#asan

Pushing nonbinary people into “ women's “ spaces is , at best , assuming that nonbinary people are “ women-light “ and or that most if not all nonbinary people are afab and female-aligned . Is incredibly exorsexist . Pixie is nonbinary . NOT a woman , NOT “ woman-light “ , Not in any way female , and Pixie refuse to tell if Pixie is afab or amab , which upset a lot of women in that group years ago . To be grouped with women like that is violently misgendering to Pixie . Also Pixie dates men , and was absolutely disgusted at their treatment and attitudes towards men , cis or trans . Was not a welcoming group at all and Pixie have no interest in finding out if they better now .

ASAN have “ aspie supremacy “ History ( That nobody seemed interested in acknowledging , much less making up for . ) and too often make claims about autism not being actual disability beyond socially . In Pixies experience , they have not been supportive of people what not can mask and or those what are higher support needs and especially those who are visibly disabled . Maybe they have changed to be more inclusive now but Pixie not interested in testing that either . Is very much like how the Human Rights Campaign was created to promote assimilation of gays and lesbians into “ normal “ society . They were violently queerphobic and transphobic in their efforts to win the support of straight people .

Autism Speaks is no better . At least they acknowledge the existence of higher support needs autism people like Pixie . But of course , they push for cure-based research and abusive “ treatment “ ( ABA ) and tell parents horrific stories about the potential future of their baby , fear-mongering , comparisons to cancer and other deadly illnesses , etc etc etc .

Barbie Fashionista 245 was leaked a couple of months ago; she was wearing over-ear headphones, holding a small item in her hand and carrying a tablet with images. Piecing these things together, it seemed likely that she was intended to portray a Barbie on the autism spectrum: noise-cancelling headphones, a fidget spinner, and the layout of the tablet looking like an AAC to assist with communication.

This sparked a little discussion, including some people who were delighted by the idea of more rep, others unclear on why an invisible condition like Autism "needed" the rep, and others still unsure whether it was right to presume that she was meant to represent a doll with Autism on the basis of this pretty low-res image.

But more recently, pictures have emerged of this Barbie on European toy shelves: the box shows that she is a collaboration with ASAN.

From the looks of it, her elbows and wrists are articulated but the rest of her body is not, which is an interesting design. I'm not a big fan of her dress, because I think it's a little lowkey ugly, but I love the doll in other ways.

The conversation about whether this Barbie represents autism well has continued - to quote another Reddit user, "With that being said a lot of Autistic people in the doll community are very unhappy with the doll, because being Autistic is not how you look, it's who you are. That this could actualy be harmful or unhelpful, because it's stereotyping autistic traits into visuals."

I can only speak for my own opinion, as someone who is diagnosed autistic and has low support needs: I don't use overear headphones because I hate the feeling of things squashing my ears, and I don't need to use a communication device, but I love her and am really glad that she's able to represent someone with those needs for kids. I don't think she represents autism in every child any more than the blind Barbie represents every blind child or the diabetic Barbie represents every child with diabetes; but I think it's a good place to start and a good sign of working towards good representation.

But I also know that's only my opinion. There's also this viewpoint I've seen shared, as a counterpoint to mine.

i found her today and immediately gave her a new body and accessories, shes still autistic, just not wearing her headphones or using her communication device, and now she likes ducks cause i said so. thats her special interest

Yeah, we need to call out ASAN for this, unfortunately.

ASAN currently has campaigns that are trying to promote the idea that we should get rid of things like guardianship and GPS tracking bands, even for people who actually need them.

It's sad to see ASAN fumble this kind of thing, since they were meant to be the opposite of Autism Speaks. But while AS has issues with neurotypical people speaking over autistic people, ASAN has an issue with lower support needs people speaking over higher support needs people.

While guardianship can certainly be a problem, the answer is not to get rid of guardianship entirely. It would be to change the laws to minimize the risk of abuse.

What ASAN aims to do is to end guardianship entirely and replace it with "supported decision-making agreements." Which not only would not solve the issue that ASAN is trying to solve, but actively make things WORSE for people who truly need guardianship.

ASAN claims that people will be able to just simply enter an agreement with their state government on whether or not they need assistance. This is purely wishful thinking. This ignores several issues facing how the government as a whole views and treats disabled people.

Your government could still put you under a Supported Decision-Making Agreement against your will by claiming you're not mentally fit enough disagree on your own terms.

Supported Decision-Making Agreements could be put under the same conditions and restrictions as government services such as disability benefits. You could be scrutinized and denied an agreement because you're deemed to be "not disabled enough."

You can still be persuaded or forced by your abuser to enter a Supported Decision-Making Agreement with them, and your abuser can still make you unable to terminate the agreement.

Someone who is non-verbal or has an intellectual disability that makes them unable to understand the process of initiating a Supported Decision-Making Agreement will be unable to get one, since many government processes require a verbal confirmation from the person for security reasons, and someone cannot set up a Supported Decision-Making Agreement on behalf of the person. This means a non-verbal person or an intellectually disabled person with high support needs will be unable to make important medical arrangements or legal decisions.

The above also is true for someone who is physically unable to sign their agreement contract or physically unable to leave their home or even their bed.

People who have, as ASAN puts it, "mental health disabilities, dementia, and other disabilities that change how they think" (paraphrasing) can refuse a Supported Decision-Making Agreement believing that they don't need one, even though they need to live with someone who can keep them grounded in reality, keep them from canceling perscriptions or doctors appointments they need, keep them from hurting themselves or others. If they end up in a mental health crisis, because they don't have a guardian, they could end up in a psychiatric facility against their will, in prison, or killed if someone calls the police on them.

As it stands ASAN has not addressed these issues with theirSupported Decision-Making Agreement plan and how they intend to make to accessible to non-verbal people and intellectually and physically disabled people with high support needs, or to prevent someone who is not of sound mind from denying the agreement they need.

This video also highlights how important it is for people who need guardianship to have guardianship, and the restrictions that not having a guardianship can cause, and what can happen to people who need a guardianship when they don't have one.

I urge you, especially with Disability Pride Month on the horizon, to email ASAN and call them out for not considering higher support needs people and speaking on their behalf.

The transcript is not yet up at the time I am putting this in the queue, but I expect it will be by this evening.

And speaking of which: