#deformimisia

Adults should not be allowed to control minor's basic health, like eating meals when hungry, stopping eating when full, drinking when thirsty, using the restroom, etc.

Adults should not be allowed to deny minors healthcare. This includes mental health. This includes letting trans & gender diverse minors have access to their desired puberty.

Adults should not be allowed to force/coerce intersex minors into having unwanted HRT, genital mutilation, reproductive mutilation, breast mutilation, etc.

Adults should not be allowed to force/coerce minors with bodily differences (ie; polydactyl, craniofacial differences, etc) to have unnecessary medical procedures to "fix" it.

Adults should not be allowed to mutilate minors' genitals for the sake of "cultural practices" and puritanism.

Adults should not be allowed to isolate minors from society.

Adults should not be allowed to deny education to minors when a topic makes them "uncomfortable." This includes teaching minors about queerness, sexism, race & racism, disabilities & ableism, paraphilias & paramisia, sex, reproduction, etc, etc.

Minors. Are. Not. Property.

(is submitting media allowed?)

this is just ableism, right? just straight up mocking both a "weird" behavior and a "weird" appearance of someone who's a man and into video games?? "why women don't go to local game stores" because they reduce disabled men to subhuman creatures?????? how does this even qualify as humor

Link.

Yeah, no, there's a lot going on here that reeks of androableism.

The vocal stimming and hand stimming of excitement over meeting a girl who games, implying the stimming is something disturbing?

Using atypical facial characteristics as a point of humor (blatant deformimisia), "weird speaking" (blatant ableism against people with speech disabilities), and "weird breathing" (blatant ableism against people with breathing disabilities)?

Like, sure, it's misogynistic to believe women don't game. But also, a lot of neurodevelopmentally disabled men don't have their misogynistic behavior corrected because people find it "funny" to watch them fumble. So they are often unaware of how problematic they're being in the first place.

The excitement over a woman being a gamer may not be for creepy reasons, it could be because they genuinely had never conceptualized it, or their unintentional misogyny has prevented them from interacting with many gamer women. They could just be excited over a new experience.

A lot of neurodevelopmentally disabled people (regardless of gender) also aren't great at understanding social boundaries, so they may insert themselves out of excitement over seeing someone engaging with their hyperfixation/special interest. That guy suggesting she play "the sisters of battle" because she's a woman who likes warhammer is honestly a realistic example of a neurodevelopmentally disabled person attempting to cater to someone based on what limited knowledge they have - its something many of us do to try and be nice, because we don't know how else to interact in social settings. (Example: If I'm making small talk with someone in a grocery store, and I see they have tomato sauce and cheese in their cart, I might recommend they try out a pizza place nearby that I enjoy based off of mental correlation.)

And pulling out the deodorant at the end? Its almost like a lot of people with neurodevelopmental disabilities have executive dysfunction and struggle with hygiene, or are incapable of personal hygiene due to their support needs.

Not to mention how many men, even able-bodied able-minded men, are not taught proper hygiene in the first place due to it being deemed "feminine."

The other day I learned of the movie "Unstoppable" starring Jharrel Jerome and Jennifer Lopez. (This post is spoiler-free because I haven't seen the movie.)

The movie is about Anthony Robles who is a wrestler with one leg. Jharrel plays Anthony. Jharrel has two legs.

First of all, when Jharrel was asked about this in an interview, he said (quote) "I understand the sensitivity of it. You know, I am able-bodied. I do have both my legs and there are actors I know that have one leg. And so, if it was going to be me, I knew that I didn't want to go halfway with it. I got on the mat for seven months, five days a week, three hours a day. And then right after I got off the mat, I got on crutches and I walked everywhere. I ran everywhere with them. And I became in control of them because I knew that if I didn't look like I was confident on the crutches or if I didn't look like I was confident balancing myself, then I wouldn't be Anthony Robles. And I also wouldn't pay respect to those who do go through what Anthony goes through." (end quote) He doesn't understand the sensitivity of it. He literally can't. He has 2 legs. He can't understand what it's like to have just one. And even if he did (quote unquote) "understand the sensitivity of it", he wouldn't have taken this role.

Second of all, the real Anthony was Jharrel's stunt double. They'll hire Anthony for the stunt double but won't hire an actor with one leg to play him (Jharrel himself said there are actors with one leg). Yeah, that makes sense. (Sarcasm)

Third of all, even some actual family members of Anthony's were in the movie.

They'll really do anything to not hire a physically disabled person, won't they? (Rhetorical question)

[PT: Let's talk about altering deformities on children against their consent.]

Many people ask "at what point should you wait for the child to decide when they're older?" and this is the general consensus that I think should be followed.

Does the deformity impact their physical wellbeing, or is it purely cosmetic?

It affects their physical wellbeing -> Then see next point. It is purely cosmetic -> Then don't do the surgery, it's unnecessary, wait for the child to get older and choose what they want for themself. Stop reinforcing beauty standards.

Can the impact on their physical wellbeing be improved from something other than surgery (ie; mobility aids, assistive tools, etc)?

Yes -> Then don't do the surgery, let the child continue to develop, and decide for themselves what they want when they are older. No -> Then see next point.

Do the risks of the surgery outweigh the risks of the deformities?

The risks of the surgery are less than the risks of the deformity -> Then see next point. The risks of the surgery are more than the risks of the deformity -> then don't do the surgery, let the child decide for themselves what they want when they are older. The risks of the surgery are near-equal to the risks of the deformity -> Then don't do the surgery, let the child decide for themselves what they want when they are older.

Is the impact on their wellbeing actually significant enough to warrant the consideration of surgery?

Have you looked into the experiences of people who were put through this surgery as children? Have you researched how how they felt about it when they grew up?

Are you truly making this choice fully informed, or are you only making a decision based on what a doctor is saying?

I have not looked into the experiences of those who have undergone this surgery -> Then you better start now. I have looked into the experiences of those who have undergone this surgery -> Then you better respect those experiences, and make your decision based on their input on the matter. Remember that the experiences of those who have actually gone through it will reflect your child better than your own personal opinions will.

And, finally.

The most important thing of all.

If, after all is said and done, you decide to go through with the surgery, don't just throw the child into it. Talk to them. Let them know what's happening.

Don't let them go into it uninformed. Explain in a child appropriate way what is going to happen. How long will they be at the hospital for? Where will there be scarring? What part of their body is going to change? How long will it hurt for?

And the fact that's this surgery is sort of kinda pretty common and never being discussed

This is actually a massive form of deformimisia that I was going to eventually make a more in-depth post about, so I will take the opportunity to do so now!

The removal of extra/duplicated body parts on children is a blatant act of mutilation and violation of physical consent and bodily autonomy.

This happens to people with extra/duplicated limbs (toes, fingers, feet, legs, arms, etc), extra/duplicated craniofacial traits (lips, mouth, nose, eyes, ears, etc), extra/duplicated torsal traits (ribs, spine, etc), and even extra/duplicated organs (though sometimes the removal of these traits are life-saving, if the duplication is incomplete in a manner that disrupts organ function - but its not always medically necessary, and thats the point I'm getting at.)

This also happens to people born with body parts that are not usually seen on the human body (ie; humans born with tails).

Oftentimes, this mutilation is done under the guise of "reducing future ableism" (ie; being bullied for looking different), but in reality, by eradicating differences, you're just reinforcing the ableist beauty standards that would cause this bullying in the first place.

Another "reason" that is often given is that it's "removal of unnecessary body parts", especially when the extra parts are non-functional. But why does something need to be functional to deserve to exist? What if the person in question comes to enjoy their extra parts? What if they wish to decorate it with tattoos and body modifications? What if they just appreciate its presence because it's part of their body, and that makes it special?