The Disablist Nature of Anti-Rights and Anti-Narrative Arguments

Every time I see "mental illness" used as a label with the intention of controlling, negating, or silencing an adoptee's (or anyone's) narrative, my stomach turns.  This is the employment of society's idea that those who are disabled have less to contribute than others do.  It's disablism and it's wrong.  Disablism is a huge issue in the United States where we've literally kept those who are differently abled from having equality and a voice.  A perfect example of this is the way individuals with special needs have had to fight for their right to safe access to public schools and public and government buildings.  The idea that those who are differently abled and have special needs have less to contribute or whose perspectives carry less weight or are less valid transforms labels that refer to one's disability into insults and dismissals. 

We see this very disablism in anti Adoptee Rights statements and rebuttles negating adult adoptee narratives where the stereotypes of mental illness are used to argue against our right to our information.  An adoptee didn't express their response to oppression politely enough?  They must be mentally ill.  An adoptee wants to reunite?  They must have had a "dysfunctional" family and be a "poorly adjusted" adult.  An adoptee wants their OBC or other information?  They must be seeking to be "disruptive."  Foremost, whether or not an adoptee or any other individual is mentally ill is not a reason to dismiss their experience or their voicing their opinion on an issue that impacts them.  It is not OK to use mental illness or words that imply mental illness with the specific purpose of using the corresponding stereotypes to dismiss adoptees.  This not only stigmatizes adoptees but further validate's society's ignorance towards those who are mentally ill.

Here are some examples, not necessarily direct quotes, with words, responses, and phrases I have heard/read actual organizations say in response to adoptee OBC access:

"Adoptees want to TRACK DOWN their mothers and BANG DOWN their doors."

"Adoptees do not have the right to DISRUPT their mother's lives and SHOW UP unannounced."

First of all, they're making quite the stretch there aren't they?  OBCs are about rights, not anything else.  Just because someone wants an OBC doesn't mean they want to reunite.  It doesn't mean they'll be able to use it to find someone (a recent study on OBC access in Oregon showed that about 40% of adoptees who were trying to use their OBCs to find a family member were unsuccessful).

Additionally, when I go to visit someone, I usually call or email first to make sure it is OK with them.  Then I knock gently on the door or even use the doorbell.  I ask if they are free; if they look busy, I offer to come back at a different time.

I have never in my life stopped in on someone that I didn't call first to ask or already know they wouldn't mind.  I have never pounded with my fist on their door as "banged down" implies that one would be pounding it so spitting mad that you can almost envision it being shaken off its hinges.  And I have never "disrupted" someones life.  Ever. 

Why would I behave any differently toward my original family?

By the specific wording that they use "BANG DOWN," "TRACK DOWN," "DISRUPT," they are implying that adoptees as a whole can be assumed to be incapable of being courteous, mature, and responsible--to the point that not only can they not be treated equally but they cannot even be given their own basic information.  They are implying we can be automatically be assumed to be irrational and lack good judgement--to the point that it is openly suggested that we cannot manage our own relationships (but these groups are offering for their affiliates to be intermediaries for us, to the tune of several hundred dollars per records access/reunion.  How nice!).  What is it about carrying a decree of adoption (precisely what makes someone adopted) that causes people to say such things about us?

Lest we not forget, the same groups making these arguments are the same one billing adoption as wonderful and as making adoptees turn out even better than the general population.  According to them we turn out even better (and there are "studies" to back this up!) but are still incapable of managing our own relationships the same way those who are not adopted are?  Why don't more legislators recognize the inconsistencies and lack of congruency in these arguments?  I am tired of organizations using stereotypes to further stigmatize adoptees, especially at the expense of individuals with disabilities.  I believe that in our Op-eds and other rebuttles to the statements Anti-Rights and Anti-Narrative organizations, we need to begin to point out this particular disablist prejudice that is being used and say "it's just not OK."

Photo credit: smokedsalmon