#gimpunk

our gimp leg is really fucked up because we walked for 4 hours yesterday which is technically our fault

but for fucks sake what do you want from me righty! i used the cane! i let you rest! this is your personal problem at this point!

I’ve been getting a lot of questions like this so I want to make a post that will hopefully address everyone’s questions.

Firstly, let’s talk about how we define disability. I, as well as most people who identify as disabled, subscribe to the social model of disability. The term disabled is used to describe not our physical or mental state but our social state. Because society discriminates against us, we are segregated, systematically murdered and sterilized by governments, legally paid slave wages, and many other atrocities we say that society has stripped us of our ability to have the same functions and rights as able-bodied and neuro-typical people and thus we are disabled.

In this particular philosophy/definition disability can be subjective and to label yourself disabled is a personal choice. Disability is not even something that can be consistent throughout your life, or consistent throughout history.

Gender and sexual minorities were considered to be disabled, as were people who wore glasses but because of medical research and social development they are now not. Also, there are people who are disabled off and on in their life, like my father who had paranoid schizophrenia but when he was in the correct treatment he operated as neurologically typical and passed in society as “normal” and thus he was not disabled at these times but when he was not in the correct treatment he was disabled and faced discrimination.

Both the blind and deaf community have members who are divided over whether they are disabled or not despite the fact that society clearly sees them as disabled. This is an example of why self identification is important and should be respected.

That being said, there are people who identify as disabled who are absolutely not. Most commonly I’ll see people who break a bone try to identify themselves as disabled, but they are not.

To make this less confusing if you’re still undecided, let’s do a simple test:

Are you physically disabled? Do you…

1. Have a permanent physical abnormality, illness, or genetic mutation that puts you below the societal standard of acceptable ability? It does not have to be visible a.k.a. passing privilege does not apply here

2. Have what would be considered a “disfigurement” which results in cultural/social discrimination?

Either one of these things qualify you as appropriately labeling yourself disabled

Are you neurologically divergent? Do you…

1. Have a mental/neurochemical abnormality that makes it hard for you to act in socially accepted ways?

2. Have a mental/neurochemical abnormality that makes your comprehension and/or perceptions different than what is socially acceptable?

Again, either one of these things qualify you but neurological divergence is a bit more complicated socially. You may have anxiety but only to the level where you need to take a Xanax to board a plane which is socially acceptable or you may have anxiety to the extent where you take daily medication or even have to have a nonconventional lifestyle to fit your needs which can not be socially acceptable.

Also, as I mentioned before, being neurologically divergent can mean you are only sometimes disabled but even so you have the right to identify yourself as a disabled person.

It depends on the person, and, as you said, when the person was disabled but it's common for disabled people to have dreams where they are able-bodied or at least not as disabled as they are in real life.

I could stand when I was a baby (if you propped me up again something so it wasn't actually standing) and I must have some memory of that because in some dreams I can stand if I'm hunched over and holding something.

It seems that a small percentage of social justice minded bloggers have finally decided to start addressing issues of disability and ableism, unfortunately very few of them actually know the issues and many of them have been talking over disabled bloggers.

There is one issue in particular that many people seem to be having a problem with this week and that is the term disabled itself.

It is highly offensive to not refer to a disabled person/character as disabled. Saying that they are actually enabled, (dis)abled, handicapable or anything but disabled itself is unacceptable. I know that it seems to be complementary but it is damaging an incredibly ignorant.

The term disabled is used to describe not our physical or mental state but our social state. Because society discriminates against us, we are segregated, systematically murdered and sterilize by governments, legally paid slave wages, and many other atrocities we say that society has stripped us of our ability to have the same functions and rights as able-bodied and neuro-typical people and thus we are disabled.

Calling someone disabled is not being derogatory toward their physical or mental state, it is recognizing the discrimination we face. When you refuse to call us disabled or use "cute" terms it is the same thing as denying that our oppression exists.

It is also because of this that we do not appreciate "person first" terminology to describe us. Calling me, for instance, a "person with disabilities" puts the responsibility of my oppression on me whereas calling me a "disabled person" acknowledges that my disability is something that is being done to me.

I only feel comfortable talking about my experience which happened in California in the 1990s so if you're interested in anything beyond that you can easily research other state policies (even current ones) and personal experiences.

I have a genetic disease so I was born disabled and was always considered a ward of the state. Although I did go to a mainstream school (which is what they called the regular public school at the time) I was a child of the County and my family and I had to abide by the County's rules for disabled children or certain privileges would be revoked, like my ability to attend mainstream school.

Forced sterilization was officially illegal at that time and place but as I neared puberty state officials urged my parents that I be sterilized, not just from a eugenics point of view but for convenience; menstruation was messy and needless. My parents left the decision up to me and I refused simply because it was the first time I ever have the opportunity to tell those people no and I was going to make the best of it. Legally they couldn't force me and when they realized they couldn't convince my parents to take the decision away from me they would pull me out of class and tried various forms of confrontation and isolation… But I love saying no.

You have to put this in the right context: my family was right above the poverty line but we are white and at the time we were considered a "modern family" as my father was a stay-at-home parent and my mother worked. Each of my parents came from families that alienated and silenced them and so raising an ideological child was their main priority.

I debated on whether or not to dignify this with a response but because I know your views are common I’ll speak not just to you but to all watching who has been thinking the same thing.

First things first, what is the extent of my disability and what does that mean when it comes to work and SS. I have a terminal, degenerative mutation which means my body gets weaker and sicker until it can’t maintain life anymore. At this point I have very little body movement, I can’t type (I’m using voice recognition software,) I can’t bath or feed myself. I can’t even drive my wheelchair some days and I only have so much energy some days to swallow or even speak.

That wasn’t always true. When I got out of high school I was well enough to work a desk job or something but there is no compromise with SS. There was no option to get a little less assistance while I worked and then more as I slowly died. They told me not to even try it because my SS would get pulled and getting it back would be a miracle so when I reached this point there would be nothing for me.

Worse, I obviously need a caretaker and that is my mom; the government gives me $600 a month to give her as payment but unlike an actual job she can’t work any other job or that $600 gets pulled. Not even a job in the house. That $600 is supposed to be for her food, housing, and all her bills. Impossible. That’s why we both live off the money I get. Why doesn’t she get a real job? Because I need a 24 hour caretaker. Why not hire a caretaker? Because they don’t work for $600. That would be inhumane.

Speaking of…

You seem to think that I’m being facetious when I say the government doesn’t see me as a human; I am not.

When I was a baby I had to be reported to the government because I wasn’t a child, I was a ward of the state. My parents kept me and had no government assistance but because I was born disabled I was the state’s. I got my own file and where it asked for my identification they stamped RETARD.

I wasn’t allowed to enroll in public school, I was allowed to go to public school classes as a gift to me as long as I did what was required of me, that being social and medical experiments. I almost lost when I refused to be sterilized as I approach puberty. I got lucky because they got a defiant reaction from my family and things were changing in the 90s, they didn’t want it to go to the news. They didn’t want you people to know the government still systematically sterilizes “people.” My classmate’s families did not refuse the treatment.

This still goes on.

I think I gave you a good look at how I’m still not being treated like other adult citizen but let me put a fine point on it…

If I am raped it is considered a “crime against humanity” which is what having sex with an animal is seen as. The convictions are usually heavier on bestiality and if my rapist is a medical professional or care taker it doesn’t get reported.

If I am murdered by a stranger it isn’t a hate crime and, again, the conviction likens me unto an animal.

If I am murdered by a caretaker there is no crime. The court sees this as putting me out of my misery and empathizes with my murderer for having to deal with me on behalf of the state.

Archie goes to Veronica's house to find her with her cousin Harper, a fashion designer. Archie has heard of her but didn't know she was disabled

What Veronica says about forgetting Harper's disability is offensive and something we disabled people are told a lot.

Veronica thought she was being progressive by not mentioning that Harper is disabled, she thinks of Harper as a person instead of a disabled person… This insinuates that disabled people are less valuable and less human than able-bodied people. This is also a way for privileged people to ignore their privilege and bigotry in the world; just like people who "don't see race" also tend to be the ones who don't see racism. If Veronica doesn't see Harper's disability she really isn't saying Harper at all.

If this is still a difficult concept, consider this: this is equivalent to telling someone "I don't think of you as a person of color, I see you as a regular person, a white person" or "I don't see you as a woman, I see you as a regular person, a man" because both of these apply to Harper try changing the dialogue and see if you react differently to it.

There is also a big problem here with Veronica not telling Archie that Harper is in a wheelchair. Many people are not only uncomfortable around disabled people they are disgusted by us and some of them have religious convictions against us, to unknowingly put us together in a situation is abusive and dangerous. You probably know a lot of people who hold bigotry toward disabled people but you don't know it; we must assume that Veronica assumes Archie is not the type of person so it's understandable that she wouldn't think to warn Harper. Harper assumedly also expects to run into strangers while outside her home, as we all do, so she's prepared as possible for bigotry so it's not necessary that Veronica need to tell her any more then usual usual who they're expected to meet. So, what's the solution? Veronica should simply tell Archie that Harper is in a wheelchair. It is likely that he wouldn't say anything disrespectful because it's not socially acceptable to openly be a bigot but it gives Archie time to prepare himself so he can try to treat Harper as normal as possible or he can make an excuse to cancel in order not to see her at all. When Veronica tells him about Harper's disability his likely response (despite what he inwardly feels) would be to say something like "that doesn't matter to me!" which would make Veronica feel like she had done something wrong or even offended him but the easy solution to this would be to respond "I wanted you to know ahead of time in case there was anywhere you wanted to go that might not be accessible for her" This will quickly bring down tension.

All this being said (and I'm sure it's obvious I've said it to help those of you who might be in similar situations) I think the scene was done very well. This is a children's comics after all so for Harper to affirm that her disability is a part of her identity and leave it at that was the best choice.

Pause.

This is actually extremely rude. Disabled people have to constantly talk about their disabilities because strangers will inundate them with questions. Archie and Harper just met, of course Archie is curious but now is not the time, asking about her medical history alienates her from the group. It's fine for Harper to offer up information but otherwise Archie needs to wait until they've at least become acquaintances.

Think of it this way: Someone's sexuality might be obvious or ambiguous and although it's nothing to be ashamed of and very much defines the person it's rude (and frightening) for a stranger to approach you to ask "are you gay?" Of course it's not that the person's business but also the person being questioned is put in a vulnerable situation because sometimes, depending on their answer, the person questioning them might assault them. Able-bodied people tend to think this doesn't happen to disabled people, but it's quite common. Statistically, very common. And when we're dealing with intersectionality (being a member of more than one marginalized group at a time, as we have here with Harper) it becomes almost inevitable.

The rest of the comic? I encourage you to read it! There was nothing else I felt I needed to speak on, or elaborate on, and I sincerely enjoyed it. It's a very sweet love story between Harper and Reggie and they did a fabulous job of always keeping disability relevant while not making it the sole issue.