Social Justice Jargon

I am amazed at the degree of linguistic inaccessibility in social justice spaces. Someone who isn’t already deeply involved not only in social justice, but the exact sub-culture of a particular blog or forum will have no way to meaningfully understand what is being said in many of these spaces. I guess that’s okay if we just want to talk to each other, but if the ignorant (that is, doesn’t know any better rather than chooses to act in a bad way) person in your life won’t understand your word choice or jargon, your words aren’t doing much outside of the group of people that share your language.

And most people don’t share your language.

Some examples of words or phrases I’m talking about:

  • Because reasons
  • AMAB
  • allistic
  • kyriarchy

Don’t know all of them? “Because reasons” is shorthand for “There are reasons for this, good or bad, but I don’t want to discuss them because whatever they are they aren’t relevant to this topic.”  I think. It seems to be used different ways by different people. A good alternative would be to actually say what you mean, like “I have reasons for this, but I don’t want to get into them here because I don’t believe they are relevant” or “She claims to have reasons, but I don’t know if they are bullshit or not” depending on how you use this.

AMAB? Assigned male at birth. I’m still not sure why this is as used as it is in social justice spaces, and I could write about some problems with it’s common uses – it can be really ugly (and not too far off from Janice Raymond, although I suspect most of the people using this term have never heard of Janice and her idea of privileged transwomen infiltrating and destroying women’s spaces because they grew up as men).

Allistic? This means non-autistic. Everyone understands what non-autistic means. A handful of people on the internet understands what allistic means.

Kyriarchy? This talks about all systems that are dominated/controlled by a group of people and where another group of people has a disadvantage. But few know that.

Of course part of the problem with this is that I probably exposed my misunderstanding of these words – definitions are hard, and understanding is hard. That’s the second problem: besides for these words not being known, they serve as a way of hiding misunderstanding.

I remember the first time that I, an evangelical (albeit non-traditional) Christian, had a discussion with Mormon missionaries. It became very clear quickly that we had many different ideas on some core beliefs regarding things like the trinity, resurrection, redemption, and heaven.Yet, we used the same words, just different definitions. So I could ask, “Do you believe in the trinity?” and the missionary would say, “Yes.” Yet we didn’t believe the same thing when we actually try to define what each of us believes – and the definition is very important to both my faith and the Mormon missionary’s faith. We could spend hours talking to each other, using this jargon, and never realize what we did and didn’t agree about, unless we defined our terms.

It’s kind of like someone saying, “I’m not racist.” Their definition of racist may or may not be as inclusive as someone else’s definition. They may say, “I’m not racist” and then say “But blacks just aren’t as intelligent as whites.” Their definition of racism would differ greatly from mine, which holds that blacks and whites have the same range of intelligence, and that not accepting this is one element of a racist.

But the biggest problem, in my eyes, is that this jargon turns social justice groups/blogs/spaces/forums into places that are hard for decent people to become part of, unless they are already in the group. It’s a form of exclusion and determining who belongs. Back to my evangelical vs. Mormon experiences, there are words and phrases that each group uses that reflect our culture and are not shared. I can spot, in less than 5 minutes, if someone goes to an evangelical church frequently. I’m sure the Mormons can do the same. A lot of how I can tell is based on language usage and how they use precise words that don’t necessarily get perceived the same way outside of the church community.

In fact, this cultural unawareness of Christians is a reason why many criticisms of Christians are ignored by Christians – the people criticizing don’t understand the language and thus assume it means something it doesn’t. A great example is when a Catholic official makes a public statement that says, “We need to welcome all people, including people with same-sex attraction, into our midst.” To a non-Catholic, that might sound like, “OH! Finally, the Catholics are going to let gays in!”  To a Catholic Bishop, it means, “How can we teach them they are wrong unless they come to our church? Of course we want them to come!” (key buzzwords: “welcome” doesn’t necessarily mean “we want these people in all parts of our church”; “same-sex attraction” means “We don’t recognize people are gay or lesbian, they just struggle with attraction to the same sex”)

So, this language can form a wall of separation between “us” and “them”. It’s not intended to do that (usually). But it becomes that.

There is another problem: linguistic accessibility. Yes, that’s an ironic use of jargon. Not everyone can access the right word that means exactly the shade of gray that a given piece of jargon means. Not everyone can remember all the jargon or wrap their heads around all these new terms. It’s nothing to do with intelligence, but rather simply with language ability. Some people are incredibly gifted and can adopt the jargon effortlessly and easily. Others cannot, but still have plenty of good things to contribute to you or learn from you.

So the next time you think you should use all this cool new language you learned, ask yourself, “Who am I talking to?” If you’re talking to other people who know these words and share your definitions, it’s absolutely appropriate. But if you think you might be talking to people who don’t understand your definitions, or if you want to include people that may not have the linguistic skills to decode the jargon (and in this aspect, it is an accessibility concern), think about at least defining your terms, or, better yet, trying to find a short, but obvious way of conveying the concept the jargon represents.

I’m certainly not an expert on how to do this – I too find myself using jargon or otherwise writing inaccessible text. And I’m missing out on valuable discussion because of it. Learning to communicately clearly is a process, and I’ve only started that process.

Making the Privileged Feel Better

What kind of things do physically disabled or blind persons need?  It’s simple: access to society.  The specifics are different – the wheelchair user might want to be able to go to school or work without having to literally drag themself up a step.  And the blind person might desire websites that are usable with screen readers.

Of course, these aren’t the only things desired – there’s a lot of inaccessibility in society as a whole that needs to be cleared up.

So, what do social justice minded, but non-physically disabled, non-trans, and non-blind people come up with? We need to worry about our language. We need to avoid saying, “Let’s run out to the store,” because that erases the existence of someone who rolls out to the store. We need to avoid saying, “Did you see that movie?” because that’s abelist and erases the existence of people who experience movies without using sight.

And that sounds good.  It sounds good to say, “Did you experience that movie?” or “Let’s go to the store” rather than the abelist, yet common, alternatives.

Yet, I’m going to cry out and say, “ENOUGH!”  Not because I think these are bad things to think about, but because, too often, what is behind these suggested changes is a bit more sinister than it appears. Sure, it could be a sincere desire to think about others. But where it fails is in actually listening to others.

For instance, my (albeit limited) circle of friends includes a couple of blind people who “watch TV” (their words, not mine), and neither would notice (or care) if the TV picture was present or not.  My wheelchair using friends “run to the store” occasionally, in their words. It’s important to listen to their words.

Sure, there may be people who are blind or physically disabled who dislike words like “see” and “run.”  But most blind or physically use these words exactly like the rest of us: as something other than literally seeing or literally running.  Few non-physically disabled people literally run to the store: we hop in our cars and drive, or, if we don’t drive, walk or use transit.  But little actual running is involved. As for “seeing” TV or  a movie, a better word would likely be “experience” to reflect literally what is going on, but seeing, in context, basically means the same thing.

Now, I recognize I’m privileged, and could be an ablest pig now – and hope that people (particularly people who aren’t privileged in the same way) speak up and let me have it, if they believe it’s appropriate.  I can demonstrate my true character by listening to what is said.  But, at the same time, I do believe I’ve listened to disabled people and that this type of language is not viewed as insulting, as it seems to be used by the vast majority of people for whom it is supposed to be insulting.

It’s also – ironically – appropriated words like look, see, run, walk, etc, which have a general meaning, and made them into words that can be used only when referring to the privileged classes! In essence, privileged people have decided when these words are appropriate or not, rather than allowing the non-privileged people to tell us what they find offensive and how we should respond to that.  That’s both arrogant and dismissive, and the utter opposite of respect.

But it feels good.  It feels good to look at yourself and say, “I’m more progressive and social justice minded, because I know there are wheel chair users in the world, so I avoid using phrases like, ‘take the dog for a walk’ or ‘running to the store.'”  It’s the same old thing that always makes privileged people feel good: being better than someone else (in this case, it’s mostly the other privileged people who aren’t so liberally minded, but it is done by “walking” over the top of the very people for whom this language is supposedly changed for).

I’ve written about this in a different context – the use of the prefix “cis-” to refer to non-trans people.  While I can find some trans people who do feel people should use the cis- prefix to identify themselves, and it’s a lot harder to find wheelchair users or blind people who object to the language such as “run” or “watch”, I find a striking similarity. I don’t like the term cis- because I feel it erases the existence of binary-identified trans people, particularly post-op transsexuals, and their self-identity. But I get shit for that stand. Ironically, I’d say 99% of the people who have a problem with my word choice are binary-identified and passing as – and thus taking the role of – someone with binary, “cis-gender” privilege.

Now, I recognize the social implications and difficulties faced by minorities trying to express upset towards something the majority does.  So I recognize that even if I was being offensive to trans, blind, or physically disabled people (among others), it’s very likely they would say nothing to me about it. Thus it would be wrong to assume that I’m not wronging them. But it would be equally wrong to not listen to the people who are speaking and advocating from a minority group and to find out what their concerns are, rather than simply assuming that I know what their concerns are, and thus can tell people how to treat “those people” with respect.

It’s actually got a lot in common with the “autistic” vs. “person with autism” debate, which comes down to whether or not autistic people get to define their terms and decide what is or isn’t offensive to us (most of us have decided “autistic” is not offensive).  Yet, well-meaning, socially minded people will actually argue with us and tell us we’re wrong – that we should be offended by “autistic” and should be glad to be referred to with the much-more-respectful “person with autism” label. In other words, they know best about our lives and experience.

Well, they don’t.  No matter how good it makes them feel to think they do.

Autistics Speaking Day

I want to say something. So here goes: FUCK.A bunch of text, including *(#! #W:# and similar text, to stylistically represent internet cuss word obfuscation

Seriously.

No, I’m not trying to make the blog unsafe for kids (that said, I’d love to meet the kid who hasn’t heard the word “fuck”).  But this is a huge part of what I want to say: we will say things people like.  And things they don’t.

We’ll cuss. We’ll insult people. We’ll talk dirty. We’ll lie. We’ll do all the things that the sanitized, nice, touchy-feely movies about escaping from autism or about how there are geniuses in the autistic population won’t say.

We say – if we’re allowed – these things even if we use speech devices. Too often, we’re silenced by being given devices that don’t speak these words. (hint to parents: if your child uses a speech device that uses a language system – not just spelling, but a word-based language system – and it doesn’t include some words you don’t ever want to hear said, the vocabulary is too small for your kid) Seriously, kids cuss. So should autistic kids. Just like neurotypical kids, we need to learn what is and isn’t appropriate in what context. Whether you like it or not, it is appropriate for two fifth graders to share lists of cuss words with each other. It’s not appropriate to do so in the hearing of an adult. That’s a pretty important social lesson to learn – that your communication needs to change based on audience. How do you learn that if you’re only options in language are always appropriate for the adults?

We say we’re horny. That we’re aroused. That we want to have sex. Maybe even that we want to fuck. Just like a neurotypical does. Sure, there are all types of sexualities among autistic people, including asexuality, but most of us aren’t asexual. So we want these things. And need to talk about it. Yes, there are more and less appropriate places. And, yes, we may or may not have our parents’ moral values. But we need the same rights that any other adult has – the ability to express our sexuality, including expressing it in ways that while legal may not be what our parents would like.

Too often, we live in group homes or institutions where the staff fears the complications that a sex life would bring into their own jobs. Or have religious views about what sex is or isn’t okay. That’s fine if we willingly agree to those rules and have real options and places to live that don’t include those rules. But most of the time, we don’t get that choice when placed into group homes or institutions – we have to take what we get, or run away. A neurotypical might choose to live in a monastery. An autistic shouldn’t be forced to. Yet, studies have shown that many – quite possibly most – group homes ban homosexual relationships while allowing limited (usually way too limited) heterosexual relationships. It’s another place where our desires don’t matter.

We also need to be able to say “NO.” As in, “No, I don’t want to go to work today.” Or “No, I don’t want to eat that slop.” Neurotypicals get to do this. Sure, there are consequences (although often we get away with some of this – how many people use a sick day when they aren’t sick?). Heck, sometimes a neurotypical might wake up in the morning and decide – for better or worse – that going to work sucks, that there is more in life than their job, and that they really don’t want to go to their job. Ever again. Yep, that causes unemployment sometimes, but it’s something many neurotypicals have done sometime in their life. They were allowed to. Sure, there are consequences. But they weren’t prevented from making the choice in the first place.

So I guess that’s my theme: if people want us to speak, you need to let us speak. Even when we say shit you don’t like. We’re not pets, we’re not puppets. We’re human. And that means you won’t like every moral choice we make. Just like I won’t like every moral choice you make. That’s life.

 

Why I don’t Use Trigger Warnings

Trigger warning: discussion of triggers…

Why don’t you typically see trigger warnings here? No, it’s not because I don’t care about others.

It’s because it’s overused.

The idea of a trigger warning, as far as I can tell, goes back to people who have very specific things that can trigger severe PTSD, possibly violence, flashbacks, and other ReallyBadThings. Those things are called triggers. For instance, a spouse of a war veteran might need to be careful about sneaking up behind their spouse, if their spouse could be triggered into a PTSD episode – and possibly, before realizing what is going on, attempt to defend themselves physically. That’s something both the person with PTSD and those around them will want to know about, and also take into consideration.

This got extended to other forms of abuse. For instance, a rape victim might not be able to actually think clearly for a bit after he is exposed to some graphic video that reminds him of his rape, even if he doesn’t have PTSD. He probably doesn’t like reading about something that is exactly like his rape. He’d probably appreciate a bit of warning that that video he’s about to watch contains graphic rape content.

There is of course many variations that make sense. It’s wise to warn your readers about exceptionally violent or harmful content. Absolutely. But it doesn’t need to be done with a trigger warning per se – it can be done any number of other ways (such as explaining in more neutral terms what is about to be shown before it is shown).

Unfortunately, the term trigger gets a bit overused. Rather than just used to represent something really significant and important to be warned about, often today they get overused. For instance, if someone links to an article where a Republican congressman is interviewed about cuts to social programs, there might be a trigger warning for classism. But is that really necessary? Perhaps just saying, “Listen to Senator … explain why the poor don’t need to eat” and then linking to the article would make it clear. A view that is unpopular with a community (even very strongly unpopular and considered evil) is not the same as a trigger.

I try to warn people when I include particularly graphic discussion in my writing, or if I link to something that I think is particularly graphic. But at the same time, if I write an article about abuse I suffered, it’s usually clear within the first paragraph that I’m going to write about abuse, and it’s usually not particularly graphic at that point. As an example, in my blog entry on Why Don’t Kids Report Bullying, I started the article by saying:

HRC posted a piece on why kids don’t report bullying to school employees.  The article’s a good read, based on fact, but it brought back why I didn’t report bullying.

It was simple: reporting the bullying didn’t help.

I was kicked, hit, sexually assaulted, burned, choked, manipulated, humiliated, insulted, excluded, scapegoated, and teased for 13 years of public school.  13 years.

Okay, this could be hard for someone to read. It would be hard for a survivor of abuse to read. It could be hard for a school administrator (who isn’t bullying) to read. It could be hard for a parent to read. Just because it’s sad and hard to read doesn’t mean it doesn’t need to be read by those groups.

I also think – as an abuse survivor – the the message of my posts, even when they include some horrible things is overall positive: I’ve been through hell and escaped it.

Now, if I was to suddenly spring into a vivid physical description of being sexually abused, in a context where it would be completely and totally unexpected, I probably would find a way to give some warning. But, in general, discussions of hard topics IMHO don’t need warnings. If it’s not a hard topic, and it’s not kittens and puppies, it’s probably not worth talking about in the first place. But, heck, I’ve never been one for sports (that said, our recent history with teams in, say, Mississippi universities clearly make it clear that even that isn’t always going to be a comfortable feel-good topic).

So, if my blog was about puppies and kittens, and the feel-good aspects of them, I would probably warn people before I put up a post where I describe step-by-step the acts my assailants did to me. I wouldn’t just stick a kitten picture up and then launch into the description. But I don’t think most people would do that (there are some very nasty people out there that might, but I hope I’m not one of them). I try to give an introduction to what I’m talking about in the very beginning of my topic, although, yes, good writing (or even “okay” writing, as I strive for!) doesn’t lay all the cards out on the table immediately. But generally there’s enough to know if you’re going to be triggered.

Heck, some lists of trigger warnings would include pretty much every post I write.  See this list for example (the linked site’s current home page has a flashing animated graphic in the first post – that’s something that people should be aware of ahead of time! That’s why I didn’t link to the homepage of the blog, and why I mention it here). Note I’m not saying it’s bad to think about these things when you write, and to try to not startle your reader – or far, far worse, actually trigger them without some warning.

I’m not sure that a reader of my blog could differentiate the stuff that was explicit or violent from the stuff talking in general terms if I labeled every post that fit that list. Now, I’m not saying I’m right on this – I’m not sure if I am or not to be honest, just that this is the view I currently hold based on research and my views of the world. My views of course aren’t always right, so I welcome other views to tell me I’m wrong.

Now, if you are triggered by my writing and find this style of writing to not provide the warning you need, I would like to have a dialog with you to figure out what I could do. I may even change my views, as I know that I don’t know everything there is to know about abuse or PTSD. But what I don’t want it is to be a label applied to anything that people might disagree with or be uncomfortable reading. Nor do I think it’s helpful to overly protect people from seeing things that make them uncomfortable (that said, it’s definitely not a bad thing to let people know that the extremely vivid descriptions are coming, but it doesn’t need to be a formal trigger warning).

Finally, I’m not saying that if someone uses trigger warnings, then they are a horrible writer or wasting their breath. I don’t find them particularly horrible to use either, just not particularly useful or necessary in some cases. But I do see the usefulness they have in some cases. They should be saved for those types of things that go beyond mere discomfort. They should be saved for things that aren’t already obvious by a title or (depending on context) introduction. In that context, they are fine. In other contexts, I’m not so sure they do much beyond dilute the word trigger to mean not “really, really serious bad thing could happen if this warning isn’t there” but instead “there’s something here I might not like.” That’s not cool or fair to people who have various triggers.

People Pleasing and Self-Respect

I like people around me to be happy.  And I’m in the middle of a bunch of conflict right now.  And I don’t like it.  As part of trying to explain why I’m reacting certain ways and doing certain things, I’m writing this post.  But I’m writing in a general sense, because I think it might affect others and it consolidates a whole swirl in my head.

Sometimes however, it’s easy to do what people want rather than what I want.  Now, sometimes I do what others want and push aside my wants, and that’s good because I consciously make the choice, “This person is more important to me than my own desire in this area.”  For instance, I might not want to help a friend move, but the friend’s happiness and ability to manage life is more important to me than this particular want.

But it’s not always like that.  Sometimes the want is more important.  In some cases, the want is for time and space to think through things.  In other cases, the want is to not see people hurt by others and, if I have the power to stop it, I should, even if it doesn’t please people.  Of course that’s hard to do and it’s why so many of us (including myself too often) fail at it.  But that doesn’t change that it’s the right thing to do.

There are two reasons I try to please people rather than listening to my inner voice.  First, in my past, there are times when I was unable to defend myself against bullies and abusers.  When the bullies and abusers were unhappy, so was I.  That’s probably a pretty common reaction to abuse – to sort of internalize it and think, “Well, I could have prevented it if I only made sure my abuser was happy.”  Of course that doesn’t work, but it’s a maladaptive pattern that is pretty ingrained in me.  It was an attempt to survive, which is exceptionally rational.  So partially, it’s an survival mechanism that can be triggered.

Second, I may try to please people instead of listening to myself because I am sensitive to other people’s emotions, although not in the same way as a non-autistic might be.  They affect me very deeply and very strongly.  I don’t like being around unhappy people.  It can easily pull me into a spiral, something I’ve learned I need to avoid.  I can’t deal with these emotions when they enter my mind, overwhelming me.  I’ll get swept away.  So to avoid getting to that state, sometimes I’ll just go along with what people want.  I’m okay being happy.  I don’t want anger or sadness or whatever else in my head though.  This isn’t a good way of dealing with things, and I’m learning and growing in other ways.

Now, I debated writing this – someone reading this will know how to manipulate or abuse me right now.  But I’m, despite being wronged in the past by some in my community, still of the opinion that most people are decent people who don’t want to do me wrong (and even that some of the people who wronged me didn’t intend to wrong me, and are good people overall).  Not everyone shares my optimism, but my optimism has kept me alive. So, I’m going to hang onto it. I’m writing this to explain what affects me, knowing it probably affects others.

It’s hard to learn to listen to your voice.  It’s hard to step back and say, “I want person X to like me.  But I need to do what is right.”  It’s so much easier to give in to the coping mechanisms and just do what person X wants me to do. My abusers taught me well. And it’s not like most autistic people have tons of spare friends. I still live with lots of fear, whether that’s going into strange buildings, approaching people, or this. And unlike what may be said by outsiders, this fear has nothing to do with autism. It was taught.  And I learned that lesson well.  As do, I fear, lots of autistic people. Someone who hasn’t felt this fear has no idea.

So, not only do I respond to pressure to act certain ways, but I actively look for, “What can I do to make this person happy?” What I’m not doing is what is good for me.  I’m trying to do what is good for them.

Now, this isn’t the fault of the person who is unhappy or that wants my help.  They don’t know they are doing this most likely.  I’ve got to eventually stop things and say, “Hey, I need a bit to process this, get words around it, and maybe even figure out what my brain is trying to tell me.”  But of course that’s part of the abuse training too – I don’t do that often.  But I’m really proud of myself when I do.

How can people help? I don’t really know. I don’t have good strategies for this. I guess, people who know me and know this about me could realize I have a tendency to do this and give me time to process and think, and not take it as a personal insult if I don’t immediately do what they would like to see me do. What they want may also be what I want. But it might not be, too. And I would ask that you listen to me when I hint that I’m at the end of my rope.  If I even hint at it, it probably means the end of the rope is now five feet above my head and I’m dropping down a 500 foot drop. I don’t ask for help much. But I might occasionally hint at it.  That hint is real, it’s not like someone who might yell and scream over something not quite going their way – and, yes, people do that. But my hinting at a problem gets mistaken for not being a serious need while someone else’s yelling gets taken seriously. That sucks. Loudness or forcefulness is not the same as seriousness.

This is why we aren’t believed in the hospital. We go in and say, “Somethings hurting, but not bad enough for me to want to die.” That gets translated to, “It doesn’t hurt bad.”  Meanwhile someone two doors down is yelling and screaming about a minor injury – so they at least get some treatment. If we were worse off then them, we’d yell louder, too, right? Not quite. (ironically, if I say it does make me want to die, then I’m probably “suicidal” and a threat to myself, and, thus, not actually “really” sick and in need of having a physical problem treated)

It’s also a problem with the way a lot of us grew up, both from informal teaching (like my bullies) and formal teaching (where we’re taught don’t question people, quiet is better than loud, keep your voice level down, don’t make other people’s lives hard).  Autistic people get this type of teaching. A lot. Combine that with the typical responses that autistic people have to problems (tell the autistic how they could make people like them, rather than addressing the bully, for instance) and no wonder we often have problems with this. That’s why I don’t think it’s unique to Joel.

But now, regardless, you know something about me. I’m trying to stand up for myself too, to not be carried around with every wind of desire. My friends will accept that. Even when I disagree over things. They want me to have self-respect.

(and, for reference, no, I’m not directing this at one party or another in the Autreat thing, just in general to how demands for “do something now!” can be very triggering, so please don’t read this that way)