Enough with the hearts & kisses signoffs already

I wish I had the courage to resist the overwhelming pressure to respond in kind to my women friends who sign off their messages with love hearts, flowers and cute kittens

And I'd love to have the courage to keep my business correspondence brief and to the point, to cut out all fake expressions of concern for the health of my creditors, and to stop worrying about what kind of "Regards" I should send. Because I can spend more time trying to figure that out than on the actual contents (see my earlier rant, Keep Calm and Carry on,  Regardless) 

Hell, it took me years to realise that you are not expected to actually feel what you say when you are being polite, and that when people ask "How are you?", the correct response is "Fine, thanks, and you?" and not a litany of everything that has gone wrong in your life in the past week. 

 https://www.wired.com/story/sustainable-
software-design-climate-change/

So, while fossicking around in the library today I came across this piece in Wired Magazine, and it might just give me the excuse I've been waiting for!

Did you know that if every adult in the UK sent one less "thank you" letter, it would cut 16 tonns of carbon per year ? See Wired ->

I’m stunned! 

Who knew that emails used so much carbon????????

The fact is that I am a nice, kind, caring person, but I don't know how to mimic myself in prose

I’m going to reveal the fact that for a whole lot of reasons listed below,  I don’t know how to write letters full of feminine niceness,
or even polite business correspondence

• NESB background
• with autistic mother who didn’t know how to do it either and was always floridly OTT with salutations straight from the 19th century Austro-Hungarian Imperial etiquette book
• a father who was never able to learn English,
• Didnt do business studies at school
• never got into dolls, hearts, flowers, 
• was never a popular girl but a nerd,

The fact is that women have a whole extra layer of social policing of behaviour that we must adhere to and monitor. 

And then there is: 

• signing off as Jx (the x’s at the end of my sign off came after years of duress and resistance) 
• I don’t like to hug or social kiss and its not because of sensory hypersensitivities. It is because it is
• dishonest to hug or kiss anyone you don’t really love let alone liek 
• a marker of status, where the popular people hug each other and the rest of us feel humiliated
• and sometimes NTs who love to hug and social kiss don't like Autistics

 

My experience as a "Computer Analyst Programmer": hard labor for the brain

Note:found this as a draft: Only published it 25/11/2024 but the published on date is correct. Its' probably incomplete 

More jobs mostly for the boys?

We'll never know unless these companies give actual intersectional statistics in their Annual Reports

Havent seen too many jobs advertised for autistic women's traditional specialties... all forms of writing, quiet achievement, acute outsider observation of group dynamics.

i speak as someone who, it is true, penetrated the IT world, because I'm "brainy" but actually hated it to the point where I was mired in depression for over 20 years, in a succession of jobs that were both infinitely boring and required immense concentration. I often wondered if I wouldnt be better off in production line of Queensland"s Golden Circle Pineapply Factory, the traditional hell that wannabe Uni DropOuts like me were threatened with ending up in. True I'd be on my feet all day with red raw hands, unable to talk to anyone, and up to the ankles in acid pineapple juice, but at least my mind could be free. Writing Cobol programs was actually a production line for the brain. 

In my early day in IT, so early that I wrote programs on punched cards, i remember a major insurance company, whose entire renewals program was written in a couple of weeks at the most, a long messy snakelike thing that curled in on itself, hideous to maintain, and, total hell for me as the poor sod that had to maintain it.

Then came modularization, ... production line stuff ...security modules, I/O modules, snapped together like Lego blocks, yet months long projects to implement. Full of Classical male aspies (undiagnosed, of course, in those days, but the sources of much gossip, mockery, at best, kindly speculation about what childhood trauma caused their odd behaviour). Anecdotally, in pretty much the same proportion as AS in the general population. Aspie women, I dont remember, but it was one of the first professions, apart from Medicine and Dentistry in which women had an opportunity to earn good money beyond office work. Although we could be teachers and nurses etc of course. But good money? Some things still havent changed. Most of the women were NT, very bright, and generally team leaders, systems analysts, and socially adept, initially Anglo, then increasingly Asian as we became a more multicultural society. I was a fish out of water. My interests were socio-political, I was left-wing in world of mostly liberal voters who drove me crazy with their complacent WASPIsh attitudes. I was, however, popular at work. I have AS obsessive traits from my mother, easygoing NT and ADHD "lad" traits from my father. I knew how to shoot the breezewith the men with my "masculine" brain.

Meanwhile, my nights were hell. at night, insomnia, in anguish, terrified that I could not survive another day in an atmosphere devoid of stimulation, pretending to look busy hour after hour, when there was nothing to do, going to long lunches with a bunch of unconscious people who didnt even know they were so alienated at work that the whole industry was fuelled by alcohol(ism). While i endured, sober... well semi-sober...And yet, without any family support, financial or emotional, a total inability to "Sell myself", i was terrified of ending up on the streets, if I didnt. How i did survive is another story.

So, my mind wonders... i havent written a lot about myself, bu

Volunteering on Boards: Empowerment or exploitation?

Note:found this as a draft: Only published it 25/11/2024 but the published on date is correct. It is  probably incomplete 

It's always an honour to be asked by an organization to become a Board member or Advisory Panel member to be "a voice" with "lived experience". And it is indeed empowering to meet with powerful people and get an insight into how decisions are made "at the top". But after a while you begin to wonder.

I volunteered on Boards for decades. It began when I became the sole parent of an autistic child. Most carers find it impossible to retain their careers so many turn to volunteering in order to remain useful members of society. Initially I found volunteering to be stimulating and empowering until I began to wonder if I was allowing myself to be taken for granted and exploited. 

Bottom line, I now find myself to be an age pensioner who cannot even afford my medical bills. 

They like to say "Time is Money" in business. But it's your time, their money. 

Now that's a wake-up call.

Don't end up like me at retirement! 

Think of the metaphor of  "The Boiling Frog". They say if you put a frog in water and up the temperature very very gradually, it doesn't notice before its too late. Result: one dead boiled frog.

So don't be mad at me because I am now scrambling to commodify myself before its too late.

It would be great if you shared your experiences in the comments, either in your own name, or anonymously if you are worried about exposure

And then let's see where it goes. 

Boiling Frog Image Attribution
https://www.flickr.com/photos/

65694152@N08/5983908269/

Explaining Neurodiversity

I am generally credited with being the originator of the term Neurodiversity while writing a sociology honours thesis,"Odd People In: a personal exploration of a new social movement based on neurological diversity" (UTS Sydney 1998). 

I did not define the term, thinking its meaning self-evident. Since then there have been a proliferation of definitions, and as I expected, most people intuitively "get it". But inevitably, some definitions seem to me to miss the point, especially when they take neurodiversity to be a synonym for "neurological disability". 

While I understand that language evolves and changes, I am determined to defend my intuitive understanding of the term vigourously, and have thus unpacked the complex meaning furled within it. 

To read my definition, click on the "What is Neurodiversity" tab above, or here

Contents

1. What Neurodiversity is
2. What Neurodiversity is not
3. What the Neurodiversity Movement is
4. Fundamental Principles
5. Neurodiversity and Conservation
6. The Dark Side of Neurodiversity
7. Neurodiversity and Eugenics
8. Neurodiversity and "Difference vs Disability"
9. The Future of Neurodiversity

If you are interested in going to the primary source, see my republished thesis 

Carry On Regardless!

Am I the only one who can spend more time agonizing about what kind of “regards” to send in a business letter than on writing the whole damn letter?

I’ve had enough, I just can’t take it anymore,

I. AM. NOT. DOING. IT. ANY. MORE!

Life is too short!

One of my autistic traits is that I am ALWAYS sincere. (Well, almost always, unless I have been taught to fake it for the sake of self-preservation in a dog-eat-dog world business world, where duplicity is the norm, and actual sincerity is viewed with suspicion).

In this world, I understand the Regards Hierarchy thus:

1. Kind regards
   Opening gambit: we haven’t met yet, so let’s be civilized, and let me assure you that I don’t intend to rip you off, while keeping you at a polite distance
   
   
2. Warm regards
   The next round: We still haven't met, but let’s pretend we are practically bosom buddies
   
   
3. Just plain unqualified Regards
   Uh-oh!
   
   
4. [Regards omitted]
   We have engaged the services of a Debt Collection Agency

I CAN’T DO THIS! I do not know you! It is literally painful for me to protest emotions that I do not, cannot, have. All I want is a job/a gig/a refund/more time to pay! Why else would I be writing? I don’t know which adjective to use! This is taking me forever! Can we please just get on with it?

Although, I must admit, when someone sends me their “Highest Regards”, I’m like “Wow, reeeeeeeeeeaally? Well OK, if you insist!”.

To avoid drowning in this quagmire,  I have composed the following sign off:

Disclaimer: the absence of “Regards” and other salutations and protestations of sincerity in this letter do not signal hostility or unfriendliness on my part.They are merely a recognition that this is a business transaction between people who do not know each other. Sincerity is assumed, unless the matter needs to be taken to the courts.

Related Issue: Kisses

How many x’es in a sign off between friends?

I usually sign letters to female friends as “Jxx”, which seems to me to be just right.

One “x“ would seem too perfunctory, too cold, almost a matter of form,  while xxx seems unnecesarily effusive. After all, we should know each other well enough by now to know that of course we have a warm friendship, while not denying that nobody is perfect, and frankly, sometimes we do piss each other off.

This works for me, until someone ruins it and escalates with an extra “x”.

What to do? Should I respond in kind, or will this signal the beginning of an arms race of x’es?

And what if someone then trumps everything with a capital X????

Armageddon!

And let’s not even talk about the delicate situation with male friends. So many worrying factors to consider. If I use an “x”, will they feel their manhood threatened? Will they worry that I consider them effeminate? What will their wives think? Will they think I’m offering them a sexual liason? 

Best not to even go there.

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

Yes, folks, my mind really does work this way. I’m serious!

What is wrong with this Wikipedia definition of Neurodiversity?

This is a typical definition of Neurodiversity found at random on the web. There are innumberable such, all referring to "normal" variations. 

First, it's important to be wary of the "passive voice" which confers authority by fudging who is speaking. If there is an omitted "by" in the sentence , it's worth asking "by whom". So... 

Regarded by whom? I submit: by an echo chamber of Wiki editors rephrasing earlier Wiki editors. In true viral mode, these definitions  were then adopted by myriad respectable institutions and replicated ad infinitum. 

Who can blame them? Nobody owns the term. I never defined it either, thinking its meaning self-evident. Nevertheless I will put my oar in based on the intuitive Aha! moment I had while writing the work that contained it.

And for goodness sake, do NOT go to Wikipedia for a definition of Neurodiversity. It seems to be changed almost daily by heaven knows who, and it is clear that most of these people don't "get it", they just mash up earlier misconceptions. 

Neurodiversity is not a judgment. It has nothing to say about Normality or Morality. 

Neurodiversity names a biological reality, the virtually infinite neuro-cognitive variability within Earth’s human population.  It points to the fact that every human has a unique nervous system with a unique combination of abilities and needs. That is all. 

Normality is a socially constructed term originating in the 19th century mostly for the use of the bogus science of Eugenics (see my thesis for more detail on the construction of normality). 

I recognize that words evolve beyond their origins by way of a dialectical process. But for the record, I intended the word 

• to function as an addition to the toolbox of intersectional analysis and 
• to suggest a name for the emerging 1990s civil rights movement of NeuroMinorities

And it should never be used as a synonym for Neurological Disability, so that respect for Nature’s awe-inspiring variability and its challenge to our ethics and practices becomes the latest stigmatized term for “the Other”.

We are not "The" Vulnerable: the dangers of the definite article

Before you talk of "The Vulnerable", ask yourself by what means a significant proportion of the populace is rendered vulnerable

Summary

• I propose that the term "The Vulnerable" is a depoliticized euphemism for people who require social security support due to structural injustice as much as to inherent disability
  
  
• I further argue that applying the definite article "The" to minorities is a powerful method of othering them
  
  
• While some of us may be inherently vulnerable due to heredity, injury, or life stage, as soon as we require government supports and services, this linguistic sleight of hand subtly strips us of our strengths, our agency, our capacity for choice, and our status as citizens
  
  
• Thus reduced to the faceless"Other", we do indeed become vulnerable to stereotype, stigma, pity, and finally compassion fatigue
  
  
• And when compassion for minorities is exhausted, all of us become vulnerable to being divided and ruled by the worst of populist demagogues

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

This came to me while I was listening to a presentation by an Emeritus Professor of Sociology who I admire for their life-long dedication to social justice. Though I am in awe of their work, I found my hackles rising as the speech went on. It soon became clear why. It happened every time they used the term "The Vulnerable", as in:

"We" must do more to help "The Vulnerable".

Now I knew this was well-intentioned shorthand for a birgeoning list of marginalized populations too long to itemize: including the many people at the bottom of the socio-economic heap who require require social security to survive: these include people who are: sole parents, disabled, carers, retirees without superannuation, public housing tenants, unemployed, homeless, indigenous, refugees, diasporized, working poor and more. BTW you may notice that many of these groups are overwhelmingly female.  

"Hello", thought I, "I am, or have been, all of the above except homeless and indigenous. But I thought I was part of the concerned and enlightened 'We' attending this symposium, not one of  'Them'!

Suddenly I felt like my sense of competence and belonging was at risk of being ripped away, revealing the tragic mask of "The Vulnerable". 

Can "we" avoid imagining ourselves in the Blue Mask
when we consign others to "The Vulnerable" bin?
Image by John Hain from Pixabay

Well! I was damned if I would allow myself to be consigned to that nameless mass of the wretched of the earth, "The Vulnerable Others". I consider myself and many of my ilk to be smart, resourceful and resilient people who struggle to survive trauma and deprivation, and yet give back to society when we can. Whether via the energy we put into voluntary work, into caring for family, or in the taxes we paid in our working life, before discrimination, (you know the intersections I'm talking about ), unequal wages, carer responsibilities etc shut us out of paid work. 

So what does "vulnerable" actually mean? 

I disregard the concept of "showing vulnerability" as popularised by Brene Brown, since that is a personal choice, not something imposed from above.

From the definition on the right,  it is clear that while people in need of special care - due to youth, old age, or disability-  may be inherently vulnerable to risk, the rest of us rendered vulnerable by exposure to harmful agents or agencies

We are all vulnerable to having something done to us, whether by neglect, prejudice, greed, irrational belief in inhuman ideologies legislated by people with money or power. 

We are all vulnerable to the actions of unregulated enterprises, landlords and employers; predatory pedagogues and priests; inadequate social security entitlements,  the policies of neo-liberal ideologues, the incitements of tabloids, and more. 

People who are already inherently vulnerable are made more so by governmental failure to fulfil their duties of care, whether financial, or through a failure of regulation. 

I'd rather be called by the good old Aussie term, Battler. Because battling to keep our heads above turbulent economic waters is exactly what most of us do. 

Because what happens when everyone is lumped under the rubric of "The Vulnerable"?  I say it lumps everyone under the same heading of "there's something wrong with them" rather than "there is something wrong with society". Hello, Social Model... 

Some alternatives to "The Vulnerable" 

• Battlers
• Social Security Recepients (including those who should be but have been denied) 
• People made vulnerable by social inequities and exclusions
• Structurally Disempowered People
• Socio-Economic Minorities
• Be specific: unemployed people, sole parents, people shut out from labour markets by age or disability prejudice, people who cannot work and cannot survive on an inadequate pension.

---

Is "The" the most dangerous word in the English language? 

I have heard it described as such. Don't ask me where, but it certainly resonates.

Obviously the definite article is hardly dangerous when referring to places and things: the garden or the desk in the study 

But when it comes to humans and their collectives (by ethnicity, gender, class, ability etc) history has demonstrated that the danger is real.

Why? Because "the" presumes that the thing being defined is already known, that "we" share a common understanding of its referent, that the meaning attached to it is obvious, self-explanatory, and thus must be universally acknowledged by all sensible people. In short, indisputable common knowledge.

The question is, who defines what this "obvious" understanding is? Who "owns"the stereotype? Too often, the "obvious" is defined by the dominant culture and is used to stereotype and devalue minorities.

For a more indepth contemporary explanation, check out "Linguistics explains why Trump sounds racist when he talks about The African -Americans". (though I think the author is being a little too polite to Trump... )

Thought experiment 1

Look at each item on this list. Shut your eyes. What is the first image, thought, or other sensation that rises in your mind? (Don't censor it. If something ugly comes up, don't feel guilty. Remember, you are just reproducing a socially implanted prejudice. It's not your individual fault. What matters is how you act on a prejudice once you recognize it for what it is)

• The Blacks
• The Feminists
• The Gays
• The Jews
• The Neurodiverse
• The Neurotypical
• The Vulnerable
• The Whites 

If you belong to a minority, you may use those terms positively, yet when used by the dominant culture they are more likely to trigger feelings of how you have been hurt by stereotypes. Even if the dominant culture uses them positively, it’s still dangerous. Who hasn't heard the following? 

I can’t be racist because I admire ... [... the Blacks for their athletic prowess, the Jews for their cleverness, The Neurodiverse for their uncomplaining productivity, the Autistics for their genius with IT, the Aborginals for their wonderfully primitive art...]

In short, a great formula for the exploitation of minorities, lest they try to compete with the dominant culture and excel in any field that has not been alloted them.  

An interesting note: we do not often hear “The Autistics”. Perhaps our culture is wising up somewhat. Certainly linguistic research suggests that this reductionist usage of the definite article is in decline. 

Thought experiment 2

Even worse, look what happens when we make the group name singular, so that a whole minority becomes telescoped into one single inndividual.

Without censoring yourself, what image was planted in your mind by racist cartoons depicting "The Aboriginal" “The Jew”, “The Negro”, "The Blonde". Were they old or young, male or female, dangerously clever or stupidly suited only to menial work, ugly or beautiful?

When referring to human collectives:

• simply leave out “the”
• turn the word into an adjective: the Gay Movement,
• qualify it: a few/some/many/most disability activists

Correction

 

Are these common socio-political terms doing more harm than good?

 

Are these prominent taken-for-granted terms in the medical and sociological lexicon doing more harm than good? I've often wondered. I realise my chances  chances of shifting these entrenched concepts are slim, but I offer up these ruminations as  food for thought.  As always I  recognize that language evolves and my objections may not resonate especially with younger generations. 

Assess, assessment, assessor  Dementia   Race The Vulnerable   Welfare

A list of specific arguments and alternatives for these individual term here

Most of us use these words with the best of intentions of promoting health, wellbeing, and social justice.

But I see these words as problematic for a variety of reasons. Including that some

• breathe life into outdated and pernicious concepts that are best forgotten, 
• are frequently misunderstood, 
• some
• trigger extreme emotional reactions and conflict or
• embody the language of dominance and submission

I base my ideas on Richard Dawkins' Meme Theory or Memetics: 

Memetics are analogous to genetics. Memes are ideas and thoughts that reproduce similarly to viral genes. You could consider them as thought viruses, transmitted from host to host by discourse, i.e. by communicating them by any medium.  Once  we “hear” a meme, our minds become its hosts, ready to transmit it to other minds.  A meme's strength grows every time it is transmitted. 

And here is the bad news for those who care about the common good: 

Whether you are for or against a meme, as long as you transmit it, its power grows. It doesn't matter whether your intent is Pro-social or Anti-social. 

The only way to attenuate a virus is to try to fade it out. 

A perfect example:  I have often said to people who want to stamp out the Neurodiversity Movement,

As long as you keep talking about the Neurodiversity Movement,  you are the Neurodiversity Movement!

The Race Meme

One well-known thought virus is the idea of "Race"

While the term "Race" has a long history, its current usage as a tool of discrimination dates back to the pernicious "discoveries" of 19th century pseudoscientists. Their claims that there are vast genetic gulfs between different ethnic groups, have long been  refuted "Race" is not a biological fact. It was socially constructed for anti-social ends, as an artefact of European colonialism which need to justify its enslavement, exploitation and robbery of the "Other" and ended up in the horror of the Nazi holocaust Nevertheless as long as the word exists, it continues to spark bigotry. We have a problem:  while Race is not real, Racism is.  Therefore in order to fight Racism we are inadvertently keeping the bogus concept of Race alive.

Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is a pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism, racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific.Wikipedia

To reiterate the Bad News: whether you are a Racist or an Anti-Racist, as long as you keep mentioning Race,  the false idea that “Race” is a biological reality persists and grows stronger

Possible Solutions: 

• Use Prejudice, Bigotry or Hatred instead because they can be qualified by their objects. e.g. Prejudice against [Minority Group]
• Always put scare-quotes around "Race"

---

Assess / Assessment/ Assessor

What’s wrong with it?

The current usage of Assessment has segued from its official meaning below,  to the accepted term for the process by which the Helping Professions diagnose individuals, often for the purpose of determining their eligibility and entitlement to benefits.

But check out the dictionary meanings e.g. 

The dictionary.com definition of the verb "Assess" 

 

   

To assess means to oversee a complete set of information and make an overall judgment. 

It's fine to assess inanimate objects: documents, sites and situations. But one flawed human cannot “judge” another human in their entirety.

This language signals an awkward power relationship especially when Helping Professionals are in theory ethically required to be "on the side of" their client, and their interests. Yet when they take on the role of Assessors, they are placed in the difficult position of serving two masters. They become the gatekeepers of  "welfare" systems 

It is dehumanizing to treat humans as objects to be assessed.  Especially when it involves the reduction of individuals to fit to criteria or boxes to tick which in most cases, and especially in NeoLiberal, are chiefly concerned with minimizing taxes and welfare expense. 

Thought experiment: 

Visualize the scene of an Assessor assessing the Assessee: Who sits where? What is their spatial relationship, and what does it signify

This is NOT a criticism of individuals - often social workers and other helping professionals, mostly women, I imagine. In my experience, helping professionals do their best not to dehumanize their clients but to make the welfare system work for them.

My criticism is of neoliberal "welfare" systems and their language of “power over” 

Replacement: 

• Consultation
• Social Security Eligibility Interview
• Social Security Advice and Advocacy Service

Dementia

What’s wrong with it?

Dementia is one of the most terrifying words in the English language, that's what! It's up there with Schizophrenia, though it isn't as scary to look at. 

Dementia is un unhappy ending you can start dreading just prior to turning 30.

It terrifies by implying a total loss of mind.

It is soaked in stigma. Especially as it is horribly reminiscent of demented (crazily dangerously insane), or “dementors” (fictional evil beings).

The reality: most often a gradual loss of memory and functionality and a part of Neurodiversity. 

Whether this loss of cognitive functions becomes a negative or positive experience is largely dependent on the kinds of accommodations that are  offered and the attitudes of the people around you. 

But like everything that affects the human mind/body, it doesn’t mean that some people won’t suffer. Im not against a cure. I just want to say to the psycho-medical profession, “Change the name” and stop terrifying us. 

Replacement:

• Semnesia (loss of memory due to ageing or premature ageing)
• Vascular Semnesia or 
  
• The name of the specific syndrome. e.g Alzheimer's Syndrome

The replacement should evoke respect for elders, suggest a gradual turning inward and withdrawal from the day-to-day in preparation for death and a gracious acceptance of help by those who have made their contributions to society and more…

Poverty

What’s wrong with it?

It is loaded with stigma. It shames and devalues individuals

It hides structural injustice - the reasons behind individual poverty

Replacements: 

• Impoverishment reminds us that social forces often cause poverty, and not necessarily the fault or choice of an individual 

The categories of Intersectionality

In my original work I proposed a new category "Neurodiversity"  to be added to the "Intersections of Class, Race, Gender, Disability". This was before I had heard the term "Intersectionality". I now have reservations about Intersectionality and Identity Politics, even though I was an eager early participant. But that is a huge topic out of the scope of this blog post. 

The original Intersections were Class, Gender, Race, Ethnicity. Disability

These are unlikely to changed in the near future, but FWIW this is how I see them.

It seems to me that Intersectionality refers to the categories of Heritage. Thus my favoured terms are Asset Heritage, Genetic Heritage, Ethnic Heritage, Deep Heritage

I have singled out Race because it is the only descriptor that has no scientific validity, either within the natural sciences or the social sciences. It is thus an especially harmful and pernicious memetic concept that should ideally be dimmed out of our consciousness. The derivative "Racist" however is of some utility if the original meaning of  "race" is forgotten. 

A disclosure of my status on these is on my To-Do list in the biography of this blog. In the meantime it  can be gleaned from my book. 

Original	How I see it
Class	Asset Heritage differentiated as   Inherited Capital Assets   Inherited Cultural Capital
Disability	Genetic Heritage  Disambiguate into Ability Difference Impairment
Race and Ethnicity        Racism Racist	Combine into Ethnic Heritage  Differentiate into   Deep Heritage or  GeoHeritage    Ethnic Identity   Dominant ethnic groups Minority ethnic groups    Bigotry  Bigoted
Gender	Differentiate as biological sex including intersex   gender identity sexual orientation

So-called "Race"

What’s wrong with it?

The term is irretrievably mired in an ugly morass of misconception and the worst of human impulses. While science shows there is no such thing as “Race”, we cannot deny that there are clusters of superficial traits of appearance that originate from our early geographical dispersal, which allow the identification and mistreatment of minorities. 

Replacements:

• Deep Heritage
• GeoHeritage
• Diaspora Minorities

To my mind, Deep Heritage resonates with deep respect for our ancient origins, our extraordinary adaptations to the diverse planetary regions our ancestors dispersed to, and the rich cultural styles they developed. It is a constant reminder of the genius of human creativity. 

 

But what about the derivatives, Racism, Racist, Racists?

Since the noun ‘race’ is discredited, why use the derivatives?

Because they remain useful in political action. 

On the other hand,  the adjective Racist is so overused that it has become the subject of endless denial and fruitless passing the moral hot potato.  We've all heard

“I’m not a racist, but...”

Which switches focus from the big picture, that hatred of the “Other” eventually rebounds on all of us, to a defensive individual reaction that derails further discussion and entrenches prejudice. 

Thus the association with science legitimizes it amongst those who use it ignorantly. 

Do we need replacements?

Language is dynamic and we do not remember the origins of the words we use. The best hope is that the derivatives are decoupled from the pseudoscientific R-word as it is gradually forgotten. Replacements need to signal strong cultural disapproval, thus:

• Bigotry, Bigoted, Bigots

Or, as  #BlackLivesMatter shows there are other positive ways to fight for minority rights for diaspora peoples

Welfare

Thought experiment

Imagine a person or people “on welfare”, imagine a government "welfare" agency. What images come to mind? 

What's wrong with it? 

Like the word “vulnerable”, Welfare suggests passive recipients who are devoid of agency, initiative, and capacity for choice. 

Replacements:

• Social Security

The word security reminds us that this is a form of insurance

Social Security is that portion of the tax that most of the currently “able” pay forward against future incapacity or misadventure whether to themselves or their families. It also comes out of general revenue, which is why it is important that business pay their taxes, and why corporate tax-dodging is so reprehensible.

 

---

Covid Days: Minimizing friction in close quarters

My daughter and I had "The Big Covid 19 Discussion" about how we were going to manage an indefinite period of isolation in close quarters together. We came up with this list which she has transcribed for anyone who is interested.

Most importantly, let's realise it will be impossible to avoid friction entirely, however we can take steps to keep it to a minimum.

1. Remember that the other person is not a mind reader – if you aren’t sure what the other means, ask politely. If there is a misunderstanding, don’t apportion blame, just work it out between yourselves.
2. If the other person appears irritable, take a moment to recognise that it may not be about you.
3. Take a moment before responding – this is IMPORTANT!
4. Remember, we are not multi-taskers!!! One instruction at a time, otherwise it is confusing and stressful.
5. If someone is engaged in a task, realise they may need time to finish that task before moving on to the next thing.
6. Words/phrases to avoid: “Well – “(said defensively).
7. THINK before acting
8. No SUDDEN moves
9. No snatching!!!
10. Knock before entering a room
11. Put aside whatever you’re doing in that moment and give your full attention to the other person if they want it.
12. Modulate tone of voice and facial expressions when conscious of it, but DON’T suppress feelings. We know that VENTING is important, and we can work it out. After every storm, there is a rainbow.
13. If grievances arise, take a breath and air it calmly. Do NOT bottle it up. If you hold it in, it will only EXPLODE later.
14. Respect the other’s need for space. If they say they need some down time, then respect their wishes. They will find you again when they are ready.
15. Remember to use the magic word when requesting that something be done.

Remember, our moods and interests are not always in harmony. Sometimes we may not be able to enjoy what the other is enjoying – though often we do! It’s temporary, not the end of the world

And finally, enjoy dancing, singing, laughing, and telling stories together!

Through a glass screen, darkly. Coronavirus thoughts

After 7 decades of frenetic rebuilding after the unique horrors of  World War II, Nature has reasserted itself, and is forcing us to take a Sabbatical.  

With all our human ingenuity and creativity, we have accelerated to excess, as we in the advanced capitalist world have failed to exercise enough self-discipline and self-reflection, thinking there was always going to be more, more more. 

We now have the time to reflect on how we came to be at this junction. Here we find ourselves, isolated cells sitting alone in a network of cables, seeing the world and our friends literally “through a glass, darkly”. 

Perhaps this pause will cause us to think creatively about ways forward, although IMO we need less "creativity" and more "receptivity". 

In my sociology days, as I became disillusioned by the simplistic binary division then in vogue, between the "social" and "medical" models, I came to envisage “Culture” as a rubber band attached to “Nature”. 

With all our ingenuity, we can only pull away so far before the band snaps us back. 

Or breaks.

We now wait and see who will bend and who will be broken.

Crisis, opportunity. The world turns. I wish I could pray to a Parent Figure in the sky to fix it for us, myself, my near and dear, and my ever-widening circles, but its now time to wish everyone well, watch and wait, and hope we all weather this somehow and get some wisdom in the process

Crisis, opportunity.

That troublesome adjective "Neurodiverse"

The Adjective "Neurodiverse” has become so popular in common usage  as a synonym for “neurologically different", and is so entrenched in both organizational jargon and personal identification that it seems churlish to quibble that it is linguistical irrational and ultimately damaging to the cause.

To my horror, it’s even in the Oxford Dictionary, doing the work of dividing a group called "US" from a group called "THEM"!

Neurodiversity like biodiversity, is literally a feature of the planet not a synonym for "Neurologically Other"

We humans are NOT Neurodiverse 

Not individually. Not collectively.

The PLANET is Neurodiverse

Just no!

The importance of language

It seems there are two kinds of people in this world

1. Those who believe that language matters and it's important to get it right
2. Those who believe "Never mind the language, let's just get on with the job"

Naturally, I prefer the first mob. (See below for an example of a perfectly useful, necessary and innocuous adjective permanently ruined by misuse. I refer to the statistical term "Deviant")

But I do waver in my linguistic perfectionism from time to time, as I try to weigh the pros and cons of undermining a juggernaut of change. After all, if all the organizations springing up for the "inclusion of neurodiverse people" are making the world a better place, why complicate things with my obsession with linguistic purity ?

How it ends lies with all of you.

My linguistic point

I have been rightly reminded by Martijn Dekker and others, that my earlier statement that we are ALL “Neurodiverse” is wrong. . But saying that NONE of us are Neurodiverse is equally wrong. I hope my argument below makes it clear. Both are wrong, because ND is a descriptor of the planet, never of individuals. 

Logically speaking, Neurodiverse is an imaginary and irrational adjective, somewhat like an imaginary number, (the square root of a negative number which cannot logically exist) 

This usage of “neurodiverse” cannot be based based on "biodiverse", because that adjective only exists for the comparison of ecosystems, as in "The Amazon Delta is more biodiverse than the Sahara Desert"

Since Homo Sapiens has colonized the whole planet, the only thing we can be compared with is another planet with sentient life. Until such time as we find such a planet, the adjective is out on a very lonely limb.

And it is illogical to use Neurodiverse as an adjective to describe an individual.

You cannot Say "Lee Bloggs is a person, while Kim Bloggs is a neurodiverse person" (note my careful use of ungendered names) any more that you would say "Skippy the Kangaroo is a marsupial, but Wally the Wombat is biodiverse"

So, maybe the concept is lost to all but linguistic nerds, but 

Nevertheless, I register a protest

Neurodiverse should not be a synonym for “neurologically disabled". We are all neurodiverse, because:

1. It's linguistically illogical.  We are ALL Neurodiverse inhabitants of the planet, because no two minds on this planet can ever be exactly alike.
   .
2. More importantly, if Neurodiverse becomes a synonym for Disabled instead of remaining a symbol for the incredible wonder of natural variation, it will rapidly acquire stigma,  be devalued, and we would lose its power as a unifying symbol for all

Appendix: The sad case of the word "Deviant"

Once upon a time deviant was a perfectly innocuous statistical term meaning "a quantity expressing by how much the members of a group differ from the mean value for the group". Somehow someone stuck it to the word "Sexual" and it's now sullied for all time. 

One of the fathers of sociology,  Émile Durkheim viewed deviance as an inevitable part of how society functions. He argued that deviance is a basis for change and innovation!

So now so many people think "deviant" means "sexually perverted" that the much better word Neurodeviant has to be avoided, and we must use "Neurodivergent"...

Deviant and Divergent defined

Deviant actually means "a significant standard deviation from the average". That is what the new term "Spiky Neurological Profile" actually means. A "Neurotypical person" has very little standard deviation from the average on a range of cognitive abilities, while "a NeuroSpiky" person with AS ADHD the Dyses etc,  has a range of deviations.

Imagine Kim and Lee walking down the “one true”, socially sanctioned normal conventional path, and Kim deviate from the norm and forges a new path.

Now imagine Kim and Lee walking together on a path, any path, when they come to a cross-roads, split and go their separate paths, perhaps never to meet again.

Is that what we want?

If the Gay movement could reclaim the word Queer as their badge of pride, why not NeuroDeviant?

What do you think?

Probably reclaiming "deviant" is a step too far, too late, I admit, but it's all part of my contribution to the Dialectic of Neurodiversity:

Disclaimer

I don't say there's no such thing as "Disability". But you have to ask yourself what you mean by Disability before you criticise others. Their understanding may be quite different.
Do you mean the Welfare System's definition used to save money by dividing the "worthy poor" from the "unworthy poor"? The United Nations definition? Your personal experience of pride, or suffering, or discrimination? And more