When we, disability rights activists, begin attacking and hurting each other, we prevent important conversations from even happening.
It’s oftentimes not what you say, but how you say it.
Attacking someone could create a fight, flight, fawn, or freeze response. Rather than conversing, you may cause someone to shut down, hide, fight back, or block.
Some potentially strong advocates might not re-enter advocacy because of the trauma.
Very little is accomplished through harming others.
Maybe you made your point.
But you also rejected a potential ally and shut down all possible avenues of communication and you stopped critical conversations, ones that could have changed and influenced the direction and course of history, before they could even begin.
Attacking disabled advocates also censors and silences disabled voices.
Instead of ad homonyms, strawmen, assumptions, or personal attacks, what if we shifted towards conversation and dialogue?
What if we sought to find common ground and areas of agreement and use that as a starting point, rather than launching insults and making assumptions from the off?
How many more constructive conversations might occur if disabled people felt safe and supported in sharing and opening up about one of the most vulnerable aspects of their lives?
#autism #adhd #neurodiversity #education #employment #disability #advocacy #inclusion #dei #intersectionality #communication
MHR candidate at Utah State University
7moThis is awesome Anna! Your message is truly inspiring!