When Social Justice Media “Allies” Get it Wrong

On Jan. 6th Seriously.tv–a social justice focused video producer–put out a new instalment of their series “Shutting Down the Bullshit…”. The series is characterised by host Dylan Marron confronting either a noted activist or a group of people who are linked by a shared experience (race, religion, sexual assault) with stereotypes that they encounter as a result of their work or lived experience. The videos give those being interviewed an opportunity to respond directly to those harmful stereotypes.

The Jan. 6th instalment was Shutting Down the Bullshit about Autism. It, unfortunately, ends up reinforcing more stereotypes than it debunks and displays some very problematic advocacy on behalf of a grout that Marron and presumable the rest of the Seriously.tv crew do not belong to.

The “interviewee” is Avery. I put “interviewee” in quotes intentionally because, for the most part, he isn’t really the person responding to the stereotypes that Marron brings. His answers often give little information that is often problematic.

Avery brings up Autism functioning labels which are a contentious and problematic way to categorise Autistic people. People who are labelled high functioning are generally seen as being more “normal” and thus more human. People who are labelled low functioning as a consequence are seen as less human (for more thoughts on functioing labels go here).

Avery seems not only unaware of this controversy but also buys into it. Marron prompts him to divulge his functioning level to which he proudly responds “very high”.

This reinforces a dehumanizing hierarchy that posits that the more “normal” you seem the better you are. It is a harmful hierarchical structure that extends beyond the Autistic population to disabled people generally and serves primarily the place varying disabled people onto a spectrum of social value (more on that here). Now that is some bullshit that needs to be shut down.

Ultimately, though, the interview isn’t really with Avery. The interview is really with his father which brings up a host of other problems.

Much activism has been done to try and centre Autism narratives from within the Autistic community. Much of this activism comes as a direct push back against the prevalence of parent narratives. This is an issue that extends beyond the Autistic community to the wider disabled community. Consider the pushback against the website the Mighty which centres a lot of parent narratives (see here, here, and here).

Avery is really little more than prop to give a visual for his father’s input. This isn’t even thinly veiled. Avery is clearly unable to answer some of the questions, so they are clearly designed for someone else. Marron asks Avery about the film Rain Man. A film Avery hasn’t even seen so he is unable to even understand the stereotype being referenced. Not that his father does much better when the video cuts to him, he says,

“Rain Man is a lovely movie about a man’s relationship with his brother. It is not a movie about Autism”

This answer is dismissive bullshit.

Rain Man epitomises a harmful and prevalent media stereotype about Autism. It is a caricature that utilises stereotypes about  Autism and savantism that are seen in many films that include Autistic characters. It features a character that is often parodied and involves the use of cripping up. The discriminatory practice of a nondisabled actor playing a disabled character. It is a film that has very much informed the cultural consciousness of what it means to be Autistic.

The lack of mentioning of the Autistic savant stereotype is even more telling when the video decides to highlight Avery’s “special skill” he has perfect pitch. His demonstration of this skill along with a lot of video of him talking is really just a backdrop for his father’s voice over.

The focus on Avery’s father is not just problematic because he’s taking up space that should really be filled by an Autistic voice. The video basically applauds him by including an old myth that Autism was caused by bad parenting. This moment seems more like a moment to say “oh look at this nice parent of a disabled child” than actually challenging a stereotype that needs debunking.

While the “Autism is caused by bad parenting” myth did exist it is hardly prevalent now. It is far more common for people to believe that Autism is caused by vaccines. Which is some bullshit that has already been heavily debunked but it still far to widely believed. It is a belief that actively stigmatises Autistic people and threatens people’s health and lives.

Patting Avery’s father on the back for not being a shitty parent is also problematic because it obscures just how much abuse parents of disabled children are forgiven for.

Consider the conciliatory tone the media took with Kelli Stapleton who tried to kill her Autistic daughter Isabelle.

A video that is ostensibly about challenging Autism stereotypes is no place for “yay, parents of disabled kids”. Regardless of how good of a parent Avery’s father. His experience and old stereotypes focusing on parents should not be the focus because it feeds into a dangerous “saintly parent” stereotype which is some other bullshit that needs shutting down.

This visual silencing of an Autistic person in favour of a neurotypical voice is actually hard to watch. It is also not in keeping with the other videos in the series which clearly centre activists speaking for themselves.

In other videos in the series where a single individual is interviewed, they are always an activist (with the exception of a less serious instalment where Marron speaks to a toddler). When multiple voices aren’t being heard, the individual is someone who it is easy enough to look up and fact check. It is possible to see where they fit into the experience they are speaking to and find out any criticisms of them and their opinions.

This is not possible with Avery or his father for whom we are not even given a last name.

Marron sought to defend his choice to use Avery’s dad in the video with a statement on facebook that he later shared on Twitter.


Image description: A screenshot of a Facebook comment by Dylan Marron which reads “Hey all, I’d like to publicly address my decision to open up the conversation to include Avery’s dad Joey. Thank you to those who have asked about it (Thanks Jaden!). I work hard to make sure that ‘Shutting Down Bullsh*t’ gives a platform to those directly affected by the bullsh*t so they can shut it down themselves. This topic, however, provided a unique challenge as we were dispelling myths about a condition that inherently inhibits communication – not intelligence or capability, but communication. Avery is a friend of mine and I personally know how brilliant he is, but I also know that there were some social barriers that would prevent him from expressing the detail that he wants to convey. Joey, his dad, is also a friend of mine. We talked about this interview for a while and carefully discussed what would be best to make sure Avery was speaking for himself, but also how to make this video accessible to those who know nothing about autism. I figured that rather than relying on stats and graphics to complement Avery’s responses, I would also give that platform to someone who not only knows a great deal about autism, but someone who deeply loves a person with autism and could help illuminate more about this person to a neurotypical audience. The way I see it is that Joey wasn’t speaking for Avery, but rather was complementing him. Shutting Down Bullsh*t takes huge, gigantic, and complex topics and squeezes them in to a three minute video. None of my guests can speak for *all* people affected by the bullsh*t they are shutting down, but they can present a reflection of what *some* folks in that community *might* be feeling. Since I wasn’t able to interview all folks on the autism spectrum, this video is about autism through Avery’s eyes. And to honor that I thought the best thing to do would be to include the voice of someone who loves him deeply and has spent his entire fatherhood ensuring that Avery speaks for himself as much as possible.”

This defence is itself full of problematic Autism stereotypes that Marron is using to defend himself. Even though the video itself does (through Avery’s dad) mention the diversity of Autistic people, Marron says

“I work hard to make sure that ‘Shutting Down Bullsh*t’ gives a platform to those directly affected by the bullsh*t so they can shut it down themselves. This topic, however, provided a unique challenge as we were dispelling myths about a condition that inherently inhibits communication”

So much for diversity of the Autistic experience. Apparently, we are all incapable of speaking not only about our own experiences but responding to the stereotypes and stigma we experience. I must assume my entire post is gibberish then. You probably haven’t even read this far it must be such an incomprehensible mess.

Basically, the problem isn’t that Autistic people need to have neurotypical translators or spokespeople but that Marron chose the wrong interview subject.

Avery is clearly not knowledgeable about major stereotypes or issues within the Autistic community. How is he supposed to respond to things with which he is unfamiliar? It is an unfamiliarity that his father largely shares. He is not an appropriate replacement advocate.

The video format is also inaccessible to Avery. It is very adversarial and there was not attempt made to modify the format to make it easier for him. This is unsurprising as the video is so clearly geared towards speaking to his father and not him.

There are absolutely Autistic people who can and do regularly shut down bullshit ableist stereotypes. (like Lydia X.Z. Brown as just one example). There are entire organisations set up to promote Autism self-advocacy. (see here and here). It is more than possible to find Autistic people who don’t need an interpreter. It is possible to find Autistic people who can be researched so that like the other people featured in this video series, viewers can learn more and see how they fit into a larger activist framework.

Marron basically rejects that possibility. He also uses the “well not everyone is going to agree” cop out.

“None of my guests can speak for *all* people affected by the bullsh*t they are shutting down, but they can present a reflection of what *some* folks in that community *might* be feeling. Since I wasn’t able to interview all folks on the autism spectrum, this video is about autism through Avery’s eyes. And to honor that I thought the best thing to do would be to include the voice of someone who loves him deeply and has spent his entire fatherhood ensuring that Avery speaks for himself as much as possible.”

While of course, no one in this video series speaks for everyone in their movement at least it is usually possible to situate them within it. Marron wants it both ways, to argue that making a video about Autism stereotypes featuring an Autistic person is inherently difficult (because he generalises that Autistic people have difficulty communicating) and then defend his choice of subject as just a particular point of view. A point of view that by featuring in a video, he is supporting.

By framing it this way Marron puts the Autistic community into a box that we don’t fit into. By choosing to interview someone who has no clear public presence it is impossible to situate him in a wider discourse on Autism and advocacy and give a very singular view of Autism that doesn’t centre Autistic people and spews more bullshit than it shuts down.

I know I’m Autistic but hopefully, I communicated that effectively.



Seriously.tv and Dylan Marron have released a new Shutting Down the Bullshit about Autism video. This one uses only Autistic people and includes multiple voices.

Marron also directly responded to the criticism from the Autistic community in a tweet and on Facebook.

A screen-readable version of the text in the tweet images can be found at the bottom of this post.

It’s great to see a more accurate Autistic people shutting down the bullshit for themselves.

The text in Marron’s response reads

Being called out publicly when you think you’re already “woke” sucks. But it helps, too.

In a recent episode of ‘Shutting Down Bullsh*t’ I sat down with my friend Avery to dispel myths about autism. I also included an interview with his father to help illuminate more about autism from the parent’s perspective. I had no idea that allistic (non-autistic) parents speaking over their children is a harmful trope in the representation of autism. I should have taken the time to know that. That’s on me.

While many in the autism community reached out with thanks for beginning to tackle the issue on my show, a great number also expressed frustration with the video – even deep anger. My gut response was to say “No, this can’t be! I’m woke! I speak up against ableism!” But as the messages continued to come in, I realized that I had presented the autism community incompletely at best and, at worst, I had fallen into a pattern of silencing that folks on the spectrum are far too familiar with.

This was particularly tough for me to come to terms with as someone who has been so aware of the silencing that has gone on in my own communities; the centering of cis white masc-presenting men in LGBT representation, the favoring of light skin and Eurocentric features in Latinx culture… the list, sadly, goes on.

The messages pointing out the shortcomings in my video – especially from longtime fans – hurt to read. But ultimately it was for the better. And I’m thankful to those who took the time to explain to me why the episode missed the mark.

Through this all, I’m understanding that “wokeness” is in fact a process, and not a photo-friendly finish line. I still have much more to learn but I’m listening.

To all of us who identify as “woke”, may we not get too proud of our awareness. May we take a deep breath when we’re called out by the communities we’re seeking to serve, and offer a helping hand when we see others “miss the mark.” And finally: let’s accept that we will inevitably Get It Wrong sometimes. What matters is how we evolve after that.

Let’s keep making and let’s keep listening. We can’t afford not to.


“The Accountant” Tries To Be a Unique & Authentic Portrayal of Autism Using By the Numbers Stereotypes and No Actual Autistic People

The Accountant (which stars Ben Affleck & Anna Kendrick) is a film about an Autistic forensic accountant who is also a highly skilled hit man. The people behind the film (which opens on October 14) were featured in a recent LA Times article regarding what they did to make sure that the portrayal of an “Assassin-On-The-Spectrum” honestly.

The writer, director & stars all commented on how they tried to both turn the film narrative of autism on its head and maintain authenticity.

The problem is that based on everything that is revealed about the character in the piece actually sounds pretty much exactly like the same old tired Autism stereotypes that have been done before.

To add insult to injury the stated methods of attempting to ascertain that the film was accurate and inoffensive are deeply problematic and certainly don’t reassure me that due diligence was done.

This film hasn’t been released yet so I can’t actually speak to the full completed product but there is a lot in how those involved in the film are presenting both the autistic character, how they approached portraying him, and who they asked for feedback that is worth unpacking.

Let’s start by looking at the character Christian Wolff (Ben Affleck). They present the character as an edgy, unique autistic character who is different from other autistic characters that people have seen on screen before. This is why he is

A white male, unlike Raymond Babbitt, that kid from Mercury Rising, or Hugh Dancy’s character in Adam… Oh wait.

The vast majority of portrayals of disability not exclusive of autism are of white men. This is problematic in that it erases a visual representation of the huge diversity within the disabled population.

An autistic savant, unlike Raymond Babbitt, that kid from Mercury Rising, or Hugh Dancy’s character in Adam… Oh wait.

I’m pretty sure that I’m not the only autistic person who wishes that Hollywood would put a moratorium on autistic savant characters. Savantism is rare and does not accurately represent the average lived experience with autism. In film and television the opposite is apparently true. Autistic people who are not savants are basically an endangered species.

Does not achieve a lasting romantic relationship, unlike Raymond Babbitt,  or Hugh Dancy’s character in Adam… Oh wait.

Perhaps one the the most infuriating things said about Wolff’s character in the piece is when Ben Affleck says

“He doesn’t get the girl. … I thought it was so unique and surprising. It almost seemed too good to be true.”

No Ben. This is not unique. This is an insidious overly done stereotype in films in which disabled characters are routinely denied meaningful human relationships.

It’s only unique to actors like Affleck who are used to playing nondisabled leading men who get the girl as a matter of course.

As a disabled viewer of media the thing that would be to good to be true would be a film where the disabled character (who is preferably not a white  dude) actually gets the romantic ending. Not a film where either there is no suggestion of sexuality (Rain Man) or where the romance is destroyed as a direct result of the characters disability (Adam & potentially The Accountant. That remains to be seen).

Basically, the star of the film is excited about an aspect of the film that plays directly to  a harmful stereotype. It’s also so obvious a plot point that apparently it isn’t even a spoiler that should be kept under wraps at least until after the film is released.


The thing that is really supposed to make Christian Wolff different is the fact that he’s an assassin. I mean disabled characters being scary & dangerous is actually a pretty standard film trope (seriously pick a Bond film at random & see what I mean). So beyond the fact  that Wolff is the main character, I’m not sure how this is new or innovative. Dangerously disabled has in fact been done to death.

Then there is the issue of authenticity. The screenwriter Bill Dubuque says

“I’ve always been interested in how the mind works,” Dubuque said on a recent afternoon. “I thought: What if you could structure a story that was a mystery within a mystery? What goes on in this individual’s mind? How does he process information? How does he communicate with the rest of the world?”

How did they test if Dubuque got it right?

They screened it for Autism charities including Autism Speaks

The fact that they screened it for organizations rather than making a point to get the film in front of actual autistic people is already problematic but the fact that they highlight that they screened the film for Autism Speaks and present Autism Speaks as a reliable source of information is doubly problematic.

Autism Speaks has a particularly controversial relationship with actual autistic people. Ignoring that controversy and presenting Autism Speaks as an accurate gauge of the authenticity of autistic portrayal is basically giving Autistic people the finger.

Seriously, it is not hard to find autistic people criticizing Autism Speaks including Autistic People led advocacy organizations. Even mainstream media outlets have covered it.

Anna Kendrick asked the parent of an Autistic child

Anna Kendrick…admits she initially had concerns about whether the film would be able to represent autism in an accurate and nuanced way.

“A friend of mine has an autistic child, and I was so worried about telling her I was going to do a movie with this subject matter and potentially getting it wrong,” she said. “She was like, ‘I’m going to tell you something that somebody told me when my son was diagnosed: When you’ve met one autistic child, you’ve met one autistic child. To have an expectation that he should act this way or you should act that way — don’t even worry about that. Everyone is different.’”

The phrase “When you’ve met one autistic child, you’ve met one autistic child” exists to fight stereotyping of Autism. The fact that it is being used to basically say “do whatever you want, it’ll be fine” is really problematic.

The fact that Kendrick asked a parent rather than an actual autistic person is also problematic. Parents aren’t mind melded with their children and shouldn’t be assumed to be accurate surrogates for the opinions of the disabled community simply because they live in close proximity to disabled people.

Again, it really isn’t difficult to find disabled people criticizing the trend of prioritizing the views of nondisabled parents over the voices of actual disabled people. Heck, it’s not uncommon for disabled people to actively push back against parent rhetoric.

So what they apparently didn’t do,

Ask Autistic People

The Accountant is supposed to be a film about an Autistic character who not only holds down a job which requires him to interact with people but who also plans and carries out assassinations. So it posits that Autistic people can in fact exist in society. It is therefor frustrating that it didn’t seem to occur to the people involved in making of that film to actually talk to Autistic people. Instead preferring third person accounts of Autism from people who are not Autistic.

The only way this makes sense is if Christian Wolff does not turn out to be a character who actually exists in proximity to other people and the events of the film (his job, being an assassin) are in fact all in his head. And I really hope that the movie doesn’t go in that direction.

The failure to actively prioritize the narratives of Autistic people is unfortunate and does not convince me that authentic and honest portrayal were an important aspect of the film.

When people claim that authenticity of disability portrayal can come from organizations and parents rather than the actual people being portrayed I am not convinced that authenticity was the goal. I am convinced that the producers of that film are only interested in creating a veneer of authenticity to fool the primarily nondisabled audience. A veneer maintained so that the film industry can continue to create inaccurate fictions of disability that do not in any way reflect the actual disabled experience.

The LA times piece only makes me wonder if I’ll be able to do the Autism stereotype drinking game with The Accountant.

Take a shot every time they mention

Theory of mind

Autistic’s lack Empathy (is this why he’s such a good assassin? if so Fuck You)

Does some unnaturally talented math thing.

I await a time when authenticity actually requires the active and widespread involvement of the people being portrayed. Preferably both behind and in front of the camera.

Disability as Sensationalist Narrative

It’s been a long time since I’ve posted anything. I’ve just finished the first year of my PhD studies and was feeling burned out. Today however, David Perry wrote about a “news” story in which the reporter profiled the mother of a young autistic child.

It is just another drop in the ocean of horrible parent narratives about disability which frame disability as the scourge that ruined the poor parents lives. These narratives are always framed as universal even though the profile sample is restricted to very few and often only one example. The article (if it can really be called that) reads like bad film noire narration. author’s sole source of information is the child’s mother. This is why I find it surprising that the piece is found in the “news” section. There is no actual research involved. He didn’t seek to find out if the woman’s experience is common. He just assumes that it is. He doesn’t talk to doctors or service providers to see if more assistance is available. Most importantly he certainly doesn’t speak to any actually autistic people. The reader is supposed to take his third hand retelling of the reality of autism as universal truth. He describes autism as an “epidemic” and a “genetic devil”.

He also seems to reject the idea that different people with autism might actually display different behaviours. He scoffs at a generic and very medical definition of autism:

Autism is a disease with a broad spectrum of symptoms that can start in the womb and last into adulthood. In one common definition, it is “characterized by difficulties in social interaction, verbal and nonverbal communication and repetitive behaviors.”

he follows that up with “That’s putting it more nicely than it deserves.”. He completely rejects any concept of spectrum or individuality in the experience of autism, preferring instead to assume the single experiences of one mother is more widely applicable than an actual medical definition.

The thing is, this isn’t reporting, there was no research involved. Rather it is just another example of a centuries old habit of third person sensationalist narratives about disability that depend more on literary tropes than reality in order to frame real world perspectives of disability.

While I have no doubt that the mother profiled is expressing her genuine feelings. The writer fails to give them any context be it from medical professionals or disabled people. Both groups would likely frame the realities of autism differently but I have no doubt that they would agree on one thing. This one woman’s reality (or interpretation of her reality) is not and should not be taken as indicative of the broader realities of autism.

Even a more tempered description of his encounter with the mother might have been less offensive. He never met the son (whose full name is disclosed in the article thus violating the child’s privacy) but talks about him as though that isn’t necessary to really “know” him.

When I said the piece reads like bad film noire narration, I wasn’t exaggerating. the author used florid language, metaphors and similes. He is absolutely framing autism as a monster.

[the child] is not a criminal; rather, a crime has been committed against him by a genetic devil called autism. It’s an affliction that seems to be growing in society like mushrooms under an autumn moon. (emphasis mine)

He talks about autism as though it’s a Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde scenario as though the child exists without it. As though it took him over and if only autism could be gotten rid of the “real child” would emerge. this is reinforced by the rhetoric of disease and epidemic that he uses.

There are two things wrong with this. First and most importantly that child without autism is a figment of his imagination. He doesn’t exist and never did. the author acknowledges that autism is genetic (so at least we’re not dealing with a vaccine reactionary. Which is something I guess) that means the child has always been autistic. There is no nonautistic child in there.

Which brings us to the second problem a lot of autistic people, myself included don’t actually want to be cured. My reasons for it are primarily selfish. I like myself. Autism impacts everything I do and how I interact with the world. If I didn’t have autism, I would be a fundamentally different person. This is a pretty common sentiment but others will also be slightly less self-absorbed than me and point out that autism is a natural part of human diversity (for more perspectives on this see here, here, and here).

The thing is the author doesn’t really care about nuance or wider realities because he’s to busy creating his own where not only is the child he’s talking about a monster but so are basically all autistic people.

He appears to make random innocuous observations about the woman he’s profiling and her home and they inevitably have a horrible autism anecdote to go along with them. Like when wonders why this nice lady has tattoos–because apparently there is an identifiable “type” of person who gets tattoos and it’s not mothers of four–she has them to cover up the scars from where her son has bitten her.

Even the lack of towels in the bathroom is suspect. The explanation for which was a level of parent oversharing that I won’t recount it (the website Ollibean has guidelines about writing about your disabled children that I with the author and mother had considered). The fact that the lack of towels was worth even mentioning much less questioning is odd. I can’t even remember how many times I’ve been a guest in a house where the bathroom was inconveniently lacking in towels. In houses where there is no autistic resident. I always chalk it up to the host’s forgetfulness or lack of consideration. It’s never been worth questioning.

All of this is shared with the pretense of education but not everything gets a detailed expectation. When discussing the breakdown of the woman’s marriage he says this:

She also has a long-term marriage that is coming to an end. Her husband, Rene Juarez, loves his wife and his children. But after 10 years of living with autism …

He. Just. Can’t. Stay.

I didn’t add the ellipses. He’s actually put them in there to invite the reader to draw their own conclusions. After very conveniently setting up autism as the monster under the bed.

No other contributing factors are considered.

The child is then summarily blamed not only the breakdown of his parents marriage but also his mother’s drinking and experiences of depression. The fact that his grandfather suggested he be exorcised is added in as well. To you know really drive home the fact that he’s a monster.

The mother’s statement that her son deserves understanding and compassion is treated more like the request of an altruistic saint than something that should be taken seriously.

Basically every sentence could be dissected so I’ll skip ahead to the end where in an odd non sequitur the author jumps from discussing the woman’s charity  to her single relationship status.

I tread lightly here. I’m just going to be straight with you, Sonia: You must know the chances of a new marriage are not great. Few men would step into this situation.

“Absolutely true. I know that. To be honest with you, I have accepted that my life revolves around my son and my girls. But I also have another mission to fulfill. I feel this in my heart. I will help other families that live with autistic children.”

It comes out of nowhere but seems tacked on the end to really drive home how much of a martyr she is.

The fact that this piece was published at all is troubling. The fat that a newspaper actually classified it as “news” is even more so.

It’s sensationalist trash with very little basis in reality even if we assume the mother is being honest about her opinions and experiences because of the spin the author gives it. It’s directly in line with the fictionalized biographies of historical disabled people were written to frame them as other and the people who exploited them as benevolent.

Consider Dr. Frederick Treve’s memoir about his relationship with Joseph Merrick (known as The Elephant Man) which frames the adult Merrick who Treves repeatedly misnames John as a child.

Or the promotional pamphlet for Krao Farini (known as the missing link) whose race and physical difference were used to rob her of her very humanity.

This really is just another additional to a long line of sensationalist writing about disability which serves to make those around the disabled person seem like saints while leaving the disabled person as either object of pity or horror.

It is most certainly not news. It doesn’t even have the veneer of objectivity and any concept of research was clearly not even considered.

That child deserved better. Disabled people as a whole deserved better.




What Canada’s Immigration Policies Say about the Status of Disability in Canada

Every so often in Canada (and other countries but I’m focusing on Canada here) a sad story will appear in the papers. It’s one that we’ve seen before and will unfortunately see again. A family has been denied permanent residency because a family member (usually a minor child) is disabled. The most recent iteration of this recurring story involves the family of York University professor Felipe Montoya. The Montoyas were denied permanent residency because their son, Nico has Down Syndrome.

Nico is being refused under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act under health grounds. The relevant section of the act maintains that someone can be denied permanent residency in Canada if,


  •  (1) A foreign national is inadmissible on health grounds if their health condition

    • (a) is likely to be a danger to public health;

    • (b) is likely to be a danger to public safety; or

    • (c) might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health or social services.


Nico is being refused under the third subsection about the potential drain on health or social services.

This portion of the Act is a catchall which is used to summarily refuse residency to disabled people. It places a burden of proof that affects no other applicants as regards health. At least the first two subsections are dealing with immediately identifiable issues like whether a person is currently ill. The third however requires disabled people to prove that they will never be seriously ill or that their conditions will not deteriorate. While the wording suggests that the risk of expense must be reasonable to apply, in practice it becomes swiftly apparent that the presence of disability regardless of whether or not the individual is currently in need of expensive treatment or services or if those services might require alternate funding anyway.

There is no onus on a nondisabled applicant to prove that they will never contract cancer, experience a disabling accident or simply experience prolonged unemployment necessitating the use of social supports. This is however completely impossible to guarantee. It is also entirely impossible to prove that a disabled applicant will be a burden on the Canadian public.

The thing is, that this section of Canadian immigration legislation is of questionable constitutionality. It also most definitely does contravene the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that,

Equality Rights

Marginal note:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
  •  (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

  • Marginal note:Affirmative action programs

    (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

You will notice that 15(2) directly states that laws or actions that encourage the equal treatment of the protected groups listed in 15(1) are allowed. This means that the financial hardship argument found in immigration legislation in regards to disabled applicants is flimsy at best. Legal jurisprudence on the issue of constitutional exceptions for financial reasons bares this out, with the courts having

stated its intention to continue to view budgetary justifications for Charter breaches with scepticism, “because there are always budgetary constraints and there are always other pressing government priorities.”

And yes, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all laws, even those dealing with nonCanadians such as immigration law.

The problem here is not that Canada’s immigration law is constitutional but that the government will maintain a convenient discriminatory and unconstitutional law until someone raises a Supreme Court Charter Challenge. They are gambling that people unfairly affected by unjust laws will not have the money or years to invest in a Supreme Court challenge (and yes Charter challenges take years, even the successful ones).

When the Charter was first proposed people were hopeful particularly as regards section 15 that marginalized people would not have to fight for legal protections anymore. It was hoped that the Charter would force the government to be proactive in aligning Canadian legislation with the Charter. Unfortunately this has not been the case and people have repeatedly had to fight for the supposed rights that the Charter claims to guarantee.

The government bets that people won’t have the time, money or energy to fight and doesn’t back down when they do. They do this despite the Charter and despite the UNCRPD which Canada has ratified. Article 18 of the UNCRPD directly states that

1. States Parties shall recognize the rights of persons with disabilities to liberty of movement, to freedom to choose their residence and to a nationality, on an equal basis with others, including by ensuring that persons with disabilities:

  1. Have the right to acquire and change a nationality and are not deprived of their nationality arbitrarily or on the basis of disability;
  2. Are not deprived, on the basis of disability, of their ability to obtain, possess and utilize documentation of their nationality or other documentation of identification, or to utilize relevant processes such as immigration proceedings, that may be needed to facilitate exercise of the right to liberty of movement;
  3. Are free to leave any country, including their own;
  4. Are not deprived, arbitrarily or on the basis of disability, of the right to enter their own country.

2. Children with disabilities shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by their parents.

18(2) is particularly important to one case of refusing a Yukon family residency because in this case the disabled child was born in Canada and thus a Canadian citizen but because the rest of the family were noncitizens, when they were deported, they had to choose to either take him with them (and saving Canada the cost of his care) or leaving him behind (ensuring care but depriving them of him). Basically, Canada was able to deprive a disabled Canadian citizen of his rights by forcing his noncitizen parents into an impossible choice.

It’s hard to know just how often this sort of exemption actually happens. We tend to only hear about it if the family fights back. It is impossible to know how many simply accept their rejections and return to their countries of origin or are denied entry to Canada in the first place.

When stories are publicized, they are frequently very sympathetically presented (even in cases where writers are not opposed to the exclusionary nature of our immigration law. see here for one such example focusing on the Montoya case). I suspect it is because people see these stories as exceptions. The fact that they frequently focus on children also helps tug at people’s heart strings. This certainly seems to have been the case for Canadian comedian Rick Mercer who devoted one of his famous rants to the Montoyas case

While Mercer has some fantastic things to say in his rant. He acknowledges that Nico Montoya will grow up and that in no way undermines his value as a person. He calls out the ridiculousness of predicting how much of a burden someone will be and the related assumption that this means that person has nothing to contribute.

It is however a bit disheartening that Mercer doesn’t appear to realize that this issue is bigger than kids with Down Syndrome. He says,

Apparently there is a war on kids with Down Syndrome that I was completely unaware of.

If he had just stuck to commenting on this particular case or other cases involving permanent residency, I would let’s be honest still be annoyed because the issue is far more encompassing than that but I can understand that sometimes the bigger issue is to huge to tackle all at once. My issue starts with the fact that he doesn’t seem to realize that there is a bigger issue. He goes on to say,

What’s next, we’re gonna say that family can’t come in because that kid in grade eight just failed his math test, or that one’s got a funny foot (emphasis mine)

He says this as though it would be utterly unthinkable to deny someone residency on the grounds of having a “funny foot” but the fact of the matter is that it could very well be a reason for exclusion.

The reality is that this affects more than just kids with Down Syndrome. Hell, it affects more than just kids. Consider Chris Reynolds who was 21 when he was deemed inadmissible on his family’s permanent residency application. His father, Thomas E. Reynolds is a professor (there seems to be a trend here) at Emanuel College at the University of Toronto. Chris was refused on the grounds of his Asperger’s Syndrome diagnosis. This despite the fact that all of his medical expenses were covered by his father’s private insurance, not medicare. There is no followup to the case that I could find but Dr. Reynolds is still listed as faculty at Emanuel College so I can only hope that his reapplication for the family to be considered for permanent residency on compassionate grounds was successful.

Consider also the case of Eniko Reka Kincses and her daughter Boglarka who were denied permanent residency because Boglarka has cerebral palsy. In this case the Saskatchewan government (where they were living) intervened and they were allowed to stay but the reason is worth highlighting,

Health Minister Dustin Duncan and Economy Minister Bill Boyd penned a joint letter of support for the Kincses family to federal officials.

They said Kincses [the mother] was a valuable, skilled worker and assured the federal government the province was willing to cover Boglarka’s “minimal” health care and social services needs”

Enika Reka Kincses wanted to open a care facility, so that she could not only provide care for her daughter herself but would also provide a service that the province sorely needed. Saskatchewan did not see any particular value in Boglarka but rather thought that her assumed deficits were outweighed by the skills of her mother.

This is a trend that continues in both the Montoya and Reynolds cases. The skills and contributions of the parents are highlighted as is to say “on balance if we let them stay at least we benefit from the work of the parents”. Sure, these stories tug at the heartstrings regardless but it’s hard not to wonder how many stories we don’t hear because the parents aren’t highly skilled as an offset to their child’s disability. These stories are more palatable because the disabled person comes with a consolation prize to offset the possible burden they may one day pose.

Disabled people in these scenarios are not seen as having any inherent value beyond that they may be cute children. This is bad enough in the context of what it says about disabled people trying to enter Canada. The problem worsens when you realize that this is essentially how Canada views its disabled citizens.

If disabled Canadians were viewed as having inherent value it would be harder to argue for this discriminatory immigration policy. What the Canadian government and public have to say about foreign disabled people is likely to be a reflection on how those of us who are here by right of birth are viewed.

In order to foster an inclusive society, Canada needs to show that they value all disabled people. Not pay lip service to focusing on those of us who are already here. It’s a little hard to argue that we are valued members of society when people are being excluded from the country for being like us.

Changing the law would not only improve the lives of disabled applicants because they would be considered on their merits (yes they have them, no I’m not suggesting we just let everyone in who applies) rather than have them rejected on grounds that are not only protected under the Charter but in line with international human rights agreements.

Now as I mentioned above, I know Canada is not the only country with discriminatory immigration laws. Everyone seems to be of the opinion that if they open their borders to disabled people, suddenly we will all descend on that country en masse. Again I’m not against all immigration policies so this is absurdly reactionary. Also this mentality fails to recognize that when disabled people are treated like everyone else, we tend to behave like everyone else because here’s the thing that people also miss, if disabled people can come to Canada, we can also leave. People tend to immigrate because they are offered further opportunity elsewhere but I and my fellow disabled Canadians do not have that option despite it being directly addressed in the UNCRPD.

Exclusionary laws like current immigration policy clearly show that the supposed equality we are guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is still little more than a dream. We are in practice little more than tolerated and then only if there is no other option.

It is time Canada led by example and fixed it’s discriminatory immigration policy because both our constitution and international agreement. Changing the law will create a legal precedent to stop the far to common excuse that disabled people are first and foremost burdens. The mentality that allows the odd story of exclusion to hit the news and illicit sympathetic emotions for exceptional cases where there is a cute child or the government seems to have overreached or the loss of a highly qualified parent makes the gamble worthwhile but glosses over the inherent discrimination that created those scenarios in the first place. People don’t want to look at the bigger picture, they are happy to get self-righteous on a case by case basis but ignore or actively support the wholesale exclusion of disabled people.

Changing the law won’t erase prejudice and discrimination in Canada but it will make it harder for those with discriminatory attitudes to justify them. But first the Canadian government needs to address it’s reliance on that prejudice and set an example not only for Canada but for the rest of the world as well. It may become harder for other countries to rationalize their own discriminatory immigration laws with Canada leading by example and advocating for change.

In the end it will help disabled people at home and abroad.


The Sky is Green: On Autism Misrepresentation in the Media

This post contains spoilers for the CBS show Elementary, you have been duly warned.

When an autistic character shows up in film or television, they are far to often carbon copies of the same tired stereotypes. Monotone, savant level intelligence at math or math related field and of course the complete lack of social skills. There is very little variation here.

Cue last week’s episode of Elementary. BBC’s Sherlock’s American more humanized cousin. I suppose I ought to give them credit for trying to do things differently but they ultimately fail.

The show to it’s credit does try and do disability differently. Last season, the had a murderer with schizophrenia (nothing new here I know, crime shows love their mentally ill perpetrators). Unlike most crime shows which will throw a mentally ill perpetrator into the show if they’re to lazy to come up with a motive because “crazy” is a motive apparently. In the episode of Elementary, the schizophrenia is basically incidental as the character takes his meds and *gasp* has an actual motive for his crime. I’m still not sure if I think this is progress in portrayal of mental illness or not. Sure they toy will the whole unreasonable and erratic mental health stereotype but ultimately they take a different road to get to the same conclusion as so many crime shows before it. The person with the psychiatric diagnosis did it.

In this latest episode, they switch their focus to Autism where in keeping with their do things slightly differently but still rely on stereotypes M.O. they give us a character with “autism”.

Things they do differently,

  1. The character is a woman (when they are usually though not exclusively men)
  2. She uses self-labeling and refers to herself as Neuro-atypical ( a nod to the neurodiversity movement)
  3. She refers to others as neurotypical (though she withhold judgement on Holmes himself). This is her only moment where she shows any insight into the mental workings of others.
  4. They indicate that her “special interests” expand beyond her stereotypical vocation of computer programming. She also really likes cats (this might be a nod to the fact that women are often misdiagnosed or not diagnosed at all because our topic fixations are often more socially acceptable).

She is also treated differently than other autistic characters in crime shows. In keeping with the genre she is initially a suspect and when they go to her workplace to question her, her employer does what so many do when TV detectives come looking for an autistic suspect. He insists that she is innocent but is cryptic about how he knows this and insists that they’ll understand when they meet her.

If this were any other show, the autistic suspect would then be placed in an interrogation room where they would be unnecessarily harshly questioned until they have a melt-down and reveal their autism because no one had the decency to just tell the cops that they were autistic because where’s the drama in that?

Elementary sets you up for that but then doesn’t follow though because of course Sherlock Holmes can easily identify autism. Especially when it follows stereotypes so closely. The character is monotone and an extremely gifted coder. The icing on the cake of proof of both her autism and ignorance is that she can’t lie. He prompts her so say “the sky is green” which she refuses to do and appears to be very uncomfortable with the request.

I’m autistic, I’m a terrible liar  and yet I’ve managed to type “the sky is green” three times. Once in the title of this post and twice here. I don’t feel weird about it probably because I know that no one will believe it. If someone asked me to quote a lie knowing that we both knew the statement was untrue, I’d similarly have no issue with saying it.

Yet it is held up on the show as both the ultimate diagnostic tool and also evidence of innocence. We later learn the real reason that her boss knew she was innocent is because he was guilty. Autism was just convenient. It was a plot device.

These misrepresentations even when seemingly well-intentioned are harmful. They spread the lie that autistic people are basically carbon copes of one another with only minor variations. These are the kind of stereotypes that when widely accepted lead to us being described as people,

whose eyes are not windows to their souls but black mirrors

In widely circulated publications like the New Yorker. I’m not sure if this made it into their print publication or if it was only published online, either way the autistic community is understandably not pleased. The #NotBlackMirrors is going strong on Twitter.

It is time for the media to see autism as the spectrum it is and which they only pay lip service to acknowledging before falling back on stereotypes. This happens in both fictional ans supposedly nonfictional media.

As far as the media is concerned the spectrum is comprised of either people who are nonverbal and require constant care or people who are basically robots.

I mean, I’ll be honest, I’d love those math skills we’re all supposed to have. I passed basically every math class I ever took by the skin of my teeth with the exception of one anomalous B in grade 11. Seriously media, where are my math skills. I feel cheated.

But really being one or the other doesn’t really fit the definition of a spectrum now does it? Neither description is particularly accurate to individuals either. So I beg you, please do better, especially if you’re actually trying to convince people that your publication isn’t as fictional as a TV show.


Why Don’t You Just Drive?: The Difficulty of Publicly Legitimizing the Needs of an Invisible Disability

When I was in my early and mid teens, I was really excited about learning to drive. When I finally got old enough to start drivers ed at 15, I anxiously waited for my mother to sign the permission form.

These were the days before my autism diagnosis. They were hard years for me because I was so often confused which led me to have melt downs. These meltdowns were then misinterpreted by my parents as immaturity and anger management issues. So when I initially asked for permission to start driver’s ed, my mother said no. She expanded on her reasoning by citing my melt downs and expressing concern that I would be prone to road rage and might hurt someone.

This was a devastating thing to hear from a parent, that I was considered dangerous enough to be a significant risk to someone’s safety. I also disagreed with her and autism diagnosis and misinterpretation of my behaviour aside, I can now say for certain that she was wrong.

When I was finally allowed to take driver’s ed, the biggest barrier in terms of training was my cerebral palsy. Not because I physically couldn’t drive or believed that I couldn’t. I had grown up around a family friend who had an amputation at the shoulder, so I was well aware that you didn’t need two fully functioning arms to drive safely. My driving instructor on the other hand didn’t get the memo.

He spent an uncomfortable amount of time focusing on my cerebral palsy. He developed selective vision where I was concerned. He claimed I couldn’t do hand over hand steering, even though I can and he’d definitely seen me do it. So he suggested I use a device he called a “spinner” which is a knob that attaches to the steering wheel so it can be steered one handed. I found the device uncomfortable to use. When I took it home, my dad was shocked that I had been given what he called a “suicide knob”, as they allow the wheel to be jerked so quickly that you can actually flip the car. They are actually illegal for this reason. A fact my instructor had failed to mention. It is possible that if I had wanted to pursue using it, I could have gotten a legal exemption as an accommodation but the whole situation was just bizarre, particularly because, I genuinely didn’t need it and actually found it more difficult to use.

When I completed my driver training, the instructor gave me the lowest possible passing grade claiming that in our in car sessions, I had consistently only come to rolling stops at stop signs. Not only do I not remember doing this, he never once mentioned it. You would think that if I was consistently (or even once) making an error that it would be his job to point it out so that I could correct the behaviour. This grade and its justification is made all the more suspicious by the fact that he gave another classmate an A grade even though she had run a red light during one of her sessions.

I would love to say that I got my license to spite him but I never did. It wasn’t a case of parental discouragement either. I just actually hate driving. I find it really stressful and overwhelming. My reaction to this stress is not as my mother predicted to become angry, I just want to pull over and not drive anymore. I am certain my reaction to driving is actually directly linked to the fact that I’m autistic. It is rather interesting that the thing my mother was convinced (even though she didn’t realize it at the time) would make me a danger to myself and others actually keeps me from driving and by extension myself and others safe. I don;t say that because I think I would have gotten road rage had I continued driving autism meltdowns and rage are two separate things and I don’t think I was ever at risk of road rage.

I am generally comfortable with the fact that I don’t and as far as I’m concerned can’t drive. I take public transit and that for the most part works for me. I have however noticed that other people seem to have a big problem with it.

As someone who almost exclusively relies on transit to get around, I have at times been both a critic of the system and an advocate for better service. This was especially true when I was living in Regina because the transit system there is truly awful. It doesn’t run nearly often enough, the routes are not integrated well so it can take over an hour to get somewhere you could drive in under ten minutes. Regina Transit also has gaps in service, there are places (like the airport) buses just don’t go. They also run a very limited service on Sundays and often don’t run at all on holidays.

All of these things were problematic to me. I couldn’t consider a job at the airport because the bus doesn’t go there. If I was working on a Sunday, I had to make sure my schedule fit within the limited scope of the Sunday service schedule. Working on a holiday was basically impossible, even though I would have loved to take advantage of the higher pay.

I am also completely aware that poor public transit isn’t just a disability issue. It also has environmental repercussions and disproportionately hurts the poor.

Because transit was how I got around in my daily life. I would bump up against these issues and I would complain about them. Unfortunately people almost never agreed or sympathized with me. Instead I would get asked “well if transit is so bad, why don’t you just get your license?”

Here is where people treat visible and invisible disabilities differently. If I was clearly physically incapable of driving, I would never get asked that question. People might actually be sympathetic and start to think critically about the social ramifications of a terrible transit system. In this instance I’m specifically talking about the reactions of people I know. While I’ve definitely gotten the “just drive” response from acquaintances and strangers, I would never be so hopeful as to assume they would be sympathetic to issues of disability and transit. I’ve seen far to many people complain about wheelchairs on buses to be that optimistic.

These reactions come predominantly from family and friends. All they see is that I’m not physically incapable of driving. When I try and explain how uncomfortable and stressed driving makes me, I get brushed off. Even though I have long since been diagnosed on the Autism spectrum. They still come back with “everyone gets stressed sometimes, you just need to learn to get over it.”

It’s a clear case of people won’t deny what they can see (like physical disability) but will continue to misunderstand what they can’t.

These interactions are frustrating on so many levels. There’s the denial of my own experiences and reality. There is also the complete dismissal of the wider issues of poor transit. The big one that I really can’t understand is I’ve told them I feel uncomfortable on the road so why under those circumstances are they so comfortable with the idea of me driving?

I may be certain of my low risk for road rage, I am however not remotely so convinced of my ability to remain calm and focused. I may be able to stop at red lights or stop signs. I may know the protocols for a four way stop but I am less convinced of my ability to be prepared for the unexpected like children darting into the street. I don’t feel comfortable driving, so why are other people so comfortable trying to force me into that situation? It just seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

I live in Toronto now and the transit system is much more comprehensive though far from perfect. Here however, using transit as your primary way to get around is common and acceptable. Here I can criticize the transit system and have people nod in agreement and join in with their own complaints.

I would however like to be able to visit my home town without having the transit system tell me where I can go and when only to have my own friends and family tell me that it is my own fault when I complain.


Fighting My Internalization of the Hierarchy of Disability

I have had my autism diagnosis for a decade now and yet I often still hesitate to publicly identify myself with the label. For quite a while my Twitter profile only listed me as having cerebral palsy. I never thought twice about sharing that I had cp but I had misgivings about coming out as autistic. Ultimately I was more annoyed with my reticence to identify as having an Autism Spectrum Disorder, than I was about how being openly autistic might affect the way others perceive me. I however think that talking about why I felt that discomfort in the first place is important.

Disability, regardless of form or type comes with significant stigma in out society. That stigma leads to prejudice and discrimination, so it isn’t difficult to understand why some people who can hide their disabilities choose to do so. In the end it is a personal decision for which no one should be judged. But I already have a visible physical disability and cannot pass for nondisabled even if I wanted to, I’m already permanently labeled as disabled. So why do I feel compelled to hide my autism?

The answer to that lies in a phenomenon known as the hierarchy of disability. It is a social construct that makes certain kinds of disabilities more acceptable than others. It is an arbitrary system through which disabled people are judged and categorized and it’s something that many of us were taught (though often unintentionally) to internalize.

The basic idea behind the hierarchy is the prejudicial idea that disability is equated with being a burden or public nuisance (by this I mean that people are immediately forced to deal with the fact that the disabled person exists and might interact with them unexpectedly). So to maintain higher status a disabled person must not be perceived as either of those things.

Basically the less a disabled person makes the nondisabled majority think of other disabled people, the better. It’s why many nondisabled people are convinced that saying things like “You really don’t seem disabled” or “I don’t think of you as disabled” are compliments. What they are really saying is “I don’t associate you with all the negative things I think being disabled is”. It is also the root of the faux compliment widely hated by disabled people “you’re such an inspiration”.

It is all tied into associating disability with negativity but within the framework of the hierarchy, some people make out worse than others. People with intellectual disabilities or who are perceived to have intellectual disabilities are inevitably found near, the bottom.

None of that erases the prejudice and discrimination experienced by disabled people who are perceived  to be higher up in the hierarchy but it does come with privileges. Such people are at least socially often treated better and aren’t met with as much discomfort and fear.

In the end the hierarchy is flimsy though and requires the investment of time and effort of disabled people to maintain their status as less of a burden or nuisance because inevitably they enter new environments and meet new people who don’t automatically know where on the hierarchy, they stand. So depending on context a person’s position can go up or down at the whim of the nondisabled people around them.

And Disabled people do buy into this idea that they should avoid and shun other people with disabilities or deny themselves accommodations to be perceived as less of a burden. Buying in can seem like the only way to avoid a lot of self loathing. Plus believing yourself to be some kind of exception allows you to feel superior, like you achieved something.

Buying into the hierarchy also keeps disabled people separate from one another and keeps us divided. This is particularly problematic in terms of advocacy because either some people distance themselves from the disability rights movement altogether or have tunnel vision and ignore the needs of disabled people whose lives are different from your own.

Finding disabled people who buy into this idea isn’t hard. I’m not going to link to anyone because this post isn’t about judgement or blame. We are raised in this social construct and it is entirely understandable why people believe it.

I am guilty of it myself. It wasn’t until I started engaging with Disability Studies that I was even fully aware of how brainwashed, I had become and was able to begin dismantling those toxic ideas. My indoctrination was not systematic and the people who contributed to it had no idea they were doing it.

I grew up almost entirely cut off from other disabled children. The only contact, I had with them was tangential, when I went for physio or to the local rehab hospital for appointments or the odd event. I was aware of other disabled children but they were always separate often intentionally segregated in special classrooms that existed in hospitals or schools that I didn’t attend. It’s not hard to see how as a child who was almost universally mainstreamed that I came to the conclusion that I wasn’t like them. I would never have said that I was better than they were but the general discomfort I felt when I was around them shows that on some level I believed that I was.

On the rare occasions that I was enrolled in segregated activities with other disabled children, I chose not to engage and felt that the activities were too mundane (this is likely due to the fact that the organizers had no idea how to plan interesting activities for children with diverse disabilities). This only made me more convinced that I didn’t want to be grouped in with other disabled people. I began telling my mother, not to enroll me in such programs. It never occurred to me that the problem wasn’t the other participants but rather very poor planning and understanding on behalf of the facilitators.

As a child I had no formal accommodations in school, and on the rare occasions that I requested them, I was denied. The message that I shouldn’t have them was pretty clear (I had no idea until I was an adult that my rights had been violated).

Add to that, I was already feeling the widespread prejudice of being disabled. People would treat me like a toddler and use baby voices. I often felt compelled to say to people “I have a physical disability but there is nothing mentally wrong with me” (I cringe thinking about this now). It didn’t occur to me that their treatment of me was unacceptable period. Regardless of type of disability.

So when at eighteen, I was diagnosed on the autism spectrum it really threw me. On the one hand that diagnosis changed my life for the better in so many ways. I now understood my childhood so much more clearly. Understanding why I reacted to the world the way I do, helped me to put coping mechanisms in place.

It also opened the door for a lot of accommodations that I had been denied during my grade school years. Yet as I entered university, I hesitated in taking advantage of them. In fact, when one professor saw that I was struggling and recommended I seek accommodation, I was offended.

When I did finally seek accommodation I began to flourish academically which is what has ultimately allowed me to reach the academic level of PhD Candidate. Yet despite all the benefits not only the label and accommodations have afforded me, I still hesitate to publicly label myself because I know that the additional stigma of a DSM diagnosis confirms so much of the deeply held misinformation the nondisabled public has on disability.

Passing for neurotypical is both easy and hard. If I don’t identify, people don’t notice. At worse I come off as rude and standoffish. Yet the constant vigilance to police my own behaviour and function in society is exhausting.

Also I happen to really like myself and I am aware that autism plays a big part in making me who I am. If you removed my autism, I fear I would lose my self.

So for me, publicly identifying as autistic is not just a tool of public advocacy and identification with autistic community. It is also a rebellion against the parts of myself that were divide the disabled community and unify the dual parts of my disabled self.