I am incredulous at the "mother" to "birthing person" requirement. I have seen one or two people with such prescriptive views on language but the vast majority of people I know consider it ridiculous. And I am in an incredibly "woke" social bubble.
Encountering this aspect of the culture war always makes me wonder why are tech companies so focused on these gender minorities and not, say, on the disabled groups. There are more blind, deaf, mute (etc, etc) people in the US than transgender people who will bear a child. It would be equally incoherent to attempt to replace all usages of “see”, “hear” with “perceive”.
But wouldn't an underrepresentation of disabled people be cause for concern in the industry? There are more legally blind people in the USA than there are Native Americans yet at the political stage there is very little interest in coming up for those people.
Several impressive videos on social media have shown that programming without using vision or even hands is perfectly possible, there are very few good reasons why such underrepresentation shouldn't be corrected for. In fact, I believe for many disabilities a job in fields like data science or programming would be much easier to adjust for disabilities than many other sectors where interactivity is key.
> Go to any college and you'll see the CompSci department is the one with the most amount of LGBT individuals.
Do you have any data on that? It does not coincide with my anecdotal experience. I'm in a Math/CompSci department and there's zero trans people here (that I know of), while there are some in other departments. Anyhow, trans people are a tiny percentage of the total population, so it would be hard to have somewhat solid statistics on them.
Interesting. I don't have data, but it heavily correlates with my school and what I had heard from others. There was like a big cadre of trans people in the CompSci department, then a few in the Math department.
There was a smattering in other afaik. I was on the board of the LGBT club so I knew at least the ones who were out / came frequently.
FWIW, they do. There's constant efforts to ensure apps are accessible if you use a screen reader and to not exclusively rely on sound for notifications. Additionally there's care to not assume people are using keyboards and mice when interacting with something ("tap" vs "click" vs "select" vs "pick", etc.). At least with the teams I've worked with there's a considerable amount of effort done in these areas.
Oh, I have OPINIONS about why this might be, as someone who was one of the teenagers on LJ back when this weird ideology (the bastardization of intersectionality/identity politics that's taken over all non-right discussions) started. I'm a disabled lesbian, so I get a front row seat to how some forms of discrimination 'matter' more than others.
It boils down to a few things:
1.) A lot of this identity politics is coming from upper-middle class people of color OR white queer people, who are using it to make money and boost their careers. The disabled are, in America at least, far less likely to have careers to boost. This is why the type of disability activism you see in identity politics is usually limited to mental illnesses.
2.) The disabled, to some degree, disprove some of the ideological underpinnings of modern identity politics. Modern identity politics is based on the idea that if we change society/fix discrimination, then everybody (all groups) will have the same rates of success. But even if social discrimination didn't exist, those of us who are disabled literally can't do things able-bodied people can do. There's an undercurrent of 'discrimination is bad BECAUSE all these groups can be normal/productive/participate in capitalism' and the disabled make people confront that they don't actually believe all people are equal. They believe all PRODUCTIVE people are equal, but they can't say that, because then they sound like those 'horrible' right wingers.
3.) Fighting on behalf of the disabled doesn't make people feel like they're 'on the right side of history'. I've experienced a shit ton of sexism and homophobia from right-wingers, but most conservatives would be horrified at insulting me for having MS and agree that I should get help if I need it. They just disagree on how it should be done. That's harder to fight about, which means it's harder for the media to turn into a frenzy, and that's where people on both sides get their 'marching orders'.
>This is why the type of disability activism you see in identity politics is usually limited to mental illnesses
You are using the term "mental illness" in a way that seems to exclude people for whom it is obviously a disability. These people are characterized by:
1. One or more hospitalizations that are not voluntary.
2. Diagnosis by medical professionals, not psychologists or oneself.
3. Having to take medications forever, at least in order to be employable or generally take care of themselves, that cause substantial long term effects including diabetes, brain damage, disfiguring tics and involuntary movements, recurring tumors, sudden death, and other problems.
The people you are thinking of, who act like it is possible to normalize and be open about mental illness, are, let's say "type A", while I have defined above what I'll call "type B".
I just want to call your attention to the fact that "type B" people are erased as much or more by "type A" as the visibly disabled that you acknowledge. You are inadvertently promoting that erasure.
"Type B" people bridge both worlds but can't talk about it normally. I do recognize the emotions regarding "type A". I recognize why they do what they do, and I see you embracing their compulsive erasure from existence of "type B".
The issue of productivity is difficult, if you think there is a right answer. If someone can work, at incredible cost, should they not take pride? Yeah, it's luck that I, or anyone, can work, but you wouldn't sneer at someone with an intellectual disability that was bagging groceries, would you?
I meant it in the way it's typically used in disabled spaces, where it's a contrast to physical disability because the two experiences are different. Mental illnesses are/ can be disabilities, I wouldn't disagree, but there are differences that make mental illness advocacy well-suited to an intersectional framework in ways that physical/intellectual disabilities aren't. (Since you mention them, intellectual disabilities are their own third, distinct category).
Mental disabilities are frequently easier to hide (much like being bi is easier to hide than being homosexual), which means that people with mental illnesses/disabilities are more likely to know how people treat them before and after finding out they're disabled (as opposed to someone whose disability is physical or intellectual who are more likely to always be seen as disabled and not see that on-off switch to ableism). People with mental illnesses are also more likely to have difficulties stemming from stigma and erasure vs. physical limits (I'm not saying any difficulties are worse than the others; they're just different) and intersectionality/identity politics has a lot of focus on correcting or changing behavior and thoughts to improve society.
Intersectionality/identity politics, in 2022, don't really do a great job at changing physical reality, which tends to be more necessary for physical and intellectual disability activism.
There are also historical reasons for the intertwining of mental illness advocacy and intersectionality (the rise of intersectionality/id politics in the upper-middle class coinciding with the rise of psychiatry/therapy/ the move to destigmatize mental illness, for example, whereas the sensory and physically disabled communities had their own activist movements/organizations for decades/centuries beforehand which made them more likely to have disagreements).
> Yeah, it's luck that I, or anyone, can work, but you wouldn't sneer at someone with an intellectual disability that was bagging groceries, would you?
Of course not, but I'm not a capitalist (or a communist, for that matter). The point is more that a lot of people into intersectional activism claim to also be anti-capitalist, but their embrace of diversity often depends on diverse people being able to work and if they advocated for the disabled, they'd have to confront that they can't use 'disabled people can do anything able bodied people can do' as a reason, which means they'd have to articulate some reason diversity matters other than to let marginalized people/ their pet companies make $$$.
I just think if said grocery bagger had to stop bagging groceries that they don't lose value as a human. Of course everyone should be proud of what they can contribute to society and their communities.
>Mental disabilities are frequently easier to hide (much like being bi is easier to hide than being homosexual), which means that people with mental illnesses/disabilities are more likely to know how people treat them before and after finding out they're disabled
I understand where you're coming from, but the implication that someone with a mental disability has control over how they're perceived, or even accurate knowledge is wrong.
If they share information, there's no going back, and it can have devastating consequences.
If they don't intentionally share information, it may leak out anyway. Everybody knows what "crazy eyes" are, and gets uncomfortable if someone rambles on too much or shows excessive emotion.
If I look normal, but I have difficulty walking, and sometimes limp a bit, nobody is going to kick my leg when they notice, to prove that I'm not dangerous and they're not ill but I am. And if I share that I have a club foot, or that my lungs are damaged so I don't get enough oxygen, it's not likely to destroy relationships or seem relevant to share with everyone.
On the other hand, the slightest hint that someone might be mentally unstable leads to immediate concern - is this person a threat? Everybody knows this, and every crazy person feels exactly the same way around someone else that might be crazy. They feel it from both sides, but you have felt it from at least one.
So the way you prove someone isn't a threat is by testing whether they are vulnerable, and if they react incorrectly to that test. You prod them, you try some BS to see if they get upset or respond "normally". It's like being out on a tree limb and hearing a crack. You hold on to something and wiggle it a little to see if it's about to break. Everybody knows this from life experience.
I guess what I'm saying is that the uncertainty and ambiguity around mental illness is its own horror show of catch-22s, not a kind of privilege.
Someone with serious mental illness has to be tranquilized more than just enough to function normally, but enough to suppress normal reactions to provocation.
And once that is accomplished, they cannot share information about their condition indiscriminately because they are totally vulnerable. They can't casually ramble on about their thought process, because it will sound paranoid, no matter how controlled their actions are. Even to other mentally ill people because everybody thinks the same way, because it's logical but awful.
The choices that someone with an invisible condition other than mental illness, have, do not exist for someone with it. Every case where it is suspected, entails the threat of being outside the basic social contract.
>I just think if said grocery bagger had to stop bagging groceries that they don't lose value as a human
Sure, what I meant is that if their job is an immense source of pride and purpose in life, then aren't they in effect promoting the work-based ethic that bothers you? How can you have values without devaluing people who have different values?
The point is previous things you thought were ridiculous were normalized, in a very deliberate process. So to it will go with "mother", if the past is any indication. However, it may not be, because people are (ironically) waking up to this.
I've been incredulous to this stuff for 15 years, but violating rules I was incredulous about 5 years ago would be fired and black listed from my industry now.
Maybe the pendulum will stop or swing back, but "that's not going to catch on" has been wrong for nearly two decades.
Because saying this stuff is akin to vowing your allegiance to the party in authoritarian regimes.
Or repeating the cult dogma in a cult.
This isn’t about rationality or what is ridiculous. It is about proving that you are part of a group. And to prove that people have done insane things for thousands of years. Much worse than calling a mother a birthing parent tbh, but it shows you what direction we are headed.
And interestingly this seems to apply to corporations too. They too (probably because of management), want to demonstrate they are part of a group/cult.
