I found some of your reply VERY, VERY problematic:
"Different" people may not be mentioned because they may not be considered different. Such as skincolor. In many works I've read it's not mentioned. A lot of times even the skincolor of the main character is not mentioned nor is the race. They could be of any race, it's just not mentioned, thus not considered important. It could be the same deal with disabilities that are not actually impairing the character or influencing the story
I'm massively uncomfortable with this right here. I get that I am barely up to racism 101, but this really didn't sit right with me.
Skin color is not interchangeable with race, just so you know. Not mentioning a skin color is NOT the same as not mentioning a race.
I've also read a lot of books where the race, ethnicity, and/or nationality of characters was never mentioned. I didn't find it to be a good positive thing or indicative of a better future. That often leads to readers interpreting the characters as white. I do not know how you identify yourself racially, but being able to say that race is not important is a very, very privileged thing. Being able to dismiss race, not identify it, not think about it is something the privileged get to do, and it is NOT a good thing. I identify white and I know that in the past, I have had the privilege to claim that race didn't matter, that I didn't see race, that race wasn't important to me. And it was sheer privilege to say that, especially in the context of me being American and white.
I don't want to read more SF about characters who are stripped of any race, where it isn't even mentioned, where race is taken to be "unimportant". I've read enough of that.
2. Race and disability are not the same thing. So I'm not sure how comparing portrayals where the race of a character is never even mentioned with disabilities that aren't mentioned or don't impair a character is appropriate here.
They would be different. They would not be born blind or they would not have malformed arm, but they would live. Are you saying that you do not agree with trying to find cures for this? That's how it seems to me.
Let me make sure I'm clarifying myself.
Scientific research into cure and treatments and the options PWD choose for themselves are not mine to judge, to agree or disagree with. I think people should do what is best for themselves with what they have available. If/when treatments/cures are made available, people should be able to choose what is best for them. END OF.
I have no place and no right to say "should" for anyone else but myself.
If there's a treatment or a cure or a therapy or a medicine - now or in the future - that a person decides to pursue because it is right for them, then that's a good thing.
This is not about me saying what people should and shouldn't do in reality WRT to disability. I have no place and no business saying such things, speaking beyond my experience and out of privilege. That would be wrong, and if it sounds like I'm saying that, then that's a failing on my part to be clear and to make sure I checked myself when writing. For that I apologize.
This is about the SF futures that people are writing about and what attitudes may be reflected and reinforced in what is imagined. That's what this discussion is about.
I think when the only story told is that EVERY DISABILITY EVER is quickly cured and everyone is made typical/average/"normal", then that's a problem, not because I think there should never be any real-life research into treatments, cures, and making more options available (OPTIONS to be chosen, not forced cures), but because I think this can reflect ablist attitudes some writers hold and attitudes in society in general.
no subject
"Different" people may not be mentioned because they may not be considered different. Such as skincolor. In many works I've read it's not mentioned. A lot of times even the skincolor of the main character is not mentioned nor is the race. They could be of any race, it's just not mentioned, thus not considered important. It could be the same deal with disabilities that are not actually impairing the character or influencing the story
I'm massively uncomfortable with this right here. I get that I am barely up to racism 101, but this really didn't sit right with me.
Skin color is not interchangeable with race, just so you know. Not mentioning a skin color is NOT the same as not mentioning a race.
I've also read a lot of books where the race, ethnicity, and/or nationality of characters was never mentioned. I didn't find it to be a good positive thing or indicative of a better future. That often leads to readers interpreting the characters as white. I do not know how you identify yourself racially, but being able to say that race is not important is a very, very privileged thing. Being able to dismiss race, not identify it, not think about it is something the privileged get to do, and it is NOT a good thing. I identify white and I know that in the past, I have had the privilege to claim that race didn't matter, that I didn't see race, that race wasn't important to me. And it was sheer privilege to say that, especially in the context of me being American and white.
I don't want to read more SF about characters who are stripped of any race, where it isn't even mentioned, where race is taken to be "unimportant". I've read enough of that.
2. Race and disability are not the same thing. So I'm not sure how comparing portrayals where the race of a character is never even mentioned with disabilities that aren't mentioned or don't impair a character is appropriate here.
They would be different. They would not be born blind or they would not have malformed arm, but they would live. Are you saying that you do not agree with trying to find cures for this? That's how it seems to me.
Let me make sure I'm clarifying myself.
Scientific research into cure and treatments and the options PWD choose for themselves are not mine to judge, to agree or disagree with. I think people should do what is best for themselves with what they have available. If/when treatments/cures are made available, people should be able to choose what is best for them. END OF.
I have no place and no right to say "should" for anyone else but myself.
If there's a treatment or a cure or a therapy or a medicine - now or in the future - that a person decides to pursue because it is right for them, then that's a good thing.
This is not about me saying what people should and shouldn't do in reality WRT to disability. I have no place and no business saying such things, speaking beyond my experience and out of privilege. That would be wrong, and if it sounds like I'm saying that, then that's a failing on my part to be clear and to make sure I checked myself when writing. For that I apologize.
This is about the SF futures that people are writing about and what attitudes may be reflected and reinforced in what is imagined. That's what this discussion is about.
I think when the only story told is that EVERY DISABILITY EVER is quickly cured and everyone is made typical/average/"normal", then that's a problem, not because I think there should never be any real-life research into treatments, cures, and making more options available (OPTIONS to be chosen, not forced cures), but because I think this can reflect ablist attitudes some writers hold and attitudes in society in general.