Boycott of book - mom wants to vasectomize son

Post Reply New Topic

http://strangeringodzone.blogspot.co.nz/2018/02/my-review-of-that-book.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+Astrangeringodzone+(AStrangerInGodzone)

For years, autistic people have been in the position of having to refute the notion that any awareness of autism is better than none. In doing so, we’ve pointed to campaigns and rhetoric that have stereotyped, dehumanized, and even justified violence against us in the name of “awareness.”

Thanks to the tireless advocacy of autistic activists, open and unabashed hate of this kind has dropped off over the past decade and a half. In recent years, the widely criticized charity Autism Speaks cleaned up its rhetoric (at least on its English website) by taking steps such as eliminating explicit references to finding a cure in favor of the vague language of “solutions.” After years of pressure, it also added two autistic members to its board of directors. Meanwhile, books on autism by both autistic and neurotypical writers such as Temple Grandin, John Elder Robison, and Steve Silberman have garnered significant attention, and there has been an increase in media representation—both good and bad—of autistic people.

As a result, the word “neurodiversity” and the idea it represents—that autistic people and other people whose minds function in atypical ways are equal, not less—has gained a tenuous foothold in the public consciousness. Still, many members of the autistic advocacy community remain skeptical and wary, suspecting that the changes are superficial.

We unfortunately have good reason to side-eye what one might call Neurodiversity Lite: when neurotypical people, who either use the language of the movement in good faith or intentionally co-opt it, undermine its work by overlooking or outright contradicting its core concepts, including bodily autonomy and basic dignity. If anything, such inauthentic trappings of neurodiversity can allow charities, service providers, and caregivers to effectively disguise ableist stereotypes and harmful practices for audiences that aren’t aware of or attuned to them.

Having read it in the interest of giving it a meaningfully fair shake, I’ll give it this: It certainly wasn’t Autism Every Day, the 2006 film from Autism Speaks in which the organization’s then-vice president, Alison Tepper Singer, said on camera that the only thing stopping her from driving herself and her autistic daughter off a bridge was the fact that she also had a neurotypical child—while her daughter was standing in the room.

Instead, it seems to be an attempt to infuse the language and aesthetic of the neurodiversity movement into the typical doom-and-gloom “autism parent” narrative. The result was a 236-page contradiction, where Newman’s claims that Gus would never be capable of this, or that he exhibits that deficit because he’s autistic, were presented side-by-side with evidence of the reverse. All the while, Newman seemed apparently unaware of the dissonance.

Alarmingly, at one point she discussed this plan immediately after specifically invoking the long, dark history of eugenics and forced sterilization of disabled people. She then seemed to give both herself and others who would take this drastic step a pass for being well-intentioned (paying no mind, apparently, to warnings about hell’s roadwork).

This controversy illustrates the problems with a Neurodiversity Lite approach. Newman isn’t rehashing the most hateful words and stereotypes, which is a form of harm reduction—Katie McCarron and dozens of other autistic people might still be alive today if their families hadn’t bought into such rhetoric. But this limited progress represents at best the bare minimum. If anything, demonstrating a hollow, substance-free kind of support for neurodiversity while pushing for or engaging in some of the things we most strongly oppose undermines our work toward full inclusion and liberation for all autistic people.

I have a strong sense that neurotypical newcomers to neurodiversity want to adopt the feel-good language of the movement that gives lip service to our inherent worth and then call it a day.

No one parent is singularly responsible for the pervasive and harmful myths and practices around autism; nonetheless, because of their relative credibility, parents owe their children and the autistic community the utmost care when talking about us. In the case of To Siri with Love, Newman used her platform and our language to soften the blow of ableist ideas, some of which endanger the rights and acceptance we’ve fought hardest for. This doesn’t necessarily mean that a significant amount of people will start seeking out sterilization for their autistic loved ones. Instead, it’s more likely that this and similar narratives will subtly affect how everyone from doctors to potential romantic partners view and interact with the autistic people around them. Therefore, the claim that she’s writing first and foremost for a neurotypical audience doesn’t excuse her actions; if anything, it makes it worse.

Neurodiversity isn’t a list of words or slogans for people to use or avoid. It’s a social justice movement, with the ultimate goal of vindicating everyone’s inherent worth—and thus their right to enjoy inclusion, freedom, and the supports that allow for both.

The autistic community can only start to let our guard down and fully trust in the progress we’ve made so far once our would-be supporters have fully internalized this, and once they take their commitment to fighting with us for our self-determination, well-being, and equal worth anything but lightly.

A vasectomy isn't emasculating, it's only tying off the tubes that release the sperm. It doesn't remove the testicles nor does it interfere with sperm production.

I can see her point if he is unable to take care of or support a child. If he were to get someone pregnant then he could be sued for child support and put in jail if he couldn't pay it. If my son were at risk of something like that I would want the same thing too. However I wouldn't write it in a book.

to deprive of strength, vigor, or spirit
to deprive of virility or procreative power.

I would view the book like this. If you don't like the humour of Frankie Boyle (UK comedian) then you will not like this book.

If you are prone to taking things at face value and literally, you will not like this book.

If you can only view everything through the lens of your own paradigm, you will not like this book.

As for me, I can't wait to read it! Doesn't mean i agree with it.

The reviews I have read who hate the whole idea of the book and what is in it say her writing style is engaging and funny.

So as long as the writing style is engaging and funny that makes it all ok...

I myself don't see much humour in making someones reproductive choices for them. Just as I adamantly oppose banning abortion and forcing people to have unwanted babies, I also adamantly oppose forcing someone to get 'fixed'.