disability rights organizations

Yeah I can’t really see how it’s surprising that the word “pussy” was used a lot in protests against a man who is infamous for saying he “grab[s] women by the pussy.” That’s not about transmisogyny, JFC.

In general, the modern feminist movement really has to find a way to be inclusive to trans women and to be able to talk about how much cultural misogyny is based around wanting to control cis women’s reproductive capabilities. It’s good to acknowledge that not everyone who gets abortions identifies as female, but not if you’re going to obfuscate the fact that much of the cultural opposition to abortion is rooted in seeing it as a “women’s issue.” Not everyone who opposes abortion does it out of misogyny, but enough people do, particularly the people with actual power over legislation, that we can’t leave that out of the conversation.

Like on the one hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were a lot of women at the protests who didn’t realize that having a vagina/ovaries/etc. is not central to being a woman! And that could be out of hatred or simple ignorance. The one I attended had a lot of older white women who probably aren’t up to date on online feminist discourse and didn’t think through that, so I appreciated seeing younger women (cis and trans) carrying signs that advocated for trans women’s rights and inclusion. And hearing Wendy Davis include trans women in her speech at the march.

We need to be more inclusive with our language. But that shouldn’t mean we have to shut down conversations about really common forms of misogyny – especially when we’re protesting someone who engages in them.

ETA: Hey guys, original version of this post had something about how trans men on HRT can’t get pregnant – I’ve been informed by @earthboundricochet that that is not true. I can’t do anything about the reblogs, unfortunately, but I’m fixing it here. Just a head’s up.

anonymous asked:

momma im physically disabled and unless i get a wheelchair i really cant go out. unless my doctor approves it my mom wont let me get one and i have a long history of doctors not believing me. ive been mostly bedridden for all of summer break so far and i havent seen any of my friends since school ended. im getting really depressed. i try to be on social media as much as i can for interaction but its not working and im getting suicidal. if i cant get a wheelchair idk what ill do.

Your mom not letting you get one makes me angrier than is appropriate for this setting. Who hears that their child is having issues moving and refuses to get them the help they need. Make the doctor approve it. Go to different doctors. Talk to disabled rights organizations who can help you get approval. Fight for it. You have to fight, and that sounds exhausting and it is, but you must.

Does anyone know of any organizations that can help anon?

-Lou the Lobster

telegraph.co.uk
Single men will get the right to start a family under new definition of infertility
Single men and women without medical issues will be classed as “

That title is awfully misleading. I’ve seen varying titles for this article, and the major tag line is always:

“Being single is now a disability!”

I think we need to dissect this.

Firstly, it’s not as simple as the clickbaity titles are making it out to be (of course). What the WHO is actually trying to do is help single adults who want children, as well as couples that aren’t cis man/cis woman, gain access to IVF.

This is a good thing, as many gay dads, lesbian moms, and other folks face difficulties when trying to conceive, mostly because of the whole “opposite gender” thing. But as of right now, a couple with the “compatible parts” has to have unprotected sex or a whole year before one of them can be declared infertile.

That’s potentially a lot of sex with someone you’re not sexually attracted to.

So the WHO is trying to help. The problem is, they’re “helping” by trying to classify “the inability to find a sexual partner” as a disability. This is being translated as “being single is now a disability”.

This is 1. really fucking ableist, 2. not exactly correct, 3. extremely problematic for the LGBTA community, and 4. specifically problematic for the aromantic community.

  1. Holy cow is it ableist. Your inability to find a date is not a disability. Actual infertile people are probably very offended but I can’t speak for them.

  2. According to the WHO, it’s not necessarily “being single” that they want to classify as a disability, it’s “the inability to find a suitable sexual partner – or the lack of sexual relationships which could achieve conception". They fail to mention whether or not seeking a relationship is necessary for this definition. I technically lack a sexual relationship where I could achieve conception, but lord knows I don’t fucking want one.

  3. Holy cow is this problematic in regards to the LGBTA community, since it classifies many* of us as “disabled”. Now I can see a situation where a couple could want kids and not want heterosexual sex so they choose IVF or a sperm bank, that makes total sense to me, but to classify them as “disabled”…

  4. Aromantics don’t always seek out romantic relationships in the first place, we’re often single and fine with it and certainly not “disabled”. But again, I could see an aromantic wanting a child and choosing IVF for simplicity: I myself have very seriously considered a sperm bank if I ever want a child, because I just don’t see a romantic relationship ever happening.

The bottom line is the problematic aspect of the language the WHO has chosen to use that ends up classifying single people and certain LGBTA people as “disabled” simply because they can’t have children. It’s gross and disrespectful.

[edit] I thought of a 5th way this makes me nervous:      

  • Guys who can’t find a girl who will fuck them will now claim they are disabled because of it and try to use that as a justification for misogynistic behavior. It’s being classified as a reproductive disability, not a general disability, for all you MRAs and MGTOWs. 


* There are many same-sex LGBTA couples who can conceive. A trans woman and a cis woman lesbian couple could conceive, for example, depending on the situation. Not to mention the plethora of genderqueer folks out there.

change.org
Princeton University Officials, New Jersey State Legislators, New Jersey Governor: Denounce Lethal Anti-Disability Healthcare Policy Advocated by Peter Singer

Princeton University Professor Peter Singer has a long history of advocating for the legitimization of bigotry in public and healthcare policy arenas. Since about 1980, Singer has promoted public policy that would legalize the killing of disabled infants. At that time, his “claims to fame” were basically twofold: 1) his work on “animal liberation,” which, among other things, defined “personhood” in a way that would make it less moral to kill some animals than to kill some disabled humans, especially infants; and 2) his advocacy of public health policy that would offer parents of a disabled newborn the opportunity to have medical professionals kill the infant.

20 years of that advocacy and accompanying notoriety worked out well for Professor Singer. It worked well enough for Princeton University to offer him a tenured position at that university to teach bioethics in 1999. The appointment met with a large protest at Princeton – in which hundreds of disabled activists protested on the campus on his first day of class, culminating in the blockading of the Princeton administrative building and the arrests of activists who refused to move when ordered to do so. Princeton responded in faux shock – as though they hadn’t hired in him due to – in large part – his near-celebrity status. Singer’s policy assaults on disabled people have broadened in scope since 1999.

In 2009, the New York Times Magazine published an article by Singer titled ‘ Why We Must Ration Health Care .’ In the article Singer spoke “hypothetically” of assigning a life with quadriplegia as roughly half that of a life without any disability at all. On this “hypothetical” basis, Singer laid out a case for denying health care to people with significant disabilities on the basis that our lives have less value than the lives of nondisabled people. A response signed by 20 national disability rights organizations was submitted to the magazine, decrying the decision to seek out Singer as an analyst of healthcare and for the specific content of the article.

At the time, this was probably Peter Singer’s most direct assault on the value of the lives of people with physical disabilities past the age of infancy. His policy proposals allowing for the killing of newborns with disabilities and people with significant cognitive disabilities were already well known.

Singer’s latest assault on the lives of people with disabilities occurred while on a radio talk show on April 26 that is broadcast live in New York City and Philadelphia. The show, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” is also broadcast and archived on his website. Singer’s remarks from the show were first reported by WND in a story. Not Dead Yet paid a subscription fee to Klein’s website to access the show and verify the quotes.

Singer was on Klein’s show as part of his media promotion of a new book, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically. Unlike most interviewers, Klein decided to explore some of Singer’s earlier writings and to discuss them. On Friday, April 23, the National Council on Disability issued a press statement on Singer’s comments during the show, which read in part : Singer told Klein that health care rationing is already happening, and surmised that hospitals routinely make decisions not based on need, but rather on cost. He then used the presumed practice to rationalize the killing of disabled infants by arguing in support of “non-voluntary euthanasia” for human beings who Singer contends are not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, including “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.”


When asked whether denying treatment to disabled infants has become more common in the United States under the Affordable Care Act, Singer speculated: “It does happen. Not necessarily because of costs” and continued: “If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother, it won’t be able to interact with any other human being, it will just lie there in the bed and you could feed it but that’s all that will happen, doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive.” “I don’t know whether they are influenced by reducing costs,” Singer said before using what critics claim is inflammatory and speculative language to defend the practice. “Probably they are just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after, and there will be no quality of life for the child… We are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants. And I think we ought to be more open in recognizing that this happens.”

Klein followed up by asking whether the killing of severely disabled infants should be encouraged to reduce health-care costs. “Do you think in the future in order to ensure a more fair rationing of health-care and health-care costs,” asked Klein, “that it should actually be instituted more? The killing of severely disabled babies?” Singer responded, by stating if “you had a health-care system in which governments were trying to say, “Look, there are some things that don’t provide enough benefits given the costs of those treatments. And if we didn’t do them we would be able to do a lot more good for other people who have better prospects,” then yes, I think it would be reasonable for governments to say, “This treatment is not going to be provided on the national health service if it’s a country with a national health service. Or in the United States on Medicare or Medicaid.” Without offering any concrete measure on how quality of life could or should be determined, Singer admitted, “I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”

While Aaron Klein was undoubtedly aiming toward something to specifically condemn the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Singer made it clear that some killing through neglect already occurs in American hospitals (and did so for decades before the ACA came into being). Now he is advocating that both government run healthcare and private insurance can and should deny care to some people based on real or alleged cognitive and/or physical disabilities for economic reasons. For those who may worry that Singer’s words deserve the protection of academic freedom, Princeton’s own policy on Respect for Others strikes a balance which the University has sadly ignored: “As an intellectual community, [Princeton] attaches great value to freedom of expression and vigorous debate, but it also attaches great importance to mutual respect, and it deplores expressions of hatred directed against any individual or group.”

Rather than challenging Singer’s advocacy as a form of hate speech, Princeton University has provided Singer with a prominent platform and increased access to US media and policymakers for 16 years, establishing itself as the home for the worst of overt – and deadly – bigotry against disabled people of all ages.

Enough is enough. It’s long past time for this outrage to end. We, the undersigned, demand the following: That Princeton University officials should immediately call for Professor Singer’s resignation; That Princeton University officials should publicly disavow Singer’s statements that both devalue the lives of people with disabilities and advocate public policies that would end those lives through denial of healthcare; and That the New Jersey Legislature and Governor Chris Christie publicly denounce the lethal and discriminatory public health care policy advocated by Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer.