I prefer the word "Social Security" to so-called "Welfare" - a term that I would like to see expunged from the bureaucratic lexicon.

What's wrong with "Welfare"?

Because W*lf*re suggests charity. It demeans unemployed recipients as "poor unfortunate souls" or losers at best, and scroungers and bludgers verging on criminality at worst.

Without beating the social constructionist drum too much, "Welfare" locates unemployment in the failure of the individual rather than in system failure. In fact, did you know that the western economic system*, requires at least 5% unemployment as fodder against inflation, and as a frightener to keep the great unwashed ready to accept poor terms and conditions.

Why is "Social Security" a better term?

Social Security

is another term for insurance that is owned by taxpayers, not corporations.
treats us as responsible adults who take out insurance against unemployment via our taxes. in case of disability or economic downturns.

Did you know that our economic system ("It" that cannot be named") actually depends on what is called a "Reserve Army of the Unemployed" which must be at at least 5%. Thus, shouldn't we be paying unemployed people a premium for carrying the system on our backs?

Social Security is insurance we all pay for in our taxes, lest we are unable to contribute due to unemployment or disability, or just needing some R&R time off. (When I say "all", I have heard rumours that the ultra rich have ways of weaselling out of paying any taxes at all )

The rest of us do not wish to be demeaned for system failure.

* I didn't want to frighten anyone off with the correct economic

term for our system,( the dreaded C-word)

Don't even look at Wikipedia on either #Neurodiversity or my profile "Judy Singer". These entries are either a clueless hodge-podge of misinformation by faceless, self-appointed, and clearly unqualified "editors" who rely on social media scuttlebutt or more sinisterly have been corrupted by malicious rivals in the field or their agents.

As for what these amateurs did to the "Judy Singer" and "Neurodiversity" page - it's beyond belief! Every single time I've found the courage to check Wikipedia over the past few decades, it has been utter garbage. But what can I do? Wikipedia's amateurs answer to nobody. I hope nobody here has ever relied on such a disreputable site. My official brief biography is on this blog. (NB, I have tried to fix the Wiki entries from time to time, so who knows? If they are unusally kind to me at any time, you can find the edit history of the trail of misinformation or disinformation there.)

The Wikipedia entries have constantly been hijacked by goodness knows who, but they appear to rely on evidence going back to the age of the dinosaurs, including among them:

the Anti-Neurodiversity Gang of Four, Clements. Mitchell et al, a bunch of 4 malcontents who claimed to be the "Autistic Dark Web" - all 4 of them (!). These lads pretended to represent a groundswell of opinion. But anyway they disappeared off the face of the earth years ago

Martijn Dekker, a non-academic who is clearly clueless about processes in the discipline of social sciences , and how academic theses and dissertations are officially verified and certified. Dekker has thus cooked up a load of resentful and uninformed allegations which I have refuted here
But more seriously, could it be that these libellous calumnies were inserted into Wikipedia by my academic rivals or their agents? I.e the recently formed actual collective of UK and USA academics, Chapman, Walker, and their less well known associates, Kapp, Botha, Stannard, Giwa Onainu.

?

These rivals rely heavily on Dekker's clumsy confabulations, which any actual academic or lawyer would laugh at. (I base this observation on experience, as I have shown it unofficially to a few such acquaintances). Dekker is lucky that, being in my mid 70s, I am not really about to spend my last years in litigation. Even if I could afford it, since even the meagre income I received from the occasional presentation has dried up, as potential employers have been scared off.

Thus this libellous crew have destroyed even my livelihood. I can only hope Dekker gets his Karma instead.

I suspect, and have had my suspicions confirmed by people in the field (who are afraid to speak out), that this is a "Revenge of the Trans" scenario. Thus I am especially disappointed that young women Monique Botha, Morenike Giwa Oneinu, and maybe Abs Stannard Ashley, have been gulled into attacking another woman. This is exactly what I warned against. It is so sad when women go against the interests of "sisters" at the behest of a couple of female impersonators... or is one of them, Robert J. Chapman a male impersonator? It's hard to tell. What was wrong with the honest label of #Tranvestite? If Chapman is a biological female or intersex, I can understand why they present themselves (ie. how s/he dresses) as male, given the intersectional disadvantages of being female continue to dog academia.

Just a reminder that I am not transphobic, I have no reason to be. Why would I champion diversity, if I was? For a start, we live in different subcultures and our paths rarely cross. But when our paths have crossed, I cannot say that, actually some of my best friends are Trans. Because the F--ing Nazis criminals ruined it with "Some of my best friends are Jewish". So I'm not about to start virtue-signalling. Draw your own conclusions.
However, I have been forced to become Walkerphobic and Chapmanphobic. These two presumably envious followers in my footsteps have used the climate of the times to attempt to clamber over me on the greasy pole of academic supremacy. (Note that I am not now, nor have I ever been, an academic. I was just an undergraduate, albeit mature aged, honours students). Unfortunately for these academic pole vaulters, the climate of the times have changed. It gives me no pleasure that Trump got elected and to find that trans overreach is considered partly responsible for this dreadful result.

Actually TBH, maybe I do hope they all get their karma. I'm no angel, and I wish them either repentence or reincarnation as Turtles in the next life. But unfortunately as a sceptical Western atheistic, I cannot take comfort from believing in "karma". Unless it comes in the form of the advent of a righteous pro-bono solicitor and a winning defamation suit. (Any takers out there? Please DM me. How an we lose?).

Wikipedias's Weasel Words

Last time I look in the shifting sands of Wikipedia, some faceless editor had downgraded my coinage of "Neurodiversity" by replacing "coined" with "popularised"

I hope this was just another random amateur. But if this was by or at the behest of the usual suspects: Nice try, guys! (And if I'm a wee bit paranoid, it doesn't prove they're not out to get me)

I did not merely popularize the term “Neurodiversity”.

I coined it in an academic thesis, which I completed and submitted to the University of Technology in September 1998. And the work was submitted at the same time to the then Open University Press, UK for inclusion in academic book series "Disability Discourse. (eds: Corker and French)".

Don't believe me? You can easily borrow a copy of this book at your local library or buy a copy at McGraw Hill who have now acquired the OUP UK. It is probable that it was through this that my work became somewhat known tp the general public.

My work was actually popularised by American author Steve Silberman in 2001 in Wired Magazine's 20th Anniversary issue devoted to the biggest ideas in its first 20 years of publication. It is still available online at Neurodiversity rewires conventional thinking.

Harvey Blume

Much is being made of Harvey Blume because he was the "first to publish the term".

Hardly surprising, given that he was a journalist with bylines in mainstream American media. While I was just an unknown Australian student.

Blume and I began corresponding in 1997, and I mentioned my ideas and to him by phone. But luckily for me, I have written proof. I referred to it in an email as early as 1997 prior to his using it in print, as shown in the facsimile below. As you can see, I didn't make an issue about it the text, because ofthe earlier phone conversation. Not to mention that who knew my idea would take off?

The fact that Blume published first was because he was a journalist with a few days turnaround, while my academic thesis which was submitted at the same time in 1998 as a book chaptes, was was not available till the following year. This is due to the fact that it takes much longer to publish a book than a magazine.

Not to mention USA Cultural Imperialism as we called it here in Australia. Blume had a wide audience in major USA media outlets. I was just a Australian mature age student. Note that Chapman in his book called me a "young Australian student" - just another sign of poor research. I was well into middle-age at the time. I am now well into my seventies. And frankly I did not expect to spend my retirement years dealing with defamation by a younger generation of contenders.

BTW , in Sage Journals, Chapman disputes my claim to coining the word because I didn't trumpet it. I think that says volumes about his ambition. I had no such ambition other than to tell my story, and complete my BA Honours.

Despite that, it is now absolutely GALLING that I keep seeing Blume getting equal billing for Neurodiversity.

Blume had no background or interest in the Disability Rights movement, or the Social Model of Disability, whereas it was based on my and my family's "lived experience" of intersectional disadvantage.
I worked hard over several years to get my degree and write my thesis

In short:

Blume got the term from me, used it once, then moved on to chase other rabbits.

Harvey and I continued to correspond for several years, though we moved on from the Neurodiversity issue after just a few post, to our other cultural and political interests. (I am currently considering publishing our extensive correspondence,)

I am sorry to report that Harvey Blume passed away in November 2023 after a hard battle with cancer. He was a brilliant man and a great loss to the world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Of course, wikipedia may have removed the line I am quoting by now.