Standard Competancy Evaluations

There are many ways that people subtly promote unrealistic expectations and exclude those who don't meet them. The people explaining how exclusion isn't a problem, of course, aren't those who are experiencing the consequences. 

Similar to other government agencies, services for the protection of children will go beyond promoting health and welfare; they promote industrial standards as well. Not only are they interested in insuring that parents will love and care for their children; they will also judge fitness based on competency. In this way, the judgements on fitness for authority are ultimately hurting more than helping those considered to have needs, which are special. Such children are considered burdens with not only nothing to offer but are also labeled a threat to the human species. 

This traditional judgment occurs with advocacy as well. Advocates claim that they are just as capable of meeting standards rather than challenging social practices and official policies, so they will become more inclusive. 

The politicians claiming to support autistics too often support oppressive traditions. They are quick to show how the science doesn't support harmful treatments and how autism doesn't necessarily create what passes for intellectual limitations. However, the goal of overcoming all that has been conveniently labeled substandard is unrealistic. In this way, the average autistic, who has fewer options, sacrifices for the sake the politics-as-usual arena where the stagnation of progress is protected. 

I commented on an article recently which I thought was very helpful. It generally suggested better access for influential discussions. The responses indicated that some saw what was being proposed as "dumbing-down" or implying that some people weren't capable of meeting the standard. This, from their perspective, would encourage pity and a condescending approach toward them. 

Either the number of people not participating indicates that the standard is exclusive, or the people who don't meet it will be blamed. Pity and condescension are threats, but they aren't the only threats. An obstacle that is equal in successfully preventing participation is the way some will claim they are providing support and encouraging others to rise to their potential but are not doing that at all. Instead, they are protecting the system and the position they have attained within it. 

Politicians are encouraged to believe they have a bird's eye view and that others without this advantage can't understand how altering the standards is impractical. What they, from their elevated position are blinded from is the way what has been determined factual is limited to the degree that participation has been prohibited. The determination of ability is based on fashion and the way fashionable trends are used oppressively and nothing more. More people don't need to provide what has already been labeled valuable. Instead, what more people are contributing needs to be recognised as valuable.