Right, speaking casually but clearly in good faith about a disability is bad and vulgar. Specifically targeting someone’s disability with thinly veiled ableism but smearing it with condescension and data that is, by your own omission, totally irrelevant is good and enlightened.
In order to post your comment, you had to read past a discussion about how reducing people to their karyotypes is dehumanizing and that people who present outside the gender binary may not view their conditions as disabilities. You then immediately yawped about chromosomes and read your own disability into the conversation instead of engaging with the paper.
If you view that as quality engagement, idk, reevaluate a little. And lay off the potirophagic diatribe if you want to get taken more seriously next time.
That’s nice. But I’m not deaf, I have a hearing disability.
Cool, looks like you’re getting the point.
Chew glass
That’s about as useful as the rest of your input has been.
Yes your passive aggressive ableism was a huge help. Literally chew glass. Chew it, swallow it, shit blood.
Thank you for your helpful sensitivity lesson, author of “I can’t speak for anyone’s chromosomes, but…”
Right, speaking casually but clearly in good faith about a disability is bad and vulgar. Specifically targeting someone’s disability with thinly veiled ableism but smearing it with condescension and data that is, by your own omission, totally irrelevant is good and enlightened.
In order to post your comment, you had to read past a discussion about how reducing people to their karyotypes is dehumanizing and that people who present outside the gender binary may not view their conditions as disabilities. You then immediately yawped about chromosomes and read your own disability into the conversation instead of engaging with the paper.
If you view that as quality engagement, idk, reevaluate a little. And lay off the potirophagic diatribe if you want to get taken more seriously next time.