Despite numerous caveats and reservations from the Autistic Dark Web, the self-appointed ‘autistic community’ have recently been revelling in Autistic Pride.
However, while June may have been devoted to the flamboyantly carnivalesque celebration of debilitating bowel problems, crippling depression, soul-destroying anxiety and social death, August is shaping up to be even more exciting.
The AIDS community are now actively lobbying to have AIDS recognised not as some kind of horrible disease like autism or cancer, but merely another form of ‘diversity.’ Or ‘immunological diversity,’ if you will.
So, let’s see what the great and the good are saying.
An anonymous woke white male centrist intellectual from the pro-neurodiversity UK Labour Party tells us:
In the past, AIDS was pathologised; just like homosexuality. But now the autistic community have correctly worked out something very important, in line with the special powers of perception only the oppressed and wrongly pathologised can ever hope to possess. They now understand that there is no one correct way for any one person’s immune system to function. We should be celebrating ALL immune systems, just like we celebrate ALL neurodiverse brain structures and functionings, or ALL body shapes, or ALL sexualities.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY (USA)
A similarly politically correct Democratic Party spokesperson has responded in a similar vein:
The fat community have rightly discerned that there is no one correct body shape, and anyone who says that one body shape is more ‘healthy’ than another is clearly an ignorant Alt-Right bigot who is funded by the Koch Brothers. Stop reading Breitbart!
But yes… those who don’t understand my opinion are nothing other than ‘essentialists,’ i.e. deluded idiots who are trying to find the ‘real essence’ of one’s ‘true body’ behind the veil of appearance. Of course, as we all know and agree, this is a futile quest; essentialists are objectively evil!
Or at least they would be, if there actually were such a thing as good or evil to begin with; objective or otherwise!
So also it is with AIDS. Nobody has the right to tell you your immune system is less good than theirs; what does ‘good’ or ‘bad’ really mean anyway?! AIDS is NOT an imperfection, it is NOT a disease, and there is no TRUE ‘non-AIDS’ person behind the AIDS person. That’s just being exclusionary and intolerant; and that’s argument enough for me! What more need possibly be said?!
Meanwhile, the utterly wild-eyed, wacky, batshit crazy UK Green Party tells us:
Cancer and AIDS are not just ‘part of you.’ They ARE you, and you ARE them. There’s just no escape, so don’t even try! I mean… it’s not even like you can somehow distinguish between the ‘real me’ and the ‘fake me,’ or the ‘cancerous me’ and the ‘non-cancerous me,’ or the ‘AIDS me’ and the ‘non-AIDS me.’ These differences are all socially constructed.
Cancer and AIDS are not diseases, they are identities. If I choose to identify as someone with cancer, that is my human right to do so; nobody should EVER get to tell me I’m ‘not a REAL cancer sufferer.’
Likewise, anybody who says I can’t receive anti-retrovirals or chemotherapy or accommodations at work and studies on account of my lifestyle choice and my identity, is just an ignorant right wing bigot.
The whole myth of a ‘real / fake cancer’ and ‘real / fake AIDS’ is just an exclusionary, intolerant and unbearably undiverse attitude. These are just binary oppositions that are socially constructed all the way down. Nobody should be trying to pin people down, when the number of possible significations that can be attributed to cancer and AIDS are truly limitless!
When asked what they could possible mean by the latter pointless heap of intellectual jargon, the spokesperson looked a little flustered and said:
Socially constructed. Means what it says, says what it means. Does exactly what it says on the tin. Hail Ronseal!
THE VOICE OF REASON?
Professor Smiggles aptly surmises:
If autism is indeed a cause for celebration, if self-diagnosis is indisputably legitimate, and horrible diseases are merely an achingly sexy and flamboyant ‘identity,’ and nothing remotely bad and negative, then there is no reason why cancer and AIDS cannot be too. If the premise holds, then the consequent is irrefutably deducible.
Sad to say, however, the premise is simply complete and utter tosh, and one is tempted to suspect one has lost about a billion brain cells, or thereabouts, in endeavouring to wade through the heap of utter sub-Parisian metropolitan sophistry above.