#INCLUSION SOCIAL

[franzmerino-blog]

MUJER INDÍGENA.

MUJER INDÍGENA Mujeres edénicas que con sus manos pomáceas dan de comer al hombre hipnotizado por el confort y el dinero fácil.Mujer indígena, fuente divina, todos mis respetos cósmicos para ti.La Tierra entera es tuya y solo tuya, de nadie más… de ahí naciste… nos permites nacer. Franz Alberto MerinoD`Ávila@franzmerino #franzmerino

[unbfacts]

[taliabhattwrites]

An interesting dichotomy

I found these two replies right next to each other, under a tweet where a non-binary person was discussing their use of "AFAB" in a thread about how much scarier it is to be "homeless and AFAB"--due to the compounded risk of sexual violence, amidst other harms.

It's an interesting look into how despite vocal, performative opposition to "TERFs" and transphobia, when you really boil down people's beliefs--even queer people--most do believe that trans women's presumed anatomy spares us from the worst excesses of misogynistic violence, or exempts us entirely.

Meanwhile, if you bother to look at the leading causes of death among impoverished, precarious, homeless, usually non-white trans women, you might have a somewhat different idea of the supposedly magical ability of the "male apparatus" to spare individuals from sexual violence and brutalization.

Freedom from misogynistic violence is not, I fear, stored in the chromosomes.

[relaxedstyles]

[myfandomrealitea]

Inclusivity is not absolute, by the way. Inclusivity is not ensuring that every single space is open to every single person. It is ensuring that there is enough spaces for everyone and there is a large amount and variety of spaces open to a large variety of people. The point of inclusivity is that there are spaces for everyone, not that every single space is open to every single person.

For example if I run a rape survivor support group that is exclusive toward men, while I am inherently excluding women, I am still being inclusive of the men who need a secluded space to talk freely and safely. I am being inclusive of men who may not feel safe or comfortable discussing their rape in front of women.

Inclusivity is sometimes inherently about being exclusive. The point is that you're not being exclusive from a hateful, bigoted or negative viewpoint.

Equine therapy groups for children inherently exclude adults. But they are intended and tailored toward children. It is a space for children, which is designed and run with their needs and benefit as the focus.

Forums for disables people often are not intended for or exclude their able-bodies carers in order to provide a safe space for them to converse, get advice and offer privacy.

Inclusivity does not mean bulldozing every single space into being accessible to every single person. And a lot of people are starting to forget that.

(And yes, before you jump on it, bigots will weaponize the point, blah blah blah. Not the focus point of this discussion.)

[holyjost]

Luke Prokop scores his first AHL goal with the Milwaukee Admirals (making him the first openly gay AHL goal scorer, for those keeping track)

[alwaysbewoke]

[troythecatfish]

Source: Mattxiv on instagram

[rosiebaybie]

No matter what happens, stand strong.

Even if your gender considered “invalid” by a binary institution, stand strong.

Even if you’re accused of being a “terrorist” because of your race, stand strong.

Even if you’re persecuted because of your identity and/or sexuality, stand strong.

Even if your rights as a woman are stripped away from you, stand strong.

Even if slurs and hate speech fly under the banner of “freedom of speech”, stand strong.

No matter what happens, stand strong.

[aardwolfpunx]

punk as in i support SW

punk as in i support all plurality

punk as in i support “contradictory” or “cringe” queerness

punk as in i support all disabled people

punk as in i support alterhumans/nonhumans

punk as in i support

[spacedadsupport]

Jean-Luc Picard @SpaceDadSupport Be very wary of those who insist on "debate" or "discussion" when it's someone's civil rights on the table. There's no debate to be had; trans women are women, trans men are men, anyone with a uterus gets to decide what grows in it or not, bodily autonomy is essential to freedom. 2:11 PM · Sep 28, 2023

[justinspoliticalcorner]

David Badash at NCRM:

Just days before he will be sworn into office, President-elect Donald Trump is alleging the FBI has been engaging in “corruption,” after learning the Bureau has shut down its “DEI Office,” officially the Office of Diversity and Inclusion. The FBI has a lengthy, ongoing investigation into the January 6, 2021 insurrection and attack on the U.S. Capitol. It also conducted an intensive investigation into Trump’s removal and refusal to return classified documents, including top secret national security materials, and executed a lawful search warrant on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort and residence to retrieve some of those documents. “We demand that the FBI preserve and retain all records, documents, and information on the now closing DEI Office—Never should have been opened and, if it was, should have closed long ago. Why is it that they’re closing one day before the Inauguration of a new Administration? The reason is, CORRUPTION!” Trump alleged, offering no proof or evidence, in a social media post Thursday evening. Trump pointed to a report from Mediaite: “FBI Shuttered DEI Office Ahead of Trump’s Inauguration.” “While on the campaign trail, Trump stated he would end ‘wokeness’ and ‘leftist indoctrination’ by dismantling diversity programs and imposing fines on colleges ‘up to the entire amount of their endowment,” the Mediaite report reads. “More recently, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) sent a letter to outgoing FBI Director Christopher Wray stating the agency’s DEI practices ‘endanger Americans.’ Blackburn made those comments shortly after the New Year’s Day terror attack in New Orleans.” The Bureau’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion “was created in 2012 to provide guidance and implement programs that promote a diverse and inclusive workplace that allows all employees to succeed and advance,” according to an archived version of its website. That page, which stresses, “Different backgrounds. One mission,” appears to no longer be accessible from the FBI’s website, and instead forwards to the main page.

Whiny manbaby Trump having a Caillou about the FBI’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion.

[nothorses]

I saw your tags on the post about trick or treaters not speaking and I am v interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the concept of “developmental delays”! I‘ve seen the idea that disability is a construct, but I’m not as familiar with the idea that development is also a construct. You have really great takes as an educator and someone who like, actually GETS how kids work, so I am interested in your thoughts!

I also know that posting on this subject might be poking the bear, so it is 1000% cool if you would rather not comment 💜 Tysm!

Oh I'm happy to talk about it! I love talking about this stuff, thank you for asking me to 💙

This isn't exactly new ground; there's been plenty of research into and writing on the subject, and deconstructing "development" as a static concept was, ironically, a huge part of my most recent development class.

The idea is that our understanding of "benchmarks" of development, which informs the larger concept of development as a whole, is heavily rooted in the assumption that Western culture is The Standard. We prioritize walking, talking, reading, and writing, which means we cultivate these skills in our children from a young age, which means they develop those skills more quickly than they do others.

To use one of my favorite examples from Rogoff, 2003, Orienting Concepts and Ways of Understanding the Cultural Nature of Human Development:

Although U.S. middle-class adults often do not trust children below about age 5 with knives, among the Efe of the Democratic Republic of Congo, infants routinely use machetes safely (Wilkie, personal communication, 1989). Likewise, Fore (New Guinea) infants handle knives and fire safely by the time they are able to walk (Sorenson, 1979). Aka parents of Central Africa teach 8- to 10-month-old infants how to throw small spears and use small pointed digging sticks and miniature axes with sharp metal blades: "Training for autonomy begins in infancy. Infants are allowed to crawl or walk to whatever they want in camp and allowed to use knives, machetes, digging sticks, and clay pots around camp. Only if an infant begins to crawl into a fire or hits another child do parents or others interfere with the infant’s activity. It was not unusual, for instance, to see an eight month old with a six-inch knife chopping the branch frame of its family’s house. By three or four years of age children can cook themselves a meal on the fire, and by ten years of age Aka children know enough subsistence skills to live in the forest alone if need be. (Hewlett, 1991, p. 34)" (pg. 5)

In the US we would view "letting an 8-month-old handle a knife" as a sign of severe neglect, but the emphasis here is placed on the fact that these children are taught to do these things safely. They don't learn out of necessity, or stumble into knives when nobody is watching; they learn with care, support, and safety in mind, just like children here learn. It makes me wonder if Aka parents would view our children's lack of basic survival skills with the same concern and disdain as USAmerican parents would view their children's inability to read.

Do we disallow our children from handling knives because it is objectively, fundamentally unsafe for a child of that age to do so- because even teaching them is developmentally impossible- or is that just a cultural assumption?

What other cultural assumptions do we have about child development?

Which ties in neatly with various social-based models of disability, particularly learning and, of course, developmental disabilities. If your culture doesn't value the things you are good at, and you happen to struggle with the things it does value, what kinds of assumptions is it likely to make about you? How will it pathologize you? What happens to that culture if it understands those values to be arbitrary, in order to accommodate your unique existence?

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[seaweedstarshine]

Late to the game as I’ve kinda been kinda non-here for a minute but I scrolled through the Dot and Bubble tag, and thought I wanted to write this post into existence.

There's this part in Doctor Who Unleashed where RTD says this:

“What we can’t tell is how many people will have worked that out before the ending. Because they’ve seen white person after white person after white person, and television these days is very diverse. I wonder, will you be ten minutes into it, will you be fifteen, will you be twenty, before you start to think, everyone in this community is white. And if you don’t think that — why didn’t you? So, that’s gonna be interesting. I hope it’s one of those pieces of television you see, and always remember.”

And I'm like. Yeah. But the reason this works even as well as it does is largely thanks to the work of the previous showrunner with the previous creative team, which was notably the first era to have any writers of color (amongst other firsts in terms of inclusivity in directors, composer, actors). While Chibnall fumbled whenever he tried to write about race himself, he did have the self-awareness to have Black and South Asian writers writing the episodes where race is the focus (and a female writer for the episode where sexism is a focus; my point is, he seemed to know his shortcomings).

I wonder what the current creative team looks like? (not really, but I wasn't 100% sure for all of them)

To quote RTD:

“...before you start to think, everyone in this community is white.”

This is pretty non-self-aware, right? It's pretty “It is said, and I understand this, there was a history of racism with the original Toymaker, the Celestial Toymaker, who had ‘celestial,’ and I did not know this, but ‘celestial’ can mean of Chinese origin, but in a derogatory way,” right? (from The Giggle Unleashed) It's pretty “and I had problems with that, and a lot of us on the production team had problems with that: associating disability with evil,” right? (from Destination Skaro Unleashed)

—none of which are issues that should be overlooked, but think how much exponentially better they might’ve been addressed if he’d consulted with Chinese writers and wheelchair-using writers before going straight to giving the Toymaker weird fake accents and making Davros walk?

How many Black or non-white people do we think saw the Dot and Bubble script before it landed in Ncuti’s hands?

And this just keeps happening.

And like, from some of the shocked responses I've seen from white viewers to the ending of Dot and Bubble, maybe the episode's unsubtlety was needed? From the way RTD talks about it in Unleashed, the episode was written with a white audience in mind, Baby's First Microaggressions (where of course the microaggressions come from people who are pretty self-admittedly white supremacists). Ricky September, a more seemingly normal depiction of someone in the racist bubble of Finetime, seemed like an interesting element, up until the way he died.

The ending worked for me, because I do think the Doctor's reaction is true to how the Doctor would react. I just keep thinking of how much better the core themes could've been handled by someone with actual lived experience on the subject matter.

[critical-skeptic]

"Why Is It Always Children And Not Elderly Or Homeless?"

Why is it that every time we see someone doing meaningful community outreach, like trans people reading books to kids, the knee-jerk reaction of some folks is to clutch their pearls and conjure up the most grotesque, baseless insinuations about "sexual deviancy"? You want to know why people aren’t lining up to read books to nursing home residents or the homeless? Simple: nursing home residents and homeless adults don’t need to be introduced to basic human decency and inclusivity lessons—they’ve already lived their lives with all the prejudices, biases, and social mores they’re going to carry to the grave. Children, on the other hand, are still forming their worldview, and maybe, just maybe, they could benefit from seeing that gender-diverse people exist in the world and can be mentors, caregivers, and guides just as easily as anyone else. This isn’t about some dark, deviant agenda; it’s about building a kinder, more understanding generation that, ideally, won’t grow up to perpetuate the same hateful rhetoric you’re so fond of spouting.

Then there's the redirection tactic of "But why don’t they go help the homeless instead?"—as if the people griping about drag queen story hours are suddenly overcome with a burning passion for solving systemic poverty. Please. Most of the time, these very same people wouldn't lift a finger to help marginalized adults unless they thought it could score them points in some twisted moral competition. This brand of armchair outrage doesn’t come from genuine concern for the homeless; it comes from a narrow, knee-jerk discomfort with seeing trans and queer folks visible in society. It’s the classic “I’m totally okay with the existence of marginalized people—as long as they stay out of sight and don’t interact with my kids.” The irony is rich: the people complaining the loudest about moral decay and deviancy are the ones obsessed with what others are doing with their bodies, projecting their own insecurities and narrow definitions of "normalcy" onto everyone else, while offering no meaningful solutions to the actual problems they claim to care about.

And let’s address the thinly veiled accusation that reading books to kids in an educational setting is somehow a predatory act. This is nothing more than projection, plain and simple. Those spewing these accusations are often the same ones who have internalized a culture that sexualizes and polices everything they don’t understand, reducing every act of goodwill to some perverse ulterior motive. It’s a classic smear tactic: if you can’t actually criticize what someone is doing on the merits, then conjure up the specter of “protecting the children” to justify your own discomfort and ignorance. Never mind that the vast majority of crimes against children statistically come from close family members or trusted adults in traditional community roles (particularly those traditionally most sanctimonious about gender and sex preferences)—let’s conveniently ignore that and demonize the people promoting inclusivity instead, because that’s easier and fits the narrative you’ve been fed.

The reality is, people in marginalized communities engaging in public service, especially around kids, is about as far from “virtue signaling” as it gets. It’s not performative; it’s an act of resilience and generosity that exposes kids to perspectives beyond the narrow, exclusionary views they might otherwise inherit. If you’re so concerned about the moral guidance of children, maybe consider what they’re learning from you: fear of the unknown, contempt for differences, and a complete inability to approach the world with empathy. Maybe, instead of wasting your time policing the identities of people volunteering to make a difference, you should be figuring out how to channel your energies into something actually constructive—like addressing the societal issues driving homelessness or pushing for better elder care. That would be “virtue” worth signaling. But, of course, that wouldn’t give you the satisfaction of othering people who are different from you, now, would it?