So, I got bored and decided to turn a classic song into a Wrocky song. You know the tune, now sing along!
Doe, *SPOILERS*
Ray, what Harry shot at *SPOILERS*
Me, the one I ship with *SPOILERS*
Far, the location of *SPOILERS*
Sew, how the Healers fixed up *SPOILERS*
La, the song of the *SPOILERS*
Tea, a beverage offered to Harry by *SPOILERS*
And that brings us back to doe, doe... *SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS*
I don't actually ship myself with anybody but I couldn't think of anything funnier so, er, yeah. Just go with it.
Saturday, 6 July 2013
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
Obligatory Autism Awareness Month (OtAmAMon?) post
It hasn't been long since my last post but there are a couple of things I really wanted to say right now, and of course my style is completely erratic. No posts for months, then two in a week. Yeah.
I make no secret of the fact that I'm on the autism spectrum (diagnosis pending) and obviously April has been dubbed "Autism Awareness Month" by certain organisations. These are pretty much headed by one charity, Autism Speaks, and as such they offer a very one-sided view of the topic and the sort of awareness raised doesn't encompass everything it ought to. As such, this is a post on autism awareness from the perspective of somebody who is actually autistic with the sorts of things YOU ought to know about autism that charities headed by allistics (non-autistic people) don't, or can't, tell you.
There are already hundreds and hundreds of posts from other aspies and auties detailing precisely why nobody ought to be supporting Autism Speaks as a charity, so I shan't go into that here. However, I can say that the sort of support they raise over the course of the Awareness Month is typically of the collecting money (most of which will be spent on researching for a cure - therefore a waste of money) sort, in addition to spreading scaremongering about how "autism is a terrible thing" or "autistic people really want/need a cure!" or "look at the poor parents of these autistic kids who have to deal with a dependent behaving oddly all of the time!"
To those, I say: rubbish. While it's true that a select few aspies/auties wish for a cure, the vast majority of us don't. As an example, I wouldn't accept a cure if I were paid to - my autisticness makes up a large part of my personality, and although I am definitely eccentric, which some of the world might see as a bad thing, I wouldn't want to sacrifice my unique way of looking at things and penchant for logical thinking. Granted, a lot of people don't like me very much, but that doesn't matter to me and it shouldn't matter to you either.
Something Autism Speaks is particularly guilty of during the Awareness Month is drumming up loads of support for parents of autistic kids instead of the people who are actually autistic. Quite frankly, while it's fair to educate allistic parents about what sorts of behaviours to expect from their autistic kid, I think it's completely unreasonable to instead arm these parents with ways to suppress their kid's autism because they are unable to deal with the embarrassment of being the parent whose kid does and says some unusual things. Of course, letting parents know what to expect still isn't particularly important compared to educating autistic people. Seeing as the world was largely designed by allistics for allistics, there are many things about it which don't make sense to US. For example, I would be a happy bunny if somebody could write me out a guide with every "good" response to everything I could ever have said to me, so that I could avoid accidentally offending people (which is something I have a knack for), or some guide telling me exactly how to read people's intended implied meanings from their vocal intonation and facial expressions. However, that's not going to happen any time soon.
SO, seeing as we autistics are stuck in an allistic world, instead of trying to mould ourselves to that world and harming ourselves in the process (just trust me on that last bit, it can be harmful), it is quite right that allistics ought to just try slightly harder to make provisions for us, on the grounds that in doing so they really won't be going very far out of the way. As such, I propose that "Autism Awareness Month" be renamed "Autism ACCEPTANCE Month", as while "awareness" itself does pretty much nothing helpful to the group it's trying to help, acceptance that some people are autistic and have different requirements from other people is far more valuable.
Right, now I've established that, I'll start by giving you a short list of behaviours to expect from autistic people, the reasoning behind them and why you should be accommodating for them.
1. AVERSIONS: When an autistic person has a particularly bad aversion to something (be it texture, smell, taste, sound, colours, whatever) DO NOT force them to endure it if they don't have to. These aversions are caused by peculiarities in perception from sensory input, which is genuinely a thing, however hard you may find it to imagine, and the aversions can cause really quite serious sensations of disgust. For example, if I'm eating something and I find myself biting down on a piece of onion, however small, the texture causes mental discomfort that is so bad my brain starts screaming and I want to tear my own face off. Okay, I'm very slightly exaggerating that last bit, but it genuinely does make me want to curl up into a ball where I am and cry for days. Similarly, accidentally scratching cardboard or anything with a rough texture gives an uncomfortable shivering sensation which lingers for several seconds after contact with the surface has ceased. In short, some sensations must be avoided because of sheer overwhelmingness, and forcing an autistic person to deal with it is really not cool.
2. STIMMING: If an autistic person is drumming their fingers in a desk, flapping their hands about, jogging their leg, rocking or anything else along those lines, leave them to it. Don't draw attention to it, as this is how auties/aspies deal with aforementioned aversions. The way it works is that, as an example, the shivering sensation mentioned above might go away faster if the texture is replaced by something which feels nice, like the outside of an avocado. In situations involving movement, like hand-flapping, the movement gives the aspie/autie something else to focus on to drive away the overwhelming sensation of something unpleasant. Telling somebody autistic to stop stimming is the absolute least helpful thing you can do, as if we can't stim the unpleasant sensations don't go away, instead building up until our brains are screaming and we end up in a meltdown.
3. MELTDOWNS: These are like when an autistic person goes Blue-Screen of Death. Depending on the individual and severity of whatever drove us to a meltdown, this can vary between going non-verbal and unresponsive, abandoning whatever we're doing and just crying, general agitatedness, screaming fits and the like. The best thing you can do here is to check if the autie/aspie needs anything, like an avocado (or other stimming device), and just being patient. If the person tells you to go away, go away. Do not, under any circumstances, tell them to "grow up" or "stop it" or anything along the lines of "don't be silly, stop making things up" as this will likely prompt unstoppable rage and/or deep upset. Nobody ever fakes a meltdown as that would be totally pointless. Just accept it and be as helpful as you can. Do NOT attempt to force the autistic person to stop it as if we could, we would, and the knowledge that we're upsetting others makes US more upset (see? We're not empathy-lacking sociopaths) which only makes the meltdown worse. Remember, we're not doing this to inconvenience you.
I might add to this list as and when I can be bothered but I'm bored of writing at the moment so I'll leave it there for now.
But yeah, if you feel the need to donate to Autism Speaks this month, please don't. Give the money to the Autism Self-Advocacy Network instead. :)
I make no secret of the fact that I'm on the autism spectrum (diagnosis pending) and obviously April has been dubbed "Autism Awareness Month" by certain organisations. These are pretty much headed by one charity, Autism Speaks, and as such they offer a very one-sided view of the topic and the sort of awareness raised doesn't encompass everything it ought to. As such, this is a post on autism awareness from the perspective of somebody who is actually autistic with the sorts of things YOU ought to know about autism that charities headed by allistics (non-autistic people) don't, or can't, tell you.
There are already hundreds and hundreds of posts from other aspies and auties detailing precisely why nobody ought to be supporting Autism Speaks as a charity, so I shan't go into that here. However, I can say that the sort of support they raise over the course of the Awareness Month is typically of the collecting money (most of which will be spent on researching for a cure - therefore a waste of money) sort, in addition to spreading scaremongering about how "autism is a terrible thing" or "autistic people really want/need a cure!" or "look at the poor parents of these autistic kids who have to deal with a dependent behaving oddly all of the time!"
To those, I say: rubbish. While it's true that a select few aspies/auties wish for a cure, the vast majority of us don't. As an example, I wouldn't accept a cure if I were paid to - my autisticness makes up a large part of my personality, and although I am definitely eccentric, which some of the world might see as a bad thing, I wouldn't want to sacrifice my unique way of looking at things and penchant for logical thinking. Granted, a lot of people don't like me very much, but that doesn't matter to me and it shouldn't matter to you either.
Something Autism Speaks is particularly guilty of during the Awareness Month is drumming up loads of support for parents of autistic kids instead of the people who are actually autistic. Quite frankly, while it's fair to educate allistic parents about what sorts of behaviours to expect from their autistic kid, I think it's completely unreasonable to instead arm these parents with ways to suppress their kid's autism because they are unable to deal with the embarrassment of being the parent whose kid does and says some unusual things. Of course, letting parents know what to expect still isn't particularly important compared to educating autistic people. Seeing as the world was largely designed by allistics for allistics, there are many things about it which don't make sense to US. For example, I would be a happy bunny if somebody could write me out a guide with every "good" response to everything I could ever have said to me, so that I could avoid accidentally offending people (which is something I have a knack for), or some guide telling me exactly how to read people's intended implied meanings from their vocal intonation and facial expressions. However, that's not going to happen any time soon.
SO, seeing as we autistics are stuck in an allistic world, instead of trying to mould ourselves to that world and harming ourselves in the process (just trust me on that last bit, it can be harmful), it is quite right that allistics ought to just try slightly harder to make provisions for us, on the grounds that in doing so they really won't be going very far out of the way. As such, I propose that "Autism Awareness Month" be renamed "Autism ACCEPTANCE Month", as while "awareness" itself does pretty much nothing helpful to the group it's trying to help, acceptance that some people are autistic and have different requirements from other people is far more valuable.
Right, now I've established that, I'll start by giving you a short list of behaviours to expect from autistic people, the reasoning behind them and why you should be accommodating for them.
1. AVERSIONS: When an autistic person has a particularly bad aversion to something (be it texture, smell, taste, sound, colours, whatever) DO NOT force them to endure it if they don't have to. These aversions are caused by peculiarities in perception from sensory input, which is genuinely a thing, however hard you may find it to imagine, and the aversions can cause really quite serious sensations of disgust. For example, if I'm eating something and I find myself biting down on a piece of onion, however small, the texture causes mental discomfort that is so bad my brain starts screaming and I want to tear my own face off. Okay, I'm very slightly exaggerating that last bit, but it genuinely does make me want to curl up into a ball where I am and cry for days. Similarly, accidentally scratching cardboard or anything with a rough texture gives an uncomfortable shivering sensation which lingers for several seconds after contact with the surface has ceased. In short, some sensations must be avoided because of sheer overwhelmingness, and forcing an autistic person to deal with it is really not cool.
2. STIMMING: If an autistic person is drumming their fingers in a desk, flapping their hands about, jogging their leg, rocking or anything else along those lines, leave them to it. Don't draw attention to it, as this is how auties/aspies deal with aforementioned aversions. The way it works is that, as an example, the shivering sensation mentioned above might go away faster if the texture is replaced by something which feels nice, like the outside of an avocado. In situations involving movement, like hand-flapping, the movement gives the aspie/autie something else to focus on to drive away the overwhelming sensation of something unpleasant. Telling somebody autistic to stop stimming is the absolute least helpful thing you can do, as if we can't stim the unpleasant sensations don't go away, instead building up until our brains are screaming and we end up in a meltdown.
3. MELTDOWNS: These are like when an autistic person goes Blue-Screen of Death. Depending on the individual and severity of whatever drove us to a meltdown, this can vary between going non-verbal and unresponsive, abandoning whatever we're doing and just crying, general agitatedness, screaming fits and the like. The best thing you can do here is to check if the autie/aspie needs anything, like an avocado (or other stimming device), and just being patient. If the person tells you to go away, go away. Do not, under any circumstances, tell them to "grow up" or "stop it" or anything along the lines of "don't be silly, stop making things up" as this will likely prompt unstoppable rage and/or deep upset. Nobody ever fakes a meltdown as that would be totally pointless. Just accept it and be as helpful as you can. Do NOT attempt to force the autistic person to stop it as if we could, we would, and the knowledge that we're upsetting others makes US more upset (see? We're not empathy-lacking sociopaths) which only makes the meltdown worse. Remember, we're not doing this to inconvenience you.
I might add to this list as and when I can be bothered but I'm bored of writing at the moment so I'll leave it there for now.
But yeah, if you feel the need to donate to Autism Speaks this month, please don't. Give the money to the Autism Self-Advocacy Network instead. :)
Wednesday, 27 March 2013
It would be ace if ace aces got ace rights also
In typical Lowri fashion, I have come up with yet another ace idea which would solve all of the world's problems. Well, perhaps not all of them, but it's an issue I think a lot about. I have written before on the world's obsession with gay marriage, and I would like to propose a new three-type system (which would definitely NOT be tiers, as all would get the same legal rights) to deal with different requirements, while also clarifying some things I have previously argued.
I would first like to propose that the institution of marriage is the largest and most standardised of the three proposed classifications and would continue to be recognised by the Church. Under my definition, marriage would remain a romantic and physical bond between a man and a woman for the purposes of lifelong companionship and procreation where applicable (not everybody wants, or is able to have, kids). Simples.
I would like to continue by clarifying that while I do not support gay "marriage", this does not mean I'm homophobic or anti-gay. I personally believe that as a Christian I am called to love everybody equally (or rather, despise everybody equally as I am too flawed to love everybody - I make no secret of the fact that I am no messiah yet I am not particularly proud of my cynicism, however large a chunk of my personality I permit it to comprise) and to leave any and all judgement to God. I fully appreciate that being gay is not a choice and as such I do not think gays ought to be denied the legal rights an heterosexual couple would receive by being married. However, I do not think it would be correct to refer to such a legal partnership as marriage as the term "marriage" has always meant the joining of a man and woman in the eyes of the Church, and historically procreation. Seeing as many in the Church may not be willing to recognise such a partnership and procreation is definitely not a possibility, I think it would be a better idea to stick with the system currently in use in the UK which offers "civil partnerships" which carry the same legal rights as marriage and give gays the option to form a romantic companionship with another person in the eyes of the law.
Finally, I would like to propose a third option for a different group entirely: asexuals. The asexual community is one I definitely think is underrepresented as a whole, and there really isn't a lot done for asexuals besides mocking/ignoring/ignorantly contradicting us. The third option is one I like to refer to as platonic companionship, for those who either just have no interest in traditional marriage or civil partnership, such as the aforementioned ace community, particularly the aromantic ones, or even groups such as childless widows/widowers with no wish to be married again who could join up platonically with friends or relatives for the legal benefits of marriage, such as next-of-kinship et cetera. Obviously, this platonic companionship can be between a same-sex or opposite-sex pair and would be fully dissolvable in the instance of one or both parties wishing to marry or enter into a civil partnership with somebody else, and if both parties wished it the companionship could at any point be redefined into marriage or a civil partnership, provided the legal criteria for either have been met (for example it would not be possible for a brother and sister to upgrade to marriage as that would be illegal and SERIOUSLY squicky).
(Quick disclaimer: obviously not all asexuals are also aromantic, and those who are demiromantic, heteroromantic, homoromantic or anywhere else on the romantic scale would be applicable for marriage or civil partnership instead if they wanted one. I'm just pointing out that there almost certainly those of us aces who would be happier having an easy non-romantic option if they wanted the legal perks, which they would be quite right to, or to demiromantics who might take a very long time to build up a romantic relationship who could upgrade later on.)
Well, I honestly don't see how anything I have proposed could have offended anybody at all (which makes a change, I have to say) and I think the idea particularly of platonic companionships is a rather brilliant one. Equal rights campaigners, get on this! If nothing else, a platonic companionship would be perfect for shippers of the Sherlock/John bromance, which coincidentally is a completely perfect example of when a PC would be utterly appropriate.
I would first like to propose that the institution of marriage is the largest and most standardised of the three proposed classifications and would continue to be recognised by the Church. Under my definition, marriage would remain a romantic and physical bond between a man and a woman for the purposes of lifelong companionship and procreation where applicable (not everybody wants, or is able to have, kids). Simples.
I would like to continue by clarifying that while I do not support gay "marriage", this does not mean I'm homophobic or anti-gay. I personally believe that as a Christian I am called to love everybody equally (or rather, despise everybody equally as I am too flawed to love everybody - I make no secret of the fact that I am no messiah yet I am not particularly proud of my cynicism, however large a chunk of my personality I permit it to comprise) and to leave any and all judgement to God. I fully appreciate that being gay is not a choice and as such I do not think gays ought to be denied the legal rights an heterosexual couple would receive by being married. However, I do not think it would be correct to refer to such a legal partnership as marriage as the term "marriage" has always meant the joining of a man and woman in the eyes of the Church, and historically procreation. Seeing as many in the Church may not be willing to recognise such a partnership and procreation is definitely not a possibility, I think it would be a better idea to stick with the system currently in use in the UK which offers "civil partnerships" which carry the same legal rights as marriage and give gays the option to form a romantic companionship with another person in the eyes of the law.
Finally, I would like to propose a third option for a different group entirely: asexuals. The asexual community is one I definitely think is underrepresented as a whole, and there really isn't a lot done for asexuals besides mocking/ignoring/ignorantly contradicting us. The third option is one I like to refer to as platonic companionship, for those who either just have no interest in traditional marriage or civil partnership, such as the aforementioned ace community, particularly the aromantic ones, or even groups such as childless widows/widowers with no wish to be married again who could join up platonically with friends or relatives for the legal benefits of marriage, such as next-of-kinship et cetera. Obviously, this platonic companionship can be between a same-sex or opposite-sex pair and would be fully dissolvable in the instance of one or both parties wishing to marry or enter into a civil partnership with somebody else, and if both parties wished it the companionship could at any point be redefined into marriage or a civil partnership, provided the legal criteria for either have been met (for example it would not be possible for a brother and sister to upgrade to marriage as that would be illegal and SERIOUSLY squicky).
(Quick disclaimer: obviously not all asexuals are also aromantic, and those who are demiromantic, heteroromantic, homoromantic or anywhere else on the romantic scale would be applicable for marriage or civil partnership instead if they wanted one. I'm just pointing out that there almost certainly those of us aces who would be happier having an easy non-romantic option if they wanted the legal perks, which they would be quite right to, or to demiromantics who might take a very long time to build up a romantic relationship who could upgrade later on.)
Well, I honestly don't see how anything I have proposed could have offended anybody at all (which makes a change, I have to say) and I think the idea particularly of platonic companionships is a rather brilliant one. Equal rights campaigners, get on this! If nothing else, a platonic companionship would be perfect for shippers of the Sherlock/John bromance, which coincidentally is a completely perfect example of when a PC would be utterly appropriate.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
