Thread by @TraverseFore

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit Actually, people have the right to freedom of thought and belief
So they can choose any religion, philosophy or ideology they like to make sense of their own psyche
This right has historically been deprived from people with disabilities

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit So we negotiated the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, a multilateral UN treaty that has now been ratified by 80% of the UN
A treaty like this is a promise by ratifying states to stop discriminating against people with perceived or actual disability

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit What is disability? Good question. The #UNCRPD preamble specifically states that disability is not defined because it is an evolving construct however CRPD has been negotiated to implement the rights based model of disability

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit The traditional way that nasty, bigoted, society looks at disability is through the medical model of disability, disability they say is individual Inferiority of body or mind that should be eliminated

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit "Mental illness" arose from the idea of mental aberration, originally claimed a brain lesion, but there never was any brain lesion, that was just a ploy to put the physicians, still bleeding ppl & applying leeches, in control of those being locked up madhouses

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit The true social origins of "mental aberration" really seems to be "those who are outcast"
Including, of course, homosexuality that was both criminal and a mental aberration scheduled for "correction" most lately by ECT to genintials & chemicals to repress gay "urges"

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit This only started to end in 1970s and many psychiatrists were very publically &openly against it, insisting homosexuality was a mental aberration
So is being gay Disability?
Very good question, in 1950 probably was, for sure, LGBTQ were part of the psychiatric survivour movement

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit So the medical model of disability, was understandably rejected by the worldwide disability community (while gay people found another road to freedom, and ceded their membership)
The social model of disability is disability as unaccommodated diversity

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit Under the pure version of social model, no characteristics are disabling on themselves, they are merely diverse, disabling aspect only occurs because the community is set up to arbitrarily privilege certain characteristics, and arbitrarily Prejudice and fail to accomodate others

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit If not for arbitrary differential inclusion/exclusion, punishment/reward behaviour, and all characteristics were accomodated and given conditions to thrive would all have different abilities &characteristics but none would be unfairly disadvantaged- there would be no disability

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit Though an improvement on the medical model, completely reversing the onus from some natural "inferiority" in outcast , excluded or unaccommodated persons to placing the blame on the exclusion itself, challenging the false claim of "superiority" of included characteristics

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit Some people, with some Disabilities, said it didn't fairly recognise that there were certain aspects of their disability that it wouldn't be possible for society to take away with accomodation
They wanted recognition there were some difficulties inherent to their characteristics

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit So the rights based model evolved.
The rights based model doesn't put any kind of reified ideological construct on other people
It gives everyone inalienable, nonderogable, individual rights, to define themselves and gain full inclusion and participation, with support if wanted

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit To achieve that of will & preferences free ft undue pressure or influence, including manipulation, deception, domination, deprivation of options
So people need to realise that trying to come up with a unified theory about other people and impose that on them unsolicited

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit Without their consent or against their objection is a breach of the responsibility not to breach others' rights
It's essentially, an attempt to dominate
Under the rights based model, we all get out own will & preferences
So we have a responsibility not to define other people

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit Unfortunately, it seems we are so used to fighting for dominion over one another, we don't yet understand the importance of respecting individual rights instead
But rights and responsibilities like this are fair
It means I don't get to define you nor you me

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit But if you try to define me or I you, than the person whose rights have been disrespected should be able to seek an end to that attempt to dominate
I don't understand why people instead try to firm factions and fight to impose their own will & preferences on others

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit It reminds me of religions that could be living side by side in peace & harmony
Instead trying to dominate one another and force their own ideology to be the one everyone has to follow
The kind of behaviour that leads to war, programs, Inquisitions
Why do people do it?

@justamom1st @1s2atomexit @threadreaderapp unroll