Okay, so one of the reasons you can’t seperate TERF ideology from ableism is because one of the basis’ of their ideology is that bodily autonomy should be restricted from people based on their mental status.

And obviously, we know enough about transness to state it isn’t a mental disorder but I need more people to realize that even if it was a mental disorder, that wouldn’t be a reason to deny trans people community, dignity or resources that have been proven repeatedly and decisively to improve their quality of life. 

Transphobia and ableism, especially when we’re talking about TERF ideology, are so closely bound together you can’t fully separate the two. You want to counter transphobia, you’re going to have to deal with ableism as well and far too many of you are shying away, either because you simply don’t know how to fight ableism or because ableism isn’t actually an issue you care about. Either way, you lose. 

TERFs don’t care about our mental health and never have but we have to fight the ableism in their attacks as well, not just because it’s one of the roots of their ideology but also because ableism is running rampant and needs to be addressed as well. Even ignoring the heavy overlaps between the trans community and disabled community, they’re our comrades and we have to stick up for each other. 

So either stop dodging the issue and speak the hell up or boost the people who are. 

The trans campaigner, who did not wish to be named, told PinkNews that organisers of the ‘Let Women Speak’ event on Sunday (14 May) were “very keen” to have him speak after he posed as an anti-trans detransitioner. Instead, his intention was to get onto Parker’s ‘gender-critical’ livestream to share support for trans rights. He also wanted to send a message to genuine detransitioners to let them know they are “welcome” in the LGBTQ+ community. [...] During his speech, the speaker said he kept things specifically vague so that he could remain on mic for as long as possible to help spread the message of trans solidarity. But, after he said he attempted to “dismantle the mic”, Keen-Minshull, along with several of her supporters, forced him away from the stand. “The group crushed my hands, and arms, and left me with small cuts from the force they went in on me,” the speaker explained. “I have EDS and Nail Pattela Syndrome, hence the crutch, and have my joints pop out a lot when placed under force. My right hand is still in a lot of pain and I haven’t been able to use it that much after the incident. “But I had already gambled and knew that I would most likely get hurt trying to dismantle the mic.” Following the speech, he said he felt it important to note that, despite what anti-LGBTQ+ pundits may suggest, detransitioners are welcome in the community. “With detransitioners often being hit by fear-mongering, lies and hate … I needed to really hammer home that they are, in fact, welcome. “We want to support them, but falling into a cult such as the TERF movement is a sure fire way to really fall into a pit of self-hatred and loathing,” he said.

So much love for this guy. Also I find it so funny how the TERFs are like "we feel so much sympathy for this small narcissistic young woman :(" (actual words used) after they physically attacked a disabled trans man to get him to shut up as fast as possible. Really embodies what they mean when they insist they "care"

The reason I'm so opposed to designing "Monsters based on mental illnesses!" aside from the obvious (really really easy to fall into stigma, stereotypes and risking generalizing an entire group of people) is. Because simply put even among two people with the exact same diagnoses they'll have Wildly different experiences with said mental disorders /neurodivergencies / illnesses. It simply will always be so.

Instead I'd probably just moreso approach it by having each of the persons mental illnesses/diagnoses be represented by their own personal entity. Like a guardian demon or similar. Because even though I know maybe three people with ocd, we all have differing experiences and compulsions in our day to day lives that can't be swathed over by just one representation of and "Ocd monster". And this goes for everything.

So yeah maybe more like. Everyone having their own monster, some of which belong to the same classes (so people with the same diagnosis but still differing experiences)

"Anyway, I think every abuser must surely be a mentally disordered freak like you but also you flap your hands and miss social cues so I see you more like a vulnerable cute little puppy wagging its tail than an actual person but also don't you dare do anything I dislike or shake the assumptions I have of you in any way or else I'll see you as just as bad as all the other disgusting monsters with all the icky Evil Mental Disorders™ and– wait whERE ARE YOU GOING–"

The most infuriating form of sanism is this idea that mentally ill people/people with mental disorders are just too stupid or too unenlightened to know how to be a proper, well-adjusted person

So many therapists have ignored signs of my unwellness simply because they assumed I was just... being stupid, and I just needed educating about why I'm acting disordered (apparently, mental disorders stop disordering you once you are condescendingly told why you're just disordered and dumb, who knew (sarcasm)).

Like, I could tell them that I knew my behaviour wasn't "rational," wasn't "reasonable" to do or believe and I'd still be treated like I was so dumb I needed hand-holding and scolding about why I'm acting disordered.

I truly wish that people would be able to take the idea of guidance and stop twisting it into "I am superior and enlightened and the people I am trying to help are stupid and wrong and beneath me!"

how you shouldnt use the word "psychotic"

•to describe someone evil

•to describe someone dangerous

•to describe someone unpredictable

•to describe someone with different views/ideas/morals than you

•to describe someone manipulative

•to describe someone antisocial

•to describe lgtbq+ people

•to describe activists

•to describe being weird or quirky

how you should use the word "psychotic":

•to describe someone suffering from psychosis, thats literally it.

by changing the meaning of the word you are adding stigma to an already stigmatized word. you are ripping the true definition away from us who are actually psychotic. i hear psychotic misused every day and im tired. us who do suffer with psychosis are in the world, on the internet and we hear how you twist our word to fit any meaning but the real one. i want to live in a world where i can say im psychotic and people will understand what that means. but it cant be done by psychotic people alone. everyone needs to uphold the true meaning of the word to detstigmatize and educate people on psychosis and what psychotic actually means. i know language can evolve, but misusing, and allowing other people to misuse "psychotic" is actively harmful to psychotic people.

Just an observation, but it's sooo sillyz to me those fakeclaimerz ppl use "cringe" as a measure of fakeness when that's literally how neurodivergency manifests itself like... A LOT a lot of the time. It's wild.

Too obsessive about an interest? CRINGE!! Don't have a typical interest? CRINGE!! Can't talk like a normal person? CRINGE!! Don't have self awareness? CRINGE!! Too full of yourself? CRINGE!! Too sincere and open? CRINGE!! All these things (and more) are CRINGE...!!

..but like. Aren't these all apt descriptions of different neurodivergencies? When you break it down, you realise that this measure of 'fakeness' is absolutely contradictory to what neurodivergency is, because neurodivergency is systematically CATEGORISED as cringe. The label of 'cringe' is for behaviour that doesn't fit in, right? But like that's the entire definition of neurodivergency?? You're trying to disprove someone's neurodivergency with a symptom of neurodivergency itself.

There's other things to be said about why fakeclaiming is wrong, but I feel like this is the emotional core of a lot of it. I browse sometimes to see what the sanists are up to, and the amount of reasoning that boils down to, "I know it when I see it"... And the thing they see in question is 'cringe' behaviour..... It speaks for itself.

"not to reality check yall but some of you need it [horrible post]" why on earth do you think you are the authority of whether or not psychotic people get to live in peace. nobody wants to hear your dumbass opinion about a trauma you clearly dont experience. not one single psychotic person has ever been helped by a random loser's "yall need this"-reality checking post but i can definitely name a fuck ton who could be severely hurt or even hospitalized by being exposed to these unecessary garbage posts

if you ever read something that says something along the lines of, "you need to be reality checked, some of yall really need this, its about time someone said this to yall" what the person is actually saying is "i dont think your trauma is real and your life is a joke to me, fuck you, i hope this hurts"

"good intentions" dont count when the result is visible, direct, severe harm. if you actually care about psychotics learn more and do better, because randomly attacking as many psychotic people as you can is barely even performative

yeah i don't know what i think about the cripple reclaimation/abled bodied neurodivergent discourse. like technically, since the mind is part of the body, neurodivergent people are not abled-bodied. however, we still live in a society that has separated the mind from the body, and categorizes disability in to "physical" and "mental"... which affects how people experience ableism and sanism (and thus what slurs we're called).

like, it's entirely possible for someone with a typically "mental" disability (like autism or depression) to experience symptoms that are considered "physically" disabiling... and vice versa. but also, there are people who, by and large... don't. and i don't think any of us know strangers on the internet well enough to discern whether someone has the ~right experiences~ to reclaim a slur pointed at "physical" disability.

at the end of the day, i think i'll just trust people to know themselves best and ykno, if any misunderstandings/misinformation come forth, work on that then. i think i'd rather bond with people who are crippled by things like catatonia or chronic fatigue from mental illness over our shared experiences, rather than invalidate them for not fitting into an ableist and sanist binary. especially since i am also mentally ill/neurodivergent and understand that my mental health impacts my physical health.

so yeah. love to cripples everywhere - especially mad cripples. solidarity is punk.

I feel guilty sometimes when I visit doctors. Largely because of money but also because most doctors don't seem to like me much, or at least treat me badly and some part of my brain still believes that must be my fault.

After all, I've been going to doctors for years. How is it so many of them treat me like shit? How is it I am fighting for bare minimum treatment every time I see them? I guess part of me thinks since I'm the one involved every time, it has to be my fault.

I've been told frequently by others that I'm off-putting, strange, a pain to talk to-Hell, I had a doctor suggest I was "too dumb" to be in his office. It wouldn't greatly surprise me if there was something about me that just put all of these people off.

But I don't really think that's it anymore. I think neglect and abuse from doctors is actually far more common than people think. I think tons of people dislike people who need accommodations because of their disabilities, even (and some times especially) medical professionals. I think people look at "unsolved medical issues" and immediately jump to liar, and then mentally ill and let's just say that train of thought doesn't have good intentions.

I think I'm visibly Black and gender-weird, which also goes over badly. But I also think that no matter any of these things, even if I was faking, that those medical professionals made the choice to treat me like shit. And that's on them. It just takes time to actually accept that.

"plural people" is just...no.

mainly, there are:

"endogenic plurals" who fully embrace the plural framework because that's what best supports their experience (because it was primarily made to support that experience)

people who consider themselves to either a) be "traumagenic" or b) have been diagnosed with or believe themselves to meet the criteria for a complex dissociative disorder (or who otherwise identify themselves along those lines - hi), but who also or primarily identify w/ the plural framework because they see it as supportive of their experiences (or being apart of their experiences)

and then people who have been dx'd with or who believe themselves to meet the criteria for a complex dissociative disorder who do not find the plural framework helpful or applicable to them whatsoever group

like, plural is not necessarily a "neutral" umbrella term like "disabled" might be, especially considering some of the history attached to it and some of the reasons why there's antagonism between some of the above groups. it is a particular experience/way of understanding your own existence, and thusly not all people w/ complex dissociative disorders are plural. but that doesn't mean that complex dissociative disorders somehow aren't at the forefront of sanist/ableist violence against "multiple personalities" whether they identify with plurality or not.

i think language like "plural people" or even "systems" does not do that complexity justice whatsoever in a way i really, really dislike.

"do you take spiders ooutside or kill them" secret third answer i let them live in my house

Do you ever sit and think about how much of the "destigmatization" around mental health is really more like sanitization? Have we broken our biases or separated ourselves from them? Do you ever get tired of the euphemism treadmill, changing our language and commending ourselves for our progressiveness, then watching the new language become an insult again because we never really grappled with where that stigma came from and how even the most well-intentioned of us has perpetuated it? do you ever want to bite someone with your sharpest set of metaphorical teeth

In discussions about mental health, I am so tired of the only voices mattering being other people or other people who do not deal with a condition/disorder or a specific situation.

"Here's how I deal with loved ones with [x] condition!"

"If you do [y] because of [x mental health reason], you're selfish and everybody who loves you is having their lives made harder by you!"

"If your symptoms are [z], you're gross, and you deserve no sympathy for struggling"

I understand to an extent why people do this, but holy hell, as somebody who struggles and struggles often, the last thing any of us need to be told is that we're a burden that others have to carry. And it's terrible how everybody else's feelings but ours matter - even if we are the ones most affected by our condition or situation.

If you are dealing with issues surrounding your mental health and well-being, know that everything above isn't true; you are worthy of patience, understanding, kindness, and love. You are worthy of being listened to without judgment. You don't have to apologize or "make up" for who you are or what you struggle with.

sanism is truly the most heinous, sinister fucking type of oppression I've ever experienced.

i have no idea how much it's held me back in life but i can only imagine. massively.

Thinking about Lucy’s rescue on the 11th and Renfield’s capture today and having emotions about the parallels and contrasts - like! Look at this!

Seward: [at the end of the entry] “I was too excited to sleep, but this diary has quieted me...” / Mina: [at the beginning of the entry] “Diary again. No sleep now, so I may as well write.”

Seward: “...the night-watchman came to me, sent up from the ward, to say that Renfield had escaped. I threw on my clothes and ran down at once...” / Mina: “I... threw on some clothes and got ready to look for her."

Seward: “He was only in his night-gear, and cannot be far off.” / Mina: “‘Thank God,’ I said to myself, ‘she cannot be far, as she is only in her nightdress.’“

Seward: “...I saw a white figure scale the high wall...” / Mina: “...the silver light of the moon struck a half-reclining figure, snowy white.”

Seward: “I could see Renfield’s figure just disappearing behind the angle of the house, so I ran after him.” / Mina: “As I entered, the church was between me and the seat, and for a minute or so I lost sight of her.”

The similarities are almost eerie - the imagery of the white figure against the dark of the night especially stands out to me.

But then look at these (CW for Seward’s ableism):

Seward: “I ran back at once, told the watchman to get three or four men immediately and follow me... in case our friend might be dangerous.” / Mina: “The town seemed as dead, for not a soul did I see; I rejoiced that it was so, for I wanted no witness of poor Lucy’s condition.”

Seward: “He was talking, apparently to some one, but I was afraid to go near enough to hear what he was saying, lest I might frighten him, and he should run off.” / Mina: “There was undoubtedly something, long and black, bending over the half-reclining white figure. I called in fright, ‘Lucy! Lucy!’ and something raised a head...”

Seward: “When we closed in on him he fought like a tiger.” / Mina: “When I had her carefully wrapped up I put my shoes on her feet and then began very gently to wake her.”

Seward: “I never saw a lunatic in such a paroxysm of rage before; and I hope I shall not again.” / Mina: “...when I told her to come at once with me home she rose without a word, with the obedience of a child.”

Seward: “Jack Sheppard himself couldn’t get free from the strait-waistcoat that keeps him restrained, and he’s chained to the wall in the padded room.” / Mina: “When we got in, and had washed our feet, and had said a prayer of thankfulness together, I tucked her into bed.”

Seward: “...he’s chained to the wall in the padded room. His cries are at times awful...” / Mina: “I have locked the door, and the key is tied to my wrist, so perhaps I shall not be again disturbed. Lucy is sleeping soundly...”

I have a lot of thoughts about all this but they’re all jumbled up! These are fundamentally the same situation - Dracula’s psychic influence interacts with someone’s preexisting medical condition and causes them to abscond in the middle of the night - and yet they are so diametrically opposed! Mina (correctly) assumes Lucy is in danger; Seward assumes Renfield is the danger. Lucy is confined for her own protection, Renfield for the supposed protection of others. Seward binds Renfield with chains, Mina binds herself to the key.

One thing that’s really giving me emotions is this idea of who is worth protecting. Seward and co. are indisputably doing Renfield physical, emotional, and reputational harm, but - well, to repurpose Renfield’s own words, they think he doesn’t count. (What price the fall of a sparrow now, Doctor? Or how is it going lately with your spiders?)

And the fact that Renfield’s parallel here is Lucy, whom Seward reveres, whom he references in this same entry as a sort of unattainable dream -

Well. It drives things home a bit.