Court Rules on Disney’s Policy

A federal judge ruled that Disney’s 2013 policy changes around visitors to their park who have disabilities do not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. The policy changes made it so that instead of visitors with disabilities being allowed to move to the front of lines, they would now be given passes based on estimated wait times so that they wouldn’t have to stand in the line but would be allowed to return at the time that they would have made it to the front of the line.

The article implies that these changes have the largest effect on children with autism. It says that parents complained that the new policy lead to more meltdowns from children. It did not mention negative effects other than unhappy children or any disabilities other than autism (except for an implicit reference to mobility impairments through mention of wheelchair ramps.

Part of the ruling was that a blanket rule like the one instituted, rather than individualized care, did not in fact violate the ADA as plaintiffs alleged. I understand why this is the case but is telling of both the ADA and Disney’s priorities. If Disney wanted to actually show that it cared about visitors with disabilities it would provide comprehensive individualized services, but the corporation is probably more concerned with making sure they are policy compliant rather than actually providing care.

Ex-Cop Games System, Collects Disability Checks

This article is about an ex-cop from New York City who retired because he hit a pedestrian on his motorcycle and is now collecting disability checks. It sounds like the woman who he hit was severely injured in the accident and he walked away relatively unharmed. It also sounds like the accident was completely his fault, but he sued the woman he hit, who ended up having to pay him $850,000. Now he collects $108,000 a year, and also has a job training police recruits to shoot.

I have contradicting thoughts about this article. On the one hand it’s just the story of an asshole cop who’s gaming the system so that he can collect taxpayers’ money for nothing, while also working a job where he trains more cops how to use weapons. On the other hand, the way disability payments are represented in the article makes them sound unfairly large, and unfair to anyone who is still able to work in some way. While it does sound illegitimate for this man to be receiving these checks, there are plenty of people who can work a small amount but still should receive some compensation from the state.

Class Facilitation 4/11

Class Facilitation 4/11

Aurora Brainsky-Roth and Forrest Jackson



Medical intervention around sexuality

Slurs (especially c-slur) and discussion of their appropriate use


We will begin with a discussion of c-slur time, making sure everyone is on the same page about what it means broadly. We will make clear what Kafer means by c-slur time and where it can take us, as well as its limitations. We will specifically mark the use of the c-slur and talk about who can and cannot use it and when.

C-slur time:


Slow or fast

Out of order

Not future oriented

Task is alternate temporalities that do not cast disabled people out of time

Is flexibility a value that we should be striving for? What does flexibility mean and who is it for? Does it leave people out?

What does this mean in terms of labor and the “work day”?

Can we think about this concept outside of the urge or need to work?



How can we think about prognosis time (Kafer 37) and death, disability and time more deeply, and extend or alter this framework to questions of mental illness and suicide?

We will talk about the language that we use around suicide, specifically shifting the framework away from “committing” to “death by” or a variant – e.g. “died by/from/of suicide,” similar to “died from/of cancer”

Suicide – Queer time/c-slur time – “This mental illness will kill me” vs. “This disease will kill you”

Can we also think about suicide outside of mental illness? I.e. assisted suicide, incarcerated suicide

How does prognosis time/suicide time shape a relationship to activism, as well as a sense of self (when the self is tied to both the present and the future)?

Can we use this to address death more fully than Kafer does?



What does it mean for the mind and body to be out of sync (Kafer 48)? What makes this  mind/body asynchrony “grotesque”?


How can we use this asynchrony to think about the bioethics of hormone therapy and transness? What makes that asynchrony more grotesque to doctors than a surgically modified body? Can we think about the cultural connotations of an adult with the mind of a child in conjunction with the trope of a man with the mind of a woman?


How does capacity come into play? I.e. doctors either enabling life or strategically disabling a patient. What is the difference between casting this asynchrony as disability vs. surgically induced “disability”

Interesting context of the word asynchrony in terms of “giftedness” –



How can we think about the term “pillow angel” (Kafer, 52, 66) through the lens of the production of white femininity and childhood, in terms of her sexuality needing to be “protected,” or for her body needing to be protected from sexualization? Protected from whom?