Goerzen as Opportunist
Zee Goerzen’s “Why Autism Awareness Month should be changed to Autism Acceptance Month” makes the case that because the term Autism Awareness is in their view connected to harmful medicalist movements like Autism Speaks, it should be changed to Autism Acceptance in order to correct this view. However, the word Awareness is a neutral concept, because to be aware of something is a distanced activity. It’s what you’re Aware of that connects you to a category, but it is not inherent to the definition of Awareness. Autism Speaks has Awareness in autism, and its Awareness stems from ableist empiricism, but that does not mean that changing the name of Autism Awareness Month to Autism Acceptance Month will, in fact, remove this Awareness or flip that Awareness to an anti-Awareness.
Goerzen makes a mistake in not analyzing the metaphysical and sociological reasons for why the worldview of these “autism mamas” and ableists developed, and rely on a word salad of positive terms and self-help-esque terminology to make their point known. The metaphysics of the autism mama are one of spiritual tension and ableism-disguised-as-non-ableism, but Goerzen barely touches upon that. As said in Why Autism Awareness Month should be changed to Autism Acceptance Month:
“As you can see, following in the footsteps of an ableist organization that treats autism like a horrific monster is not the best choice. I propose instead of trying to increase "awareness" about autism, we aim to create acceptance. We start normalizing that everyone (even neurotypical folk) have different needs, and that we can start meeting each individual where they are at. For example, having the option before events/meetings/school days/lectures for people to write down any accessibility needs they may have.”
They do not explain neurodivergent-as-contrast (which is a concept of neurodivergency inherently against traditional concepts of sane and being “able”), nor do they take the time to analyze through a Fanonian lens, the implications of an oppressed neurodivergence in a religion-less, capitalistic state. I could definitely identify a social democratic capitalist stance in their reasoning, because the mistake that people who identify as social democrats make in their understanding of identity politics, is that the state as a secularized-theological concept, is a net positive in protecting minorities. This is wrong from a historiographical perspective, and would go against US History because of slavery’s chokehold on the 18th and 19th century.
Their understanding of conflicts between neurodivergent individuals and neurotypical individuals is basic at best, with them making claims about human nature and ableism that would fit in a Prince Ea video. He proposes a concept of ableism-as-jealousy, and oversimplifies capital’s chokehold on neurodivergent people:
“It may even be because enough people simply don't understand that autistic folk have the ability to lead a successful, happy life if given the individualized support that they need. Imagine being born into a world where your mind will simply never be understood and you will have a sliver of a view into what it is like being born with autism.”
Goerzen operates from only an empiricist lens, and writes from an activist’s and “Mental Health Advocate’s” (they even self-identify as one) pen, and therefore has not taken the time to educate themselves on critical theory, to give an example, and how it applies to modern understandings of neurodivergency. They are a victim of neoliberal analysis of oppressed-oppressor relationships simply because of this illiteracy, and attempting to call them out on it will make you a bigot, even though they didn’t take the time to understand the narratives of ableism.