (I) were a man” —> “most men do” is a major clue that this is neo meeting his own lack of cisness, but also a broader statement about the reductive assumptions “most men” make about their own identities.
I watched part of a video linked somewhere in that thread last night that talked about how important and key to the trans experience it is to realize anyone you talk to could become an agent if you threaten their worldview by existing outside of it.
This. Your ND employees generally cannot be “on” 40 hours a week 8 hours a day. We struggle with that, and often need to break up work into other shapes.
As long as we are being productive, make this explicitly ok for us.
Upon reflecting I think I want to clarify this a little bit, because it's a general claim that breaks down under scrutiny.
Some of your ND employees absolutely can be "on" for the full 40 hours. The younger ones, specifically.
Those not yet disabled by a lifetime of being "on".
Autistic burnout is real, and debilitating, and disabling in its own right. And when e.g. autistic people force themselves to play by NT rules for too long without a break they will experience this, and then no longer be able to go on as they had.
My company has hired a DEI consultant and I've been very upfront about the need for better support for ND people. I was grateful that she acknowledged immediately that Neurodiversity was outside of her experience, and was willing to listen to what I had to say.
I posted about this yesterday, but want to reup here that as a part of our internal neurodiversity ERG and the efforts we're making there I asked the company if they'd be willing to pay for ADHD coaching for ADHD employees. Head of HR and the CEO both said they'd look into it.
"Can we get a coaching budget?" is a reasonable accommodation to ask for if you're autistic or ADHD and feel like coaching would help you to do your job better. @joshsusser asked the other day if any company is doing this and it blew my mind that I didn't know.