There is a notion concerning both those within and outside of the disability community of what bodies are meant to do certain things, or have certain rights, and which bodies are not. There is also a sense of how to "correct" deviant bodies. It's also worth nothing how the onus of sexual autonomy and responsibility of reproduction is almost always solely shelled to women/people with a uterus and/or the ability to get pregnant. This can be seen pretty confidently in the relatively high ratio of women sterilized to men not only historically but also in the cases and stories we're reading about, despite the relative ease of sterilizing men. Additionally, this can all be further extrapolated to modern day institutions of sterilization or other genital modification vs.

In this post, I wanted to reflect on Unspeakable Conversations and how the disabled community, both from the article and my own experiences, treat each other within activist circles. 

This week, we explored the history of normalcy as a concept. I have been curious about what institutions and concepts the construction of normalcy allowed. Specifically, in class we discussed how statistics were used to generate numbers about an "average" person. Once averages started being used to judge and categorize people, the concept translated to the idea of an average worker. Previous traditions of production, wherewhich individuals were expected to contribute to the best of their individual abilities, were replaced by an ideology of an average, replaceable worker. The conception of a worker as replaceable and impersonal gives way to dehumanized treatment and inhumane conditions for wage workers. It also gave way for an average wage and waged work in general.

Reflecting on class today, when covering the McBryde-Johnson article, some very interesting questions were posed – to which many may have no answer. Firstly, I was curious to why McBryde-Johnson would have shared her cordial and respectful interactions with Singer. She conveyed through much of the piece how those she worked with opposed her interacting with Singer with respect and a professional attitude, even just shaking his hand. Throughout the piece, I felt an aspect of shame from McBryde-Johnson about her actually not completely hating Singer, at times.I would like to think that maybe Singer also liked McBryde-Johnson which also made me wonder: How can you “like” someone who you believe doesn’t really have the right to live? It doesn’t make much sense to me.

I enjoyed the article by Harriet McBryde Johnson because it demonstrated the debate that people with disability constantly have. The article reflected both sides of the debate. Professor Singer argued that, "But what about the caregiver, a woman typically, who is forced to provide all this service to a family member, unable to work, unable to have a life of her own?" and Johnson refutes with that it should not be like that and it is not the way it has to be.

The NYT article about unspeakable conversation stood out to me in many aspects. One take-home message is that there is no exact evil/brightness in one's personality. Initially my perspective aligns perfectly with the protagonist and viewed Prof Singer as immoral/irrational. But as the article proceeds, Singer's behaviors did not quite match with one's expectation since he believed people with disability should have their life exterminated at early time to avoid suffering. Instead, he made sure that the walk in Princetown University is accessible for wheelchair users, with no steep scopes and acute turnings involved. And he also treated Harriert with respect, having an intellectual and interactive conversation with her using courteous and polite languages.

This week's short essays highlights the true cost of opening up (schools, workplaces) - disabled folks and other vulnerable populations such as the elders and immunocompromised. This fact makes me really think about Sim Invalid's Anti-Capitalist Principle from Ten Principles of Disability Justice, and how the society we are functioning and living in truly devalues the lives of the disabled folks. Corporations and institutions have forced reopening and adjustments to science (like the isolation policies) for their own benefit: Money!! over the lives of people.

I found “My Life Is More ‘Disposable’ During This Pandemic” and "I’m disabled and need a ventilator to live. Am I expendable during this pandemic?" to be very powerful pieces.  These two works should be read by everyone, ESPECIALLY health care workers. History provides an unfortunate abundance of examples of stigma and discrimination directed towards members of the disability  community. During a pandemic where there are limited life-saving resources, like ventilators, these stigmas are bound to play a role in how protocols are constructed to decide who gets to stay alive or die. It’s deeply disturbing to observe how misunderstood and undervalued the disability community is.

Each article was very disheartening and devastating.The burden of illness and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was unevenly distributed across populations in the U.S. Social determinants such as socioeconomic status and occupation shaped patterns of risk. Healthcare disparities led to further inequalities in terms of access to medical services. Many populations were considered to be vulnerable. This included people with disabilities, incarcerated individuals, immigrants, minorities, etc. As the pandemic unraveled I remember hearing the narrative that doctors would choose who gets a ventilator and that individuals with chronic illness would not be a priority. 

    I found the Restorative Justice principle of wholeness to be particularly interesting in thie week's readings. Wholeness involves valuing the life history and lived experiences of disabled people, seeing thm as more than their disability. It recognizes the personal values, ideology, sexuality, quirks, hobbies, and identities of disabled people. Through reflection, I have found that wholeness is an important part of many of the principles of Disability Justice. For example, wholeness corresponds to the principle of anti-capitalism. Under a capitalist economy, people are valued based on their ability to produce. Workers are valued only for their productive value, with no consideration of other aspects of self.