"Black people have Tourette’s too" really has me realizing that I genuinely do not think I understand the "Black trans people exist too" thing.
It seems to me that "Black people have Tourette's too" is a good argument for being less shitty to disabled people, not an argument for punishing disabled people for being disabled.
In this example, I read the Orange as saying that we should impose consequences on John Davidson for being disabled, because a Black person with Tourette's would have behaved differently.
But that's not true.
Black people with Tourette's exist.
People with Tourette's do not have control over their tics.
If we encourage society to punish people with Tourette's for their tics, that's obviously going to harm Black people with Tourette's more than most other groups.
Similarly, transphobia is generally going to harm Black trans women the most.
The fact that Black trans women exist and are extremely socially vulnerable is an argument for fighting against transphobia from all sources.
"Black trans women exist" should encourage you to care more about transmisogny, not less.
But that does not seem like how people use that term.
I disagree that disabled people should be forcibly drugged and then imprisoned in soundproof cells.
Even if catering is provided.
Okay, so this is what I was getting at.
Yes, obviously Black people with Tourette's face more unfair social consequences than white people with Tourette's.
The response to that should be *more* kindness to people with Tourette's, not less kindness to people with Tourette's.
Why would you want to make things worse for people with Tourette's, knowing that's going to harm Black people with Tourette's the most.
But it also... he didn't insult anybody. It was a tic, not an insult or a slur.
I'm sure tons of Black people were offended, but the guy didn't insult anybody.
That's just blatant, pointless ableism from somebody who is pretty obviously just using hypothetical Black people with Tourette's as an excuse to trash disabled people.
This is ultimately just what it's about.
People don't attack disabled people for being disabled, because they want to make racism better.
That is silly.
People attack disabled people for being disabled because they're Nazis who want to start the Holocaust back from the beginning and see where it goes.
There's another version of this argument that's basically "he's racist because he knew the N-word so obviously he was raised by racists."
Which, like...
1) People other than racists know the N-word.
2) If he was a disabled kid being raised by racists, then how do you imagine his parents treated would have him?
Do you think his parents were viciously anti-Black, but fine with having a disabled kid?
No. Obviously not. You're just being pointlessly cruel.
Obviously we see the transphobic version of this a ton, too.
We blame trans people for being raised by bigots, as if that was something they would have wanted or had any control over.
Life is not easier for a trans woman raised by a white supremacist. It's actually much, much worse, because white supremacists hate trans people (including white trans people) as much as they hate any other group.
Mekka is a manager at Google.
He makes hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.
Here he is, advocating for disabled people to be banned from public life.
Selections from a thread:
"The problem is many of us don't see a lack of racism as an access need for Black people."
"Expecting people to endure harm in the name of access is not it."
"All you're doing with this is announcing whose access you think is most important."
"I feel like I have to say I fully accept that he had no control, but I do not accept that the solution is Black people just have to endure it with a smile."
I feel like this thread mirrors a lot of queer drama.
You can't just point to harm having been caused (it was) and demand that the source of the harm go away.
You can't just point to harm having been caused and assign blame to individuals.
It is more complicated than that.
Triggers can be reasonable and justified and well-earned and valid and worthy of accommodation, but accommodation for triggers can't justify blocking access to some other vulnerable group on the basis core, unchangeable aspects of who they are.
Your accommodation for trauma can't just be that all members of some other, unrelated, extremely vulnerable group need to be punished and excluded from society.
It needs to be something else.
Anything else.
If a person with a dog allergy wants to go shopping, reasonable accommodation can't be banning service dogs from the premises.
That's not "picking sides".
The Fedilore Otter 🦦
Alsvid