disability rights organizations

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

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.

11 images show police forcibly removing disabled people during 'die-in' protest over Senate health care bill [TW: Abuse of Disabled Persons]
Disabled protesters organized a "die-in" in response to the Senate health care bill.
By Madeleine Sheehan Perkins

Several dozen disabled people were forcibly removed and arrested by police during a protest over the a Senate health care bill outside of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office on Thursday.

McConnell unveiled the bill the same day. The Republican-led effort was largely seen as negatively impacting some of the most vulnerable Americans.

The protesters shouted chants like “don’t touch Medicaid, save our liberty.” The demonstration was organized by ADAPT, a national disability rights organization, CNNreported.

“The American Health Care Act caps and significantly cuts Medicaid which will greatly reduce access to medical care and home and community based services for elderly and disabled Americans who will either die or be forced into institutions,” ADAPT organizer Bruce Darling, who took part in the protest, said in a statement.

Capitol Police took 43 protesters into custody after some of them removed themselves from their wheelchairs as part of the “die-in” demonstration, according to a statement cited by several news outlets.

Here’s how it unfolded:

As part of the “die-in,” some protesters like this man removed themselves from their wheelchairs.

After being accused of blocking the hallway outside Sen. Mitch McConnell’s office, protesters were removed by police.

Some were escorted out in their wheelchairs.

Others were forcibly carried out.

A visually impaired man using a white cane was led away.

Stephanie Woodward, of Rochester, New York, who has spina bifida and uses a wheelchair, is removed by police.

A protester is escorted out in a wheelchair.

This woman, whose condition was not immediately known, was carried out.

The bottoms of this man’s feet are seen as police carry him away.

A woman is led away by Capitol Police in her wheelchair.

Wearing an ADAPT shirt, this woman raises her arms triumphantly as she’s wheeled away.

Uber Discriminates Against Riders With Disabilities, Suit Says
A coalition of advocacy groups says only a tiny fraction of the 58,000 cars dispatched by the ride-hailing service across New York City are wheelchair accessible.
By Winnie Hu

Uber under fire yet again, this time for an inadequate number of handicapped-accessible vehicles:

All around Valerie Joseph, there is a fleet of Uber cars rolling by on New York City streets.

But though she could really use the ride-hailing app, Ms. Joseph said she does not bother because Uber has so few wheelchair-accessible cars to dispatch. “It’s plain unfair,” said Ms. Joseph, 41, who relies on a wheelchair.

Now, Ms. Joseph is part of a class-action lawsuit accusing Uber of discriminating against New York City riders with disabilities by providing scant access to wheelchair-accessible cars at a time when ride-hailing apps are becoming a common alternative to public transit in the city. The lawsuit was filed on Tuesday in State Supreme Court in Manhattan by Disability Rights Advocates, a nonprofit organization.

While Uber offers wheelchair-accessible cars through its UberWAV service, the lawsuit claims that these special cars, which typically have lifts and ramps for mobility devices, account for a tiny fraction of the 58,000 for-hire cars dispatched by Uber in New York City’s five boroughs. Moreover, this already limited pool of cars can be used for other riders, and vehicles may be unavailable when needed by those with disabilities, the lawsuit said.

The result is that “even when an UberWAV vehicle is technically available, because so few exist, there are typically frequent and lengthy delays,” the lawsuit suit. It added, “As such, people who use wheelchairs and use UberWAV must contend with missed appointments, being late for events and other stress and inconvenience.”

Women with disabilities experience the highest rate of personal violence of any group in our society. There are many factors that contribute to this and one factor is self-esteem.

Imagine for a minute that you are the average woman – you are told daily by beauty magazines that your hair is too frizzy and your love handles are disgusting. Despite this, you have a pretty good self-esteem. Then you enter a relationship with someone who slowly becomes physically or emotionally abusive. Statistically speaking, you with your (initial) good self-esteem will have a difficult time leaving that relationship. On average, it will take a woman seven times to leave before staying away from that abusive relationship for good. During that process, your self-esteem will likely be torn down by your abuser. That will make it even harder to leave.

Now, let’s go a step further.

Imagine you’re a woman with a disability. Let’s go with my disability to make things a bit easier. Imagine you were born with a mobility disability (spina bifida if you desperately need specifics). Imagine you walked with a limp as a child and eventually had a wheelchair become part of your everyday life. Not so bad really. Your family is supportive and you never feel like there’s anything “wrong” with you until strangers approach you at the mall and say things like “Can I pray for you?”

Pray for me? For what? “To heal you.”


Then every stranger feels the need to come up to you to tell you that you’re brave. Brave for what? For living, that’s what. They think it’s a compliment, but what you eventually start to figure out is that these people mean that they’d rather die than live like you. That’s why you’re brave. They’d rather die than have a disability. Having a disability is apparently worse than death. Your life is a worse fate than death.

Or perhaps the lady in the grocery store looks to your mother and says “Such a shame. She’s too pretty to be disabled” and eventually, as you grow older, these grocery store ladies start saying it to you.

So by the time you’re 12 and you’re reading Seventeen magazine where you’re learning that you need to start straightening your hair or no boy will ever find you attractive and you need to stay skinny if you ever want to be loved, you’re also hearing from every well-intentioned stranger that you’re broken and you need to be healed. There is something wrong with you and you need to be fixed. But you know you won’t ever be “fixed.” You’re walking like this (and eventually rolling like this) for life. You were okay with your life until the world started telling you that on top of being a completely imperfect tween like every other girl, you’re also broken - thus making you completely undesirable.

You, my dear crippled girl, will never be pretty. You’ll be cute. You’ll be cute to adults who like to patronize you and squeeze your cheeks and treat you like a child for the rest of your life. Adults that automatically think that because you’re in a wheelchair you’re broken. You will never be cute to the boy in your 8th grade class who has the perfect hair and great smile. He’ll never think you’re pretty because, quite frankly, you’re a broken girl. All those unsolicited prayers from creepy mall strangers never kicked in. Plus, you never got that straightener so your curly hair is really just a big poof of a mess and you see Mrs. Frizzle every time you look in the mirror.

Your entire life you’ve been told you’re not pretty enough because no girl is unless they’re in Teen Vogue. That’s hard enough for every girl. And on top of that, you’re entire life you’ve received “compliments” from strangers that were really just slaps in the face – constant reminders that you are just a crippled girl. You are not ever going to be on the cover of Teen Vogue. You’ll certainly never be in Playboy. Wheelchairs and scars are not sexy.

You’ll be a virgin forever. People who are not sexually desirable don’t have sex. They don’t get married. They don’t have kids. They probably don’t even get kissed. People with disabilities are basically asexual, right?

Right. Or at least that’s how your doctors will treat you. While your pediatrician might eventually talk to your sister and brother about sex, they won’t talk to you about it. After all, your siblings aren’t disabled, so they can be attractive and have sex. You, my dear girl, cannot. You can either be desirable or you can be disabled, and since you’ve already got that wheelchair I guess we know which path you’ll be taking.

You, my dear girl, have only one path. You will be disabled. You will be a burden. A burden on your family. A burden on society. Just a plain old burden. Your dad told you that you could be anything you want – you could change the world. But the rest of the world told you that you’ll be nothing. You will simply be a drain on society. You can’t contribute.

You’ll be such a drain and burden that you’ll stress people out to the point where they’ll get violent toward you, but that’s okay. You’ll see it in the news – some girl with cerebral palsy was such a “burden” on her family that her father put her in his truck and connected a hose from the exhaust pipe to the cab until she died of carbon monoxide poisoning. Her dad will say he “did it out of love” for her. The media will show the murderous father compassion and say that the girl, who was so much like you, was probably better off dead. The adults who talk about this news story around you will say that they can sympathize with Killer Daddy because having a child with a disability must be very stressful. They’ll say they can understand why the father murdered his disabled daughter.

This is what you grow up with. This is what you hear every day. This is why you pray that someday maybe someone will find you attractive. This is why you hope so fucking hard that someone will love you someday. And this is why when someone finally does show interest, you stay. You stay even though they beat the hell out of you. Because they said they love you when the rest of the world told you that you weren’t worthy of love. You stay even though they force you to do things sexually that you don’t want to do. Because, hell, at least they think of you in a sexual way. You stay when they threaten to kill you. Because you know you’re a burden and that being with a disabled woman is probably very stressful.

You stay. You stay and you don’t say a word to anyone else. Who would believe you anyway? If you left, no one else will ever love you. You’re lucky your broken, imperfect self even found one person to love you. So what if he beats you, refuses to let you have your wheelchair, forces himself on you, and tells you you’re worthless? At least he loves you, right?

You stay.

You stay for years.

I know you stay.

I know you stay because I stayed.

I stayed for two years. I stayed while he hit me. I stayed while he spit in my face. I stayed while my friends told me I was so lucky to have him in my life. I stayed while other kids at school said he was stupid for dating me because I was just the girl in the wheelchair. I stayed while he screamed at me and pulled my hair. I stayed while my family told me he was such a nice guy. I stayed.

I think I broke up with him at least twenty times in two years. But I kept going back. Many times when I left, he’d apologize and tell me he loved me, so I went back. Later, when I left I locked him out of my apartment to keep him away, so he slammed the glass door until it shattered, so I went back because I thought it was safer than trying to keep him away.

When I tried to tell my friends about him, nobody believed me.

When I left him for good, my friends told me I was stupid for letting him go.

I stopped telling people eventually. I realized no one would believe me.

But I’m telling you now.

I’m telling you now because when I was twenty I started working at a disability rights organization and I started learning about violence against women with disabilities. I started hearing stories from real women with disabilities about the violence they experienced. I started learning about the rape and abuse that happens to women with disabilities trapped in institutions that never stops. I started learning about the rape and abuse that happens to women with disabilities in the community that goes on for years and is never reported. This is when I became passionate about ending violence against women with disabilities.

I’m telling you now because it wasn’t until I was 24 that it hit me that I was one of these women. I am a woman with a disability. I experienced personal violence. I experienced it just like the statistics say. I am a statistic. I am one of the women that I want so desperately to protect.

I am telling you now because the violence needs to stop.

I am telling you now because the words you say to girls and women with disabilities today will affect how we view ourselves and will affect our futures.

I am telling you now because I want you to stop telling girls and women with disabilities that we’re broken, that we need prayers, that we’re burdens, that it’s okay if someone hurts us because “they’re probably just stressed” from having to “deal” with us, or that we’re pretty “for a girl in a wheelchair.”

I am telling you now because I want you to start telling girls and women with disabilities that we’re beautiful, that we’re wanted, that we’re worthy of love, that you recognize us as sexual beings, that we’re capable, and that no one should ever hurt us no matter what.

I am telling you now.

—  –Stop Telling Me That I’m Pretty for a Girl in a Wheelchair: How Your Words Contribute to Violence Against Women with Disabilities
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.

rampyourvoice  asked:

Hi! I absolutely love your blog! My name is Vilissa. I'm an African American woman with a disability, & I founded a disability rights consultation & advocacy organization called Ramp Your Voice! RYV!'s aim is to propel the voices of people of color, particularly women, with disabilities because we're underrepresented & ignored within the disability community & the mainstream. I'm reaching out to see if you knew of any books & articles about being of color, female, & disabled.

Hi, thanks so much for the blog love!

As far as books go, honestly, I think a lot of Black women’s fiction speak of disabilities that are ignored for us: mental health/neuroatypical status. We view them as “struggles” and “oppressions” which they are, but I feel like we don’t interrogate them and how the ableism involved in the Strong Black Woman stereotype harms us beyond even racism, sexism, misogynoir, anti-Blackness, classism, colourism and White supremacy etc. I alluded to this very thing in a recent essay: On Blackness and Perceptions of Able-Bodied Privilege where I described how ableism against me is ignored because of stereotypes involved in being a Black woman.

Some fiction examples: The Salt Eaters by Toni Cade Bambara. That’s depression and suicide ideation. The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison. That’s depression and anxiety; severely. The Darkest Child by Delores Phillips. Depression, anxiety, hallucinations caused by sexual abuse. Home by Toni Morrison. Depression, anxiety, PTSD. 

Check this out: 100 Books by Black Women Everyone Must Read on For Harriet.

As far as visible/physical disabilities, I can’t think of any books off of the top of my head as far as fiction goes as I read way more non-fiction than fiction. As far as non-fiction/news type content, I follow disabilityhistory on Tumblr which launches into a variety of topics and have read good content on the National Black Disability Coalition website.

Other good articles that I’ve read:

Hopefully this helps and perhaps people who see this and have something to add can reblog to provide you with more. 

Take care. ❤

Image Description (via boycottautismspeaks) : There are shackles in upper left corner and lower right corner. One side is broken open and there is the hashtag #FreeNeli over the broken part. 

The text says:

“Twitter Bomb

Friday: Dec. 19th

Several disability rights organizations are working together to demand justice for Reginald Latson.

In jail four years for waiting for the library to open while being Black and Autistic.

Join the following organizations in Tweeting:

Autism Women’s Network

The Autistic Self Advocacy Network

ACAT: Ala Costa Transition Program

AUTCOM - The Autism National Committee

Advocacy Without Borders

Boycott Autism Speaks




Parenting Autistic Children with Love & Acceptance

Washington Metro Disabled Students Collective

Diary of a Mom

Today marks the 1st anniversary of Queerability! It’s amazing seeing how much it has grown and what an impact it has had! 

Over the year, I’ve heard many of you tell me Queerability has helped you know that you’re not alone, and it has been an honor. It is humbling experience that I had no clue I would ever experience, and it still blows my mind that I, of all people, have accomplished that.

I started Queerability because I saw that there weren’t many places that acknowledged that LGBTQ disabled people existed, and the conversation about the intersecting experiences of disabled and LGBTQ people was usually off in the fringes of the conversations about disability and LGBTQ issues.

I also want to take this opportunity to announce that I plan on turning Queerability into a 501©3 non-profit LGBTQ and disability rights advocacy organization by the end of 2015! It takes quite a lot of time, energy, and money to start a 501©3 so I’m going to need your help! In the coming months, I will start a donation/fundraising page that will help pay for fees associated with starting a non-profit.

Looking forward to furthering acceptance and equality for LGBTQ people with disabilities!

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.