Fuck the DSM. Seriously, fuck the DSM.

The DSM is and always has been used primarily as a method of rationalizing mistreatment of the people it labels as "deviant." When you look at the history of psychiatry, it becomes clear that things like drapetomania, protest psychosis, hysteria, and homosexuality as a disorder were not just thrown into there randomly. Rather, it showcases the power of the DSM: labeling and categorizing ways of being as mental illness opens up new paths of incarceration, social control, and curative violence. I need people to understand that the modern DSM still works like this: these classifications of madness/mental distress/neurodivergence into psychiatric labels encourage society to treat madness/mental distress/neurodivergence with the apparatuses used to eradicate "deviance." Diagnosis is not neutral.

As mad/mentally ill/neurodivergent people, we deserve access to more explanatory models of madness/mental illness/ neurodivergence than what the psychiatric language of normalcy and disorder offers us. Whether this looks like rejecting diagnosis, embracing varying cultural understandings of mental experience, or any million different ways of interpreting our bodymind, we deserve the option to move beyond clinical language that tries to convince us not to trust ourselves. We deserve to view ourselves wholly, leaving room for all our experiences of madness/mental illness/neurodivergence--the meaningful, the terrifying, the joyful, the exhausting. We deserve to have our own relationship with our madness, instead of being pushed to view ourselves as an inherent "danger to self or others" simply by existing as crazy.

Here's another truth: I hate the DSM, and I still call myself bipolar, a diagnosis that came to me through psych incarceration. While I wholeheartedly reject the DSM and the system intertwined with it, I simultaneously acknowledge and believe that many of the collections of symptoms that the DSM describes are very, very real ways of living in the world, and that the distress that they can cause are very very real. When I say fuck the DSM, I don't mean "Mental distress, disability, and neurodivergence aren't real." Rather, I mean that the DSM can never hold my experience of what it is like to be bipolar, the meaning I derive from experiencing life with cyclical moods. The DSM can't hold within its pages what it's like to see my mood cycle not as a tragedy or disaster, but instead as an opportunity, a gift, to grow and shift and go back to the same place over and over again, dying in winter and blooming again in spring. The DSM can't hold the fact that even though I experience very, very real distress due to those mood cycles--they're still mine and I claim that as something that matters to me. I call myself bipolar as a shorthand to tell people that I experience many things both extreme high and low, but I do not mean the same thing when I say "bipolar" as a psychiatrist does.

When we build community as mad/mentally ill/neurodivergent people, I want us to have room to share, relate, and care for each other in ways that isn't calling to the authority of a fucked up system with strictly defined categories. I don't want us to take those same ways of thinking and rebrand it into advocacy that claims to fight stigma, but really just ends up reinforcing these same ideas about deviance, cure, control, and danger. I dream of the day when psychiatry doesn't loom as a threat in all of our lives, and I think part of that work requires us as mad/mentally ill/neurodivergent people to really grapple with and untangle the ways we label and make meaning of our minds.

ok to reblog, if you want to learn more about antipsychiatry/mad studies check out this reading list.

today, april 11th, is the anniversary of Mel Baggs' death. Mel Baggs was one of the early founders of the neurodiversity movement and believed that no one was too disabled for human rights, something that modern nd movements fail to understand to this day. sie was so instrumental to my understanding of literally everything. sie died from medical ableism and neglect during the beginning of the pandemic. we would be nowhere fucking near where we are now without hir. i've decided to make a masterlist of some of my favorite posts of hirs, organized into different categories.

(some of these are listed in more than one category because they overlap so much)

here are some of the "essentials" (what you might have already read by hir/should read first):

here are some of hir beautiful writings on perceiving/communicating with hir environment as an autistic person, and on communication in general:

on personhood and who has the authority to take it away:

on institutions and the I/DD service system:

on online social justice communities/their inaccessibility:

misc:

this is hir poems and creative works:

this is hir writing on autistics.org:

may hir memory be a blessing/revolution.

do only people who are Like That go to med school or does med school make them Like That

["The entwined nature of neuronormativity and heteronormativity means that the compulsory performance of neurotypicality is never a gender-neutral performance, but instead is strongly tied to the performance of binary heteronormative gender roles. Normative performance of whichever gender one was assigned at birth is central to what it means to be "normal" in the eyes of the present dominant culture. Thus, when the enforcers of normativity demand that a child "act normal," it's ultimately a demand to either act like a "normal boy" or like a "normal girl," whether or not the demand is explicitly phrased that way.

Since normative performance is always gendered, deviations from neuronormative embodiment are also inevitably deviations from heteronormative embodiment. Whether a given deviation gets interpreted by the enforcers of normativity as a violation of neuronormativity or as a violation of heteronormativity often depends entirely on context and circumstances. In a context in which a child is known to be autistic (or neurodivergent in some other specific and culturally pathologized way), the child's non-normative usage of their hands is likely to be pathologized as a "symptom" of their neurodivergence. But in a different context, those who are policing the child's embodiment are unaware of the child's neurodivergence, the same non-normative hand movements might be flagged as gender violations: children whom adults have labeled as girls might be reprimanded for drumming on the table with their hands or running their fingers vigorously and repeatedly through their hair, on the grounds that such actions are "unladylike"; children whom adults have labeled as boys might be attacked or ridiculed for flapping their hands, on the grounds that such gestures are "gay."

Thus, there are some autistic people who were forced in childhood to suppress their natural hand movements because those hand movements were flagged as "symptoms of autism" and targeted for elimination by autistiphobic adults, and other autistic people who weren't recognized as autistic in childhood but were still forced to suppress their hand movements because those hand movements were violations of heteronormativity that got them targeted for homophobic and transphobic abuse by adults and/or peers. And of course, there are many who were targeted on both neuronormative and heteronormative grounds at different times— e.g., autistics who in their youth were abused by adults for moving their hands autistically, and by homophobic peers who read those same hand movements as queer. The professional ABA perpetrator and the homophobic schoolyard bully are ultimately in the same line of work, enforcing the same compulsory normativity from different angles.

Since distinctively autistic movements of the hands violate the rules of both neuronormative performance and heteronormative performance, to refuse to suppress such movements functions as a simultaneous queering of both neuronormativity and heteronormativity. When an autistic person chooses to allow themselves to follow some or all of the impulses toward non-normative hand movement that spontaneously arise in them, rather than suppressing those impulses in the interest of normative performance, that's a form of neuroqueering."]

nick walker, from neuroqueer heresies: notes on the neurodiversity paradigm, autistic empowerment, and postnormal possibilities, 2021

autisticadvocacy:

“I’ve been doing disability rights and disability justice advocacy now for more than a decade. And I use both of those terms deliberately because a lot of people don’t understand that they’re not the same thing.”

[O]ften, in the wake of gun violence by white people, [ableism is in] the racist effect of white supremacy. No matter whether the murderer writes a terrifying manifesto against women or repeatedly espouses white supremacist causes before targeting Black people at prayer, white supremacy insists on exempting white people from violence by scapegoating the specter of madness itself.

Lydia X. Z. Brown, “too dry to cry,” in All The Weight of Our Dreams: on Living Racialized Autism.

can't help but think that a lot of the issues with how insular online communities conceive of neurodivergence stem from how the discourse necessitates the imagined existence of a mythic group of ‘neurotypicals’ cogently and unambiguously free of the social knottiness that certain neurodivergences can entail (“all ‘neurotypicals’ experience X,” “no ‘neurotypicals’ experience Y,” etc) rather than understanding neurotypicality as an enforced social norm to which we are all expected to comply and fall short of to varying degrees

I have a friend who is a med student of neurobiology and she said that there really is no such thing as a "neurotypical" and the term is extremely unhelpful. There is no "typical," but there is an average, however it's very rare for somebody to embody that average. To put it another way, if one person has 4 apples and another person has 6 apples, the average is 5 apples, however neither of these people has 5 apples. And considering that the brain has millions of factors going on, it's unlikely that any individual would be average along every single one of those axis. What we consider "neurodivergence" is being outside of the commonly accepted range of deviation from the average. What nondisabled people think of as mental disability is when that deviation from the average impacts other people. What disabled people consider disability is when these deviations cause personal distress regardless of proximity to the average and would be distressing even with environmental changes.

She went on to say that even people who fall within that neuro average aren't the ones making the rules for what is typical, and unofficially dubbed them neuropowerful. Once people have power, they can impose their ideas as the standard regardless of whether it's the average or not. They're outliers whose experience (both internally and externally) has been allowed to set the standards by which many (even most) people fall short, even those close to the "average." The same is true for physical characteristics. If more than half the population is "overweight," who determined what the acceptable weight is? Because it definitely isn't *average* to the population. I know a lot of disabled and neurodivergent people flock to each other, but sometimes you realize everyone you know has some kind of major divergence, and nobody is in fact "neurotypical."

This isn't to say that all a "neurodivergent" person needs to be okay is a different environmental/cultural/societal structure. For some, ADHD/Autism are disabling, but for others, it isn't, even if it's the same level of deviation in the same environment. For me, personally, it's a bit of both. I would benefit greatly from shifting cultural expectations as far as being able to meet my obligations, but my ADHD would still hurt me in moments when I want to do something for personal enjoyment and executive dysfunction will not let me get off the couch. I would benefit from a world that is not so depressing all the time, but I would still have days when I struggle to get out of bed because my brain is physically not set up to do serotonin.

tl;dr, human brains are way too complex to fit into categories like "neurotypical," "neurodivergence" is simply a more extreme deviation from the average, and we do not even use the average as the actual standard of what our brains are expected to be.

What nondisabled people think of as mental disability is when that deviation from the average impacts other people. What disabled people consider disability is when these deviations cause personal distress regardless of proximity to the average and would be distressing even with environmental changes.

rosalarian:

:

can't help but think that a lot of the issues with how insular online communities conceive of neurodivergence stem from how the discourse necessitates the imagined existence of a mythic group of ‘neurotypicals’ cogently and unambiguously free of the social knottiness that certain neurodivergences can entail (“all ‘neurotypicals’ experience X,” “no ‘neurotypicals’ experience Y,” etc) rather than understanding neurotypicality as an enforced social norm to which we are all expected to comply and fall short of to varying degrees

I have a friend who is a med student of neurobiology and she said that there really is no such thing as a "neurotypical" and the term is extremely unhelpful. There is no "typical," but there is an average, however it's very rare for somebody to embody that average. To put it another way, if one person has 4 apples and another person has 6 apples, the average is 5 apples, however neither of these people has 5 apples. And considering that the brain has millions of factors going on, it's unlikely that any individual would be average along every single one of those axis. What we consider "neurodivergence" is being outside of the commonly accepted range of deviation from the average. What nondisabled people think of as mental disability is when that deviation from the average impacts other people. What disabled people consider disability is when these deviations cause personal distress regardless of proximity to the average and would be distressing even with environmental changes.

She went on to say that even people who fall within that neuro average aren't the ones making the rules for what is typical, and unofficially dubbed them neuropowerful. Once people have power, they can impose their ideas as the standard regardless of whether it's the average or not. They're outliers whose experience (both internally and externally) has been allowed to set the standards by which many (even most) people fall short, even those close to the "average." The same is true for physical characteristics. If more than half the population is "overweight," who determined what the acceptable weight is? Because it definitely isn't *average* to the population. I know a lot of disabled and neurodivergent people flock to each other, but sometimes you realize everyone you know has some kind of major divergence, and nobody is in fact "neurotypical."

This isn't to say that all a "neurodivergent" person needs to be okay is a different environmental/cultural/societal structure. For some, ADHD/Autism are disabling, but for others, it isn't, even if it's the same level of deviation in the same environment. For me, personally, it's a bit of both. I would benefit greatly from shifting cultural expectations as far as being able to meet my obligations, but my ADHD would still hurt me in moments when I want to do something for personal enjoyment and executive dysfunction will not let me get off the couch. I would benefit from a world that is not so depressing all the time, but I would still have days when I struggle to get out of bed because my brain is physically not set up to do serotonin.

tl;dr, human brains are way too complex to fit into categories like "neurotypical," "neurodivergence" is simply a more extreme deviation from the average, and we do not even use the average as the actual standard of what our brains are expected to be.

Makes me think of the 99% Invisible episode about averages, and how they mess with our sense of what averages are.

I’m gonna have to sit with that for a minute.

There are some good points in here but it's frustrating to see the points of disabled activists and scholars erased and misrepresented because of how some communities on social media (mis)use certain terms. The idea that neurotypical is a social construct was *very well understood and articulated* by the people who coined the term. To quote Nick Walker "Neurotypical, often abbreviated as NT, means having a style of neurocognitive functioning that falls within the dominant societal standards of “normal.”"

Some disabled people might define disability the way described above, but many of us, including most disabled activists, would describe it as the ways society disables people who fall outside those dominant social standards.

I especially hate disabled people's work being shit on by someone identified by their medical credentials.

In a separate reblog bc Tumblr hates links: Neurodiversity, Some Basic Terms and Definitions by Nick Walker

Also your regular reminder that neurodivergence has always included more than ADHD and autism.

can't help but think that a lot of the issues with how insular online communities conceive of neurodivergence stem from how the discourse necessitates the imagined existence of a mythic group of ‘neurotypicals’ cogently and unambiguously free of the social knottiness that certain neurodivergences can entail (“all ‘neurotypicals’ experience X,” “no ‘neurotypicals’ experience Y,” etc) rather than understanding neurotypicality as an enforced social norm to which we are all expected to comply and fall short of to varying degrees

I have a friend who is a med student of neurobiology and she said that there really is no such thing as a "neurotypical" and the term is extremely unhelpful. There is no "typical," but there is an average, however it's very rare for somebody to embody that average. To put it another way, if one person has 4 apples and another person has 6 apples, the average is 5 apples, however neither of these people has 5 apples. And considering that the brain has millions of factors going on, it's unlikely that any individual would be average along every single one of those axis. What we consider "neurodivergence" is being outside of the commonly accepted range of deviation from the average. What nondisabled people think of as mental disability is when that deviation from the average impacts other people. What disabled people consider disability is when these deviations cause personal distress regardless of proximity to the average and would be distressing even with environmental changes.

She went on to say that even people who fall within that neuro average aren't the ones making the rules for what is typical, and unofficially dubbed them neuropowerful. Once people have power, they can impose their ideas as the standard regardless of whether it's the average or not. They're outliers whose experience (both internally and externally) has been allowed to set the standards by which many (even most) people fall short, even those close to the "average." The same is true for physical characteristics. If more than half the population is "overweight," who determined what the acceptable weight is? Because it definitely isn't *average* to the population. I know a lot of disabled and neurodivergent people flock to each other, but sometimes you realize everyone you know has some kind of major divergence, and nobody is in fact "neurotypical."

This isn't to say that all a "neurodivergent" person needs to be okay is a different environmental/cultural/societal structure. For some, ADHD/Autism are disabling, but for others, it isn't, even if it's the same level of deviation in the same environment. For me, personally, it's a bit of both. I would benefit greatly from shifting cultural expectations as far as being able to meet my obligations, but my ADHD would still hurt me in moments when I want to do something for personal enjoyment and executive dysfunction will not let me get off the couch. I would benefit from a world that is not so depressing all the time, but I would still have days when I struggle to get out of bed because my brain is physically not set up to do serotonin.

tl;dr, human brains are way too complex to fit into categories like "neurotypical," "neurodivergence" is simply a more extreme deviation from the average, and we do not even use the average as the actual standard of what our brains are expected to be.

What nondisabled people think of as mental disability is when that deviation from the average impacts other people. What disabled people consider disability is when these deviations cause personal distress regardless of proximity to the average and would be distressing even with environmental changes.

rosalarian:

:

can't help but think that a lot of the issues with how insular online communities conceive of neurodivergence stem from how the discourse necessitates the imagined existence of a mythic group of ‘neurotypicals’ cogently and unambiguously free of the social knottiness that certain neurodivergences can entail (“all ‘neurotypicals’ experience X,” “no ‘neurotypicals’ experience Y,” etc) rather than understanding neurotypicality as an enforced social norm to which we are all expected to comply and fall short of to varying degrees

I have a friend who is a med student of neurobiology and she said that there really is no such thing as a "neurotypical" and the term is extremely unhelpful. There is no "typical," but there is an average, however it's very rare for somebody to embody that average. To put it another way, if one person has 4 apples and another person has 6 apples, the average is 5 apples, however neither of these people has 5 apples. And considering that the brain has millions of factors going on, it's unlikely that any individual would be average along every single one of those axis. What we consider "neurodivergence" is being outside of the commonly accepted range of deviation from the average. What nondisabled people think of as mental disability is when that deviation from the average impacts other people. What disabled people consider disability is when these deviations cause personal distress regardless of proximity to the average and would be distressing even with environmental changes.

She went on to say that even people who fall within that neuro average aren't the ones making the rules for what is typical, and unofficially dubbed them neuropowerful. Once people have power, they can impose their ideas as the standard regardless of whether it's the average or not. They're outliers whose experience (both internally and externally) has been allowed to set the standards by which many (even most) people fall short, even those close to the "average." The same is true for physical characteristics. If more than half the population is "overweight," who determined what the acceptable weight is? Because it definitely isn't *average* to the population. I know a lot of disabled and neurodivergent people flock to each other, but sometimes you realize everyone you know has some kind of major divergence, and nobody is in fact "neurotypical."

This isn't to say that all a "neurodivergent" person needs to be okay is a different environmental/cultural/societal structure. For some, ADHD/Autism are disabling, but for others, it isn't, even if it's the same level of deviation in the same environment. For me, personally, it's a bit of both. I would benefit greatly from shifting cultural expectations as far as being able to meet my obligations, but my ADHD would still hurt me in moments when I want to do something for personal enjoyment and executive dysfunction will not let me get off the couch. I would benefit from a world that is not so depressing all the time, but I would still have days when I struggle to get out of bed because my brain is physically not set up to do serotonin.

tl;dr, human brains are way too complex to fit into categories like "neurotypical," "neurodivergence" is simply a more extreme deviation from the average, and we do not even use the average as the actual standard of what our brains are expected to be.

Makes me think of the 99% Invisible episode about averages, and how they mess with our sense of what averages are.

I’m gonna have to sit with that for a minute.

There are some good points in here but it’s frustrating to see the points of disabled activists and scholars erased and misrepresented because of how some communities on social media (mis)use certain terms. The idea that neurotypical is a social construct was *very well understood and articulated* by the people who coined the term. To quote Nick Walker “Neurotypical, often abbreviated as NT, means having a style of neurocognitive functioning that falls within the dominant societal standards of “normal.””

Some disabled people might define disability the way described above, but many of us, including most disabled activists, would describe it as the ways society disables people who fall outside those dominant social standards.

I especially hate disabled people’s work being shit on by someone identified by their medical credentials.

[ID: Tweet via Lydia Kiesling: Housed people have the privilege of having their worst moments in private; unhoused people don't. This gives some people the profoundly mistaken impression that the person they see acting belligerent on the street is and will be that person every single moment of their life. /end ID]

A lot of people wanna do “revolution” but don’t wanna do the reading/self-education, a kind of anti-intellectualism which is actually fairly reactionary.  — Chanda Prescod-Weinstein is tenured now (@IBJIYONGI) June 24, 2023ALT

A lot of people wanna do "revolution" but don't wanna do the reading/self-education, a kind of anti-intellectualism which is actually fairly reactionary.

Your knowledge about movement history should be deeper than a Wikipedia article.

And yes, revolutionary orgs often have reading groups! They don’t just read magazine articles! They read books!

There is a world of movement knowledge out there that’s longer than a Twitter thread.

Also the suggestion I sometimes see floating around that people who haven’t been through higher education don’t read and/or can’t understand and contribute to complex social theory is actually, ironically, elitist

One nice starting point if you’re looking for texts to read and work through with others is libcom libcom.org

They not only have a bunch of intro materials but they also host classic texts that are valuable to put the effort into understanding.

Also lots of stuff at the anarchist library

Many biographies of movement figures for general audiences exist, and they often have a good overview of movement tactics that the person and their colleagues engaged in. Biographies are another access point.

It’s valuable to follow presses that put out collections of speeches and papers from movement figures too, like Haymarket, Verso, Pluto, AK Press, and PM Press. Even reading the sites can give you a sense of what resources to look for.

YouTube can be a dangerous place but also you can find lesser known speeches by people like MLK and Malcolm X there. And you can find edited collections of writing by folks like Ida B. Wells-Barnett, who aimed much of her writing at the general masses.

There are also bookstores that make it their mission to help people learn revolutionary ideas and movement history. Three that come to mind are @/FirestormCoop @/bluestockings and @/chariscircle. All have regular, intentional reading groups/events.

Work by academics for academic audiences/on academic presses can be useful, but it’s not the only work out there and if you’re limiting yourself to that frame and/or recasting non-academics as academics, maybe shift your orientation

This looks like a neat resource!

Interested in radical, left-wing, labour or anti-colonial history?   Check out my list of online & open access collections of radical historical documents.   Nearly 450 collections listed from around the world. https://t.co/6Y5g1aLQTK  — Evan Smith (@evansmithhist) May 14, 2023ALT

Anyone who is taking the time to read and write on Twitter through a limited analytic frame of what counts as knowledge and theory should spend some time with books and articles on the decolonising science reading list (or other items like these)

1 2 3 4 5 Next