Comments on: Disability History Education Video

By: Tlönista

Tlönista — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:30:24 +0000

Amazing! And no, I didn’t know all of that. (Gallaudet University sounds more bad-ass the more I learn about it.)

By: Static Nonsense

Static Nonsense — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:15:32 +0000

@Chally: I’m going to say right now, despite what Matthew Smith is saying – Thank you. Better to err on the side of caution than to make a false assumption, because those assumptions are what get nonbinaries and many other transfolk silenced and ignored.

On topic: Groups like this make me happy. Unfortunately I don’t think there are any like it near where I live. I liked the video though, it mentioned a lot of things I didn’t know.

By: meloukhia

meloukhia — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:38:50 +0000

I’m contributing to the derail momentarily to add that I think Chally articulated her reasoning very well in the above comment, especially with this line: “…runs the risk of erasing the identities of the people in the video regardless.”

I am nonbinary and I am routinely thoughtlessly misgendered on a daily basis. I make an effort to refrain from gendering people until I hear, from them, about how they wish to be gendered and described, something which is not possible with people whom I don’t know in an Internet video. (I suppose I could write the producers…)

Someone who looks “female” in your eyes, Matthew, is not necessarily a woman. And variations in gender identity and expression are much more common than you might think; many of us allow people to misgender us for our own safety or to avoid awkward social situations and it is very hard to get accurate numbers on gender variance. I appreciate that Chally is trying to foster an environment which is inclusive of nonbinaries, and I would like the environment at FWD to be inclusive of people with nonbinary gender identities.

That said, I do understand your frustration; for visually impaired folks, I can imagine how not having gender or racial or age descriptors in a description of video content would be unsettling. I don’t really know how to resolve this issue; either we run the risk of erasure, or we run the risk of making content inaccessible to visually impaired folks. There’s pretty much a no-win here.

Ok, back on topic, for cereal this time.

By: kaninchenzero

kaninchenzero — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:31:53 +0000

You’ve no idea how cissexist and binary-normative what you’ve written is, do you?

By: Chally

Chally — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:28:56 +0000

Yes, I generally do read people as ‘man,’ ‘woman,’ ‘girl’ or ‘boy’ but I am trying to not assume that so much as it so often erases non-binary people. Also, not everyone fits ‘male’ or ‘female’ so neatly. I don’t think the thing to do is to call people terms that can erase or harm, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to assume the most prominent groups as default. There are lots of valid approaches to writing descriptions; this is mine, at least for now. Now let’s get on topic!

By: Matthew Smith

Matthew Smith — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:10:59 +0000

Well, the vast majority of male adults identify as men and the vast majority of female adults identify as women. Surely the thing to do is to call them that unless they object? If you were talking about a female adult you met out shopping, even if she wasn’t uber-feminine in the style of, say, Nanci Griffith circa Last of the True Believers, you would still said “this woman said so-and-so”?

By: Chally

Chally — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:39:33 +0000

That’s an interesting point, Matthew, and I was actually talking to one of my fellow contributors about describing people, though in relation to race. I do not feel comfortable describing identification terms without knowing how the people themselves identify. So in this case, I don’t actually know whether all the people in the video identify as ‘woman’ or ‘man’ (though I know cripchick identifies as a woman!). I guess there are no easy solutions. In this case I thought it was best to say ‘person’ rather than ‘young white woman’ or ‘young black man’ or whatever, because I didn’t want to assume that the people in the video who looked to me to be young white women or young black men actually were. I couldn’t find that information for all of the people in the video, though if one of them requests I edit their description, I happily will. That said, I realise this a) compromises the fullness of the description and b) runs the risk of erasing the identities of the people in the video regardless. So hopefully that addresses some of my concerns in writing that description.

By: amandaw

amandaw — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:32:34 +0000

That is indeed cripchick! She’s been involved with the DYP & doing some amazing work

By: Matthew Smith

Matthew Smith — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 22:24:32 +0000

That is Cripchick in the power chair who talked about Down’s Syndrome, isn’t it?

Shouldn’t the explanation have said that it was a woman in the chair? It’s not directly relevant, admittedly (it’s not as if Down’s is her disability), but any sighted person would have noticed it, and normally when relating an event where someone spoke, you’d say if it were a man or a woman.