My husband and I were talking about the idea of voluntary amputees being eligible for handicap parking, disability, vocational rehabilitation, etc. As we are both service-connected disabled vets, we have an added first-person facet of repulsion. The idea of someone volunteering to be disabled is unconscionable and insulting. You can argue it’s a cure for a mental disability, but my indignation persists. I have felt my true self and lost it. I know what it’s like to feel my own body as an enemy. I make concessions every day. We receive benefits for our sacrifice, from tax breaks to free college and healthcare. We are guaranteed tax-exempt checks for life. In summation, we are taken care of for our sacrifices.
I cannot stress my sincerity when I say there has never been a day where we wouldn’t trade it all for good health.
“Normalizing” procedures like leg extensions, cochlear implants, and reconstructive surgeries are all legitimate improvements to quality of life. Arthur Frank’s Emily’s Scars addresses the reaction of others as a variable in deciding to normalize. Here’s my concern: if a person eligible to become more “normal” declines, are we going to deny them accommodations? Let’s say all deaf people could benefit from cochlear implants (not all can). Deaf persons get implants at an early age, and begin life without disability. There is no longer a need for translators in class, caption glasses at the movies, or businesses to have auxiliary TTY phone numbers. What about the people who elect to stay deaf? As we tell elective amputees their choice means no accommodations, do we tell those who elect to not normalize their choice forfeits their rights as well? Do persons who choose to remain dwarves fail gym class instead of being exempt, or deny them special drivers licenses because pedal adaptors should no longer be necessary? It seems like voluntary disabled could argue that one has as much right to be altered into one’s true self as another has to deny normalizing to retain it.
To start off I would like to extend my gratitude for you and your husband's service to our country as it is sacrifices made by individuals such as yourselves who guarantee ordinary citizens like myself the right to dissent. With that said I politely disagree with your post. In my experience I have seen that people have a myriad of ways of defining quality of life be it on terms of religion, sexuality, or other ways in which people choose or do not choose to live. Understanding this what we see is that when we apply umbrella legislation which lumps everyone under the same rules we are cursed to forever see the case of the "forgotten person" who due to having a unique viewpoint on their situation finds themself in an uncomftorable living situation. An example of this case is seen increasingly in the way that the military handles personel who are gay or lesbian in the military. What has been shown is that the military will either expel individuals who are considered to be "too open" about their sexuality if the personel are not neccessary to the current operation, otherwise the offender is reprimanded with a "slap on the wrist" and sent back out into the field. The point of my post would be that in our pluralistic society the important thing is that we maintain options for individuals who are outside of the majority. Once we start closing options off to people they have to resort to actions or situations that often times place them on the other side of the law. To temper this philosophy I will agree that people should not have to finance another person's behavior if it is an elected situation but the inherent grey area comes in handicap access at a place of work or in government controlled buildings. I can see the dilemna you present in that if it becomes normalized to treat these rare cases then the public at large will elect to discontinue accomodations for such persons and those who elect to live with the condition will find themselves as the "forgotten person".
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment, Nick.
ReplyDeleteI feel the need to address your gays in the military example because I feel you are misinformed. Having served from just after Don’t Ask Don’t Tells inception and years after, I think I can give you a more accurate picture. Regarding Don't Ask Don't Tell (prior to its repeal) I am not sure what incidents you are citing. With regard to being too open, that was never an issue when I was in. There were 2 girls in my command who elected to come out in order to terminate their contracts. Other than that, I knew MANY lesbians, bisexual females, and several bi and gay males who elected to "not tell," at least when it came to people in the command who could take action. There was one case of a gay male I knew well who was caught in the act in the barracks and both were discharged. I can tell you that, had it been an opposite sex couple, there would have been more than a slap on the wrist. Fraternization between unmarried personnel on gov't property is taken seriously as well.
I have never heard of ANY case where a person received a "slap on the wrist." It's either totally ignored, or zero-tolerance. (Again, this is all while DADT was in effect."
As far as those who choose discretion, I can say I would do the same. Not because of fear of DADT, but for the simple reason that whom I fuck is not a public issue. When my lesbian roommate had her girlfriend in town, visiting, staying in our barracks room, I left. I would be just as uncomfortable had it been a man.
I wouldn't say that those against the DADT repeal are homophobic or feel that gays don't deserve to serve. When the proposal to repeal was publicized, I had many ask my viewpoint. I expressed (and still feel) that open gays would be a logistical nightmare. Not because of same-sex benefits, not for discrimination (if anything, discrimination would become illegal.) And I knew that most heterosexuals serving really wouldn't care (a point enforced by recent polls.) But it’s a matter of logistics. Who sleeps with whom? How do you decide who should be matched up? Do you share barracks with people to whom you aren’t oriented? And what if they are oriented to you? I found myself comfortable sharing a room and a shower with gay women; none were ever inappropriate. But would I want to share with a gay man? I like men! And how would he feel if he knew I was checking him out? So do we put him with straight guys? That’s not fair to him. I think things were easier when you didn’t know, or revealed at your own discretion.
====
On a side note, the military’s ideas about sex are as dated and unrealistic as the Catholic Church. The Uniform Code of Military Justice allows for prosecution of persons engaging in sex outside of marriage. As for married couples, they can be prosecuted for sodomy, which is defined as “any sex act that cannot biologically result in conception.” This includes oral sex, mutual masturbation, anal sex and sex with contraception. De facto, these are of no threat, especially considering medical encourages all females to participate in contraceptive programs and use condoms and no one is investigated when acquiring an STD. No one is punished for their use of tax dollars spent treating STDs (acquired while breaking UCMJ codes) but you can be ordered to reimburse the military for healthcare costs resulting from “reckless abuse of government property” (i.e. you) for things like injuries from fighting or the wide net “alcohol-related incident.” I personally knew a girl who, knowing her skin type and having been warned about the strength of the Florida sun, had to be hospitalized with sun poisoning. They brought her up on charges. She didn’t end up paying money but had to serve EMI – extra military instruction. No argument here; it just continues to amuse me.