So I might have just improvised a song and put it on tiktok. I dunno. Late night silly stuff.

I HAVE A SOLO AT MY LAST FIRST CHOIR CONCERT!! (aka the first concert of my senior year of highschool!!) WISH ME LUCK!!!

Billie Eilish

Gender: Female

Sexuality: Bisexual

DOB: 18 December 2001 

Ethnicity: White - American

Occupation: Singer, songwriter, musician, actress

Note: Has Tourette's

punk banana boy has something important to say

Whenever a disabled person's post on vegan ableism gets any popularity you find the same responses from angry vegans.

"Um, actually, veganism is about harm reduction. So you can be vegan and eat meat if you need to. Please educate yourself because you are being veganphobic right now."

"I smelled someone with your stated disability once so I know you are lying about having it to further your anti-vegan agenda!"

"No person needs to eat meat or use animal-based products. Stop lying!"

"Nature is important so if you must eat meat or use animal-based products to live, you should just die."

"Veganism does not have an ableism problem. You only think that because you listen to That Vegaon Teacher, Vegan Art Book, and other cringy vegans while ignoring upstanding vegan activists. Like Peter Singer."

It has been brought to my attention that my Wish rewrite is being seen by people

And I want to add something I didn’t in my original post

Of course it would be in 2D— a celebration of Disney’s 100th? No other option

LOOK AT THIS PICTURE

(Click for better quality bc I see other people say that)

LIKE IMAGINE ASHA IN THIS STYLE

A COMBO OF CLASSIC 2D AND THEIR 3D ANIMATION

BUT LIKE

WHY DID DISNEY TURN 2D DOWN

'This user is a disabled [character] truther' userboxes (Project Sekai KAITO version)

Row one: Regular, Leo/Need

Row two: More More Jump!, Vivid Bad Squad

Row three: Wonderland x Showtime, 25-Ji Nightcord De

The divider is of the disabled flag turned into a transparent.

Hey there, Dolls! A minute of your time please. If ya haven’t heard, I’ve now got a subscription service through Bandcamp!

It’s got a few tiers, each with its own fun perks, but for just 5$ a month, you get my whole back catalog as well as early access to new music like my most recent album, “Hanging…” which is ONLY available through the subscription and will remain so for a while. At high levels, you get access to input on what I’m working on, credit as a Producer (I’ll even swear on a Bible that you’re an honest to goodness music producer if you want to put it on a resumé), and if you’re CRAZY and give 30$ a month I might send you something weird!

I know we’re all struggling out here, so truly no pressure if you can’t afford it. My music will continue to be available on streaming platforms and Bandcamp, and the albums that are released early through this subscription will eventually make their way to the public.

But! My goal right now is just to make 200$ a month through this. That’s only 40 people who would need to sign up at the lowest tier. I’m old and sick, with myriad issues that make touring (an already failing model for independent artists) basically impossible, so I’m hoping this can serve as a way to get a bit of financial relief and allow me to keep making my sad songs for you all.

That’s it! Thanks so much for your time, please spread the word, share this post, and, if you can, consider donating. I love you all, stay tuned Dolls!

Oh! P.S. I’ll also take this time to announce that the next album being released on this service will be called “Like You Own The Place”! It’s an album entirely of waltzes of various genres. Some purely instrumental, some with lyrics, and I’m very excited for you all to hear it. Long time fans know I love slipping in a waltz or two, but this time I went fully overboard and made like 17 of them because it was cold and I needed a distraction.

if we are truly to end ableism the arguments of "art by disabled people is unique because of our disabilities" and "disabled people are never obligated to perform our disabilities to inspire an audience" not only can coexist, they must coexist.

ableds do not add anything.

Jérôme Lejeune (left) and Peter Singer (right)

Similarly, the preference utilitarian reason for respecting the life of a person cannot apply to a newborn baby. Newborn babies cannot see themselves as beings who might or might not have a future, and so cannot have a desire to continue living. For the same reason, if a right to life must be based on the capacity to want to go on living, or on the ability to see oneself as a continuing mental subject, a newborn baby cannot have a right to life. Finally, a newborn baby is not an autonomous being, capable of making choices, and so to kill a newborn baby cannot violate the respect for autonomy.

Peter Singer

We need to be clear: the quality of a civilization can be measured by the respect it has for its weakest members. There is no other criterion.

Jérôme Lejeune

First, while there has been a growing awareness of human dignity, many misunderstandings of the concept still distort its meaning. Some people propose that it is better to use the expression "personal dignity" (and the rights "of the person") instead of "human dignity" (and the rights "of man") since they understand a "person" to be only "one who is capable of reasoning." They then argue that dignity and rights are deduced from the individual's capacity for knowledge and freedom, which not all humans possess. Thus, according to them, the unborn child would not have personal dignity, nor would the older person who is dependent upon others, nor would an individual with mental disabilities. On the contrary, the Church insists that the dignity of every human person, because it is intrinsic, remains "in all circumstances." The recognition of this dignity cannot be contingent upon a judgment about a person's ability to understand and act freely; otherwise, it would not be inherent in the person, independent of the individual's situation, and thus deserving unconditional respect. Only by recognizing an intrinsic and inalienable dignity in every human being can we guarantee a secure and inviolable foundation for that quality. Without any ontological grounding, the recognition of human dignity would vacillate at the mercy of varying and arbitrary judgments. The only prerequisite for speaking about the dignity inherent in a person is their membership in the human species, whereby "the rights of the person are the rights of man."

Dignitas Infinita, or "On Human Dignity" (§24)

Setting the Record Straight on Neurodiversity

Edit 1/11/24-This version is now outdated. See the 2nd edition here.

Edit 7/13/23-Martijn Dekker has now supplied direct evidence of people using "neurological diversity", which neurodiversity is shortened to, as early as 1996. So now we know for sure Singer did not coin the term, nor did the idea ever belong to a single person.

There has been much upheaval lately over the actions of Judy Singer, who has long been credited as the person to coin the term neurodiversity. Much of the ensuing discourse comes from a place of shock. Many are surprised to see the sudden heel turn she’s made to the reactionary side of autism politics. As someone who practically knows the Neurodiversity Movement’s history inside and out, I am not surprised by this. It kind of feels like it was a matter of time before people started to learn about Judy’s true nature, quite frankly. There’s a lot I want to discuss that is independent of recent happenings. I feel that I really don’t need to say much about that, as it’s already been said by many others. The story behind her apology on Twitter, which then led to a post on her LinkedIn that was a rescinding of said apology, is quite peculiar, and the true story behind that is unclear. So anyway, let’s really look at the origins of the term neurodiversity, how it’s actually been defined over the years, and who the actual originators of it are.

First off, even when looking at Judy’s work in the late 90s, it’s clear that she really was never the sole proprietor of neurodiversity, or even close to it. Harvey Blume, a journalist for The Atlantic, also helped popularize the term the same year Judy published her thesis. A journalist is more likely to play a role in popularizing a term than someone writing a paper for a Masters degree. Now there’s evidence to suggest that they both came up with the word together around 1997 when discussing their involvement with autistic-led email listservs, namely ANI-L and InLv. Multiple people who were actually there back in those days have claimed that neurodiversity was actually used informally on email lists like those before Singer or Blume published it in print. If you want to be hyper specific, Blume actually published it in print first. Without having access to the archives of ANI-L or InLv, it's hard to find direct evidence to confirm or deny these claims. Using the email lists that have been made available for Autistic Archive, there is claim on alt.support.autism, a list which dates back to 1998, that Singer did not coin neurodiversity, but it was rather Larry Arnold. However, there is an email from Larry on AutAdvo, a Yahoo Groups list, that says he didn’t but rather Blume did.

A book on WebArchive from 2002 called Contexts: understanding people in their social worlds credits Singer for originating the term. So it’s long been attributed to her as her word, even back when it was a newer term. It feels like a case of chicken-or-the-egg as to whether Singer or Blume came up with it first, though it’s fair to say they both played a role in bringing the word into mainstream. That’s not the same as actually coining it, but there is still some truth to their role in the term’s history. Singer specifically was more so a person who rode the fledgling movement and described it in her writing than someone who actually did the on-the-ground work people like Jim Sinclair, Phil Schwarz, Mel Baggs, and Kassiane Asasumasu among others did to really build momentum for it. If anything, those people are the real originators of neurodiversity-not just as a term or concept, but as an actual movement with core principles. Core principles Singer either perpetually has failed to understand or misappropriate. 

Even when looking back at her thesis from 1998, her misconceptions are clear from the start. She describes neurodiversity as a concept and a movement that only applies to “high functioning autistics' ' or people with Asperger’s syndrome. This isn’t true now, and it wasn’t true then. Severe/profound autism proponents are using this as a way to “prove” the neurodiversity movement doesn’t care about the autistic people they care about. Jim talks about this in xyr 2005 article “History of ANI ''. When Jim, Xenia, and Donna were first creating ANI, they had discussions about who they would open membership to. The article is really long, but this can be found under “Defining membership: Who are ‘we’?”. They decided to open membership not only to autistic people who could reliably speak to be understood and were considered “high functioning”, but also to autistic people who were deemed lower functioning, as well as “cousins” as Xenia described them. This actually was part of the conflict ANI had with More Abled Autistic People, a parent-run group that they collaborated with when planning MAAP’s 1995 conference. MAAP would not allow autistic people they deemed low functioning into the conference. ANI did not like this and tried to push back against that rule. At least one autistic person who used an AAC device to communicate ended up attending regardless. One of the people involved in the early days of ANI was Cal Montgomery, who mainly used AAC to communicate. He still often does and can speak intermittently, but he also has several co-occuring disabilities and requires constant care. A lot of his work was very important in framing the movement in its early days, with essays published in self-advocacy magazines like A Ragged Edge titled “Critic of the Dawn ''. Mel Baggs is one of the key figures of the neurodiversity movement’s history and sie also required round the clock care. Sie seems to be the one to have coined the term aspie supremacy. There is certainly a point to be made about the contributions of autistic people who are non-speaking or unreliably speaking as well as autistic people with intellectual disabilities not being properly recognized. However, saying that is not the same thing as saying the neurodiversity movement or the concept of neurodiversity does not include them. The truth of the matter is that Judy Singer is a single person, as are all of the other people I’ve mentioned here. To treat her, or for her to act as the sole entity who gets to define neurodiversity, is naive at best.

Judy’s problems extend beyond her definition of neurodiversity. She did some stuff in the 2000s that really showed her hand. She lead an online forum for autistic parents called ASpar (Asperger's Syndrome Parenting). She also ended up writing a blog about them and described them from the pov of their offsprings, supporting the dubious Cassandra Syndrome label. It was basically the inverse of the typical stuff you would hear parents of autistic people say about their kids. She also speculated about how certain historical figures might have been autistic-namely Hitler. You can read more on her archived website here

So where do we go from here? Some have suggested that the word neurodiversity is ruined now that Singer has shown her true colors. I personally don’t see it that way. For one, Singer was already like this, it just wasn’t apparent to many people. According to a newly published article on The Guardian, Judy’s thesis wasn’t given much attention until she was found by Steve Silberman, author of NeuroTribes, and then she was featured in the book, which became a New York Times Best-Seller. It seems like Judy’s importance to the Neurodiversity Movement has over time been exaggerated to the point where she has even been dubbed “the mother of neurodiversity” by some. It is common for information to be morphed and the truth exaggerated, especially on the internet. There are many other misconceptions about the neurodiversity movement of all sizes, and Autistic Archive has been an attempt at providing as accurate and nuanced an image as possible. The movement’s history is complicated, and none of its originators are saints or are above criticism. So I don’t see this so much as a case of “let’s call this movement something else” and most certainly not proof that the movement needs to be scrapped and started over from scratch. History is complicated. It is entirely possible to appreciate the contributions those in the past have made to something and honor them when credit is due, while still recognizing their imperfections and the current shortcomings that persist to this day. It is also important to have an accurate account of said history. Two things can indeed be true.

For further reading, check out Martijn Dekker's blog post

Finnegan Lake 🧜

Son of Mermaids/ Sirens

Birthday: September 22*

Star Sign: Virgo ♍

*first appearance in Monster High Series 2022 Trailer

Bobby Singer (Supernatural)

[Image Description: Bobby, a middle-aged white man with brown hair, sits in a wheelchair. He is scruffy in appearance and has a brown beard. He is wearing a t-shirt with card symbols on it, a brown jacket, and blue jeans. On his head is a blue and white baseball cap with no symbol. His wheelchair is black and has dirt on the wheels. In the background are two cars and some trees. He is outside. End ID.]

Bobby is paralyzed and uses a wheelchair.

PineappleCITI (Brittany Dickinson)

Gender: Female

Sexuality: Lesbian

DOB: N/A

Ethnicity: African American

Occupation: Singer, songwriter

Note: Is partially disabled due to a car crash

I'm thinking about this now, how do people feel about Bobby being paralyzed in Supernatural? How do they feel about Crowley letting him walk again?

Vegans can be as ableist as they want with no pushback from their fellows, but the second a disabled person complains about it, we get, “veganism is about harm reduction! It’s okay if some people have more needs than others!”

They only say, “that's not what real veganism is!“ to disabled people tired of ableism and not their own eugenicist allies. 

This is not surprising if you have looked at their thought leaders. Like say, Peter “Eugenics” Singer.