Some of my readers will probably be bored of me going on about this, but I reserve my right to use my blog as an online prefrontal lobe. While I believe political agitationism for its own sake will only exacerbate problems for disabled people, there is something to be said for political activism. After all, how else can the problems we face be solved? While many problems have been solved over the past half century, we still face one or two biggies. Special schools, for instance.

The problem is, where do we draw the line? I still say that we shouldn’t draw attention to our disabilities for specifically political motives: to do so would be crass exhibitionism which will only divide us further from society and increase prejudice. For example, some members of DAN make a point of making a fuss of every small infraction of etiquette, and draw more attention to their disability than perhaps they should. What’s the point? Under no circumstances should people try to hide their disability, but some people take it too far by deliberately highlighting it. The problem is, where to draw the line? I know we live in a diverse community, and that is worth celebrating, but when taken to an extreme, the overt refusal to conform becomes counterproductive.

Now I know a little about nonconformity. How can society ever change if we all adhere to the strict codes and mores that it imposes upon us? Sometimes, stirring shit up is what is needed – we need people to walk across campuses in zentai suits, go to discos as fairies, and to have disabled characters in second life. You cant make an omelette without breaking eggs (or in my case, saucepans, cups and whatever else is in the kitchen). Everything – gender, ability, everything – is just a grand narrative to be reread. The question is how do we do this without causing more problems than it solves?

With my own activity, the buck stops with me. I don’t care if people think I’m a freak; I think it’s cool. It also has nothing to do with disability, so people aren’t likely to generalise: this cripple is a transvestic freak, therefore all disabled people are freaks’. Hence my sort of nonconformism is benign; it might even be productive in the way it breaks stereotypes. On the other hand, inasmuch as A) they are in a way meant to represent all disabled people, and B) centre their (rather more direct) nonconformism around their disabilities, their activities, it seems to me, are more likely to impact negatively on the wider disabled community. it seems to me that organisations such as Dan break eggs for the sake of it. By being so loud, obtuse, so ‘in your face’, they only ostracise the wider community. They may want omelette just as I do, but think it should be made by cracking eggs with a sledgehammer, and cooking the damn thing with a rocket engine. The result, I fear, is a few broken eggs amid the wreckage of the kitchen. Such direct, forceful action, such nonconformity without thought, seems to me to cause more problems than it solves.