Newsflash!

Did you know that breastfeeding could abolish all diabetes? No, you didn't? That's because it can't!!

Last week, a nurse (possibly a nurse practitioner) said at a health care activism meeting, well, if everyone breastfed, there would be no diabetes.

Um... I say, I am diabetic and I was definitely breastfed for a long time.

Instead of owning up to the stupidity and insensitivity of her comment, or at least backing off a little, this woman says, "Really?!! Wow, you must be the outlier, the one exception! It's an inflammatory process!"

Hell no. This woman did not only just talk about me and my mother, but then she tried to defend her statement and act all surprised.

I thought about not even telling my mom (a nurse practitioner) about it because even though we both know it's bullshit, I don't want her to even think for a second about blaming herself or that I might blame her. But, I decided to, and she articulated another thing about it that bothered me. She said, "Doesn't sound like politics to me, sounds like blaming the victim." Yes, the blaming the victim thing. Stupid and fucked up. But I think it was politics, or "blaming the victim" masquerading as a political statement/rebellion, which bothers me even more. And blaming mothers is a recurring theme in our culture.
EDIT: As I was writing this post, I found this great discussion going over on Scott's blog about diabetes, breastfeeding, and blame/guilt.

I am actually all about breastfeeding for mothers that are able to, but this comment was just ridiculous for a couple reasons. Even though I do think traditional medicine can be harmful sometimes and natural methods have a lot to offer, the "natural medicine" pusher people piss me off a lot because they take it to an extreme that is able-ist and/or just dumb. Also, not all mothers are able to breastfeed for various health and other reasons.

In general, people that think they have a cure-all "natural" solution for my diabetes, or whatever else, are pretty arrogant to think that they have the fix to something that I devote endless time and energy to on a daily basis. If it was that simple and complete a solution, don't you think I would have found it? Or am I just stupid for muddling through with my traditional medicine? Do you want to see what happens to my body for even 4 hours without any insulin?

Now, that nurse wasn't suggesting she had a cure for me now. This is just an example of where that kind of statment takes you. It's a way of invalidating my very real experience. That's the problem with universalizing especially when you havent had that experience (and especially when you're working out of this ableist framework).

Also, even if it really was true that breastfeeding can prevent all diabetes, that's a pretty serious, loaded thing to say in such a cavalier way to someone you met 15 minutes ago.

I need to learn to write shorter posts. If you're getting bored, you can consider yourself done here! More ramblings of mine follow...


There are studies that show breastfeeding does significantly reduce the chances of a kid developing type 1 diabetes. And inadequate nutrition as a fetus, infant, or child can be linked to higher risks for stuff like type 2 diabetes and other health issues as an adult (one reason why I think we need to look at environmental stresses like poverty, etc. before anyone chalks up racial health disparities to genetics, which can often end up being just a new sophisticated incarnation of scientific racism). But for her to talk about this one single cause is really inaccurate. And her justification that it's an "inflammatory process" doesn't help her case, because there are so many different triggers that contribute to inflammation.

Also - speaking of ableism - this nurse also made a bunch of comments about well, if something ever happens to me, that's it. pull the plug. She was trying to make a point about the excess money we spend in the U.S. on heroic measures like ventilators at the end of life. I actually agreed with some of what she was saying, that we need to reexamine what life is and how we're spending our healthcare dollars, and if we really want, from a financial and quality of life standpoint, to be living hooked up to tons of stuff instead of letting ourselves die peacefully when life is ending. But I don't think needing outside assistance from other people, machines, or drugs are the definition of when life is worth living or not, and her statements went too far into ableism and almost even eugenics.

Do you really think life with illness isn't worth living? And do you want to say that to me and the woman sitting next to me that looks like she might have cancer? Besides being a messed up way of thinking, MOST people live with illness or disability in some form at some point (especially people that are not upper-class white people like she and I). And I think to not recognize that is both inaccurate and ableist in that it reinforces this idea that healthy and perfect (and requiring no outside help from other people/medicines/therapies/etc) is the "normal" state for everyone, and a fall from that is remarkable or abnormal.

An Inclusive ENDA

There's a proposal to take gender identity out of the categories protected by the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) pending in congress right now. Please call your U.S. representative - capitol switchboard # is (202) 224-3121 - now to urge them to keep gender identity in the bill. If you don't know who your representative is, you can find out here by punching in your zipcode. For more on this issue with ENDA, see this page at the National Center for Transgender Equality.

Right now, legislative avenues are not my #1 favorite avenue for activism, but this still seems significant to me, partly because of the way trans exclusions within gay/queer communities have unfolded recently and in the past. Some people, including Congressman Barney Frank, have said that it is better to leave gender identity out "for now" so that the bill will have an easier chance of passing with sexual orientation protected. That is one of the problems with using law in a struggle - it constrains your struggle, and the "solutions" end up being exclusionary and/or policing.

Some posts I've read by other bloggers and even a few comments on facebook have helped me think about and better articulate why I'm against dropping gender identity from the bill. They also have further educated me about the exclusionary histories of groups like HRC (Human Rights Campaign), who was very slow to move on the current proposed exclusion of gender identity from ENDA.

Transgriot wrote a great informative post about the history of trans exclusion (as well as regional and racial exclusivity) in mainstream gay groups like HRC. One thing that she says about the problem asking the trans community to "wait" really helps bring the issue into focus:

"We're also pissed that the same people who demanded (and still demand) that we accept 'incremental progress' when it comes to trans rights hypocritically have no intention of accepting 'incremental progress' when it comes to legal recognition of same-sex relationships."

Angry Brown Butch also critiques HRC in this recent post:

HRC is, in a nutshell, an extremely mainstream, pandering, assimilationist LGB”T” organization that seems to work primarily for the rights of the most privileged, white picket fence (and just plain white) sort of queers. Well, not queers, seeing as “queer” is not their sort of word. They are decidedly lesbian, gay, bisexual I guess, and let’s throw in transgendered so that it looks like we care.

Transgriot also has post specifically about transphobia and Barney Frank in the past and with the current ENDA.

So... I don't think gender identity should be taken out because I can't stand the idea of (and don't want to learn how) embracing the idea of fighting for a "protection" that purposely leaves some of my friends and allies behind. Especially because of the way that trans exclusion/violence/oppression is written into all kinds of government and social practices. And the history behind this is important and not irrelevant to the current attempt at exclusion. One person on facebook said something like, this doesn't mean trans "later," it means trans never, because of the way power, and privilege work. And because of the marriage-rights focus of mainstream wealthy/powerful groups like HRC.

The other thing about this is that it works to divide queer and gay communities, and I don't think this is a total accident. Just like the way some race and/or class struggles work, it's offering one group some privileges if they agree to divide from the other part of the group. It breaks up alliances that could happen in a more inclusive way and forces people to choose between these alliances and a mainstreaming, limited protection that excludes or steps on other peoples' feet.

On the facebook wall for a group supporting an inclusive ENDA, someone made the point that this is also important for people that aren't trans but have some other kind of non-conforming gender identity or expression. It affects and constrains the expression of other people in (and not in) the gay/queer community. If gender identity and expression is an acceptable form of employment discrimination, then only gay people that are able to/want to/do assimilate to mainstream (straight) gender norms are protected. You are only allowed to be gay if you assimilate to straight gender norms and don't threaten/challenge anyone in that way. Besides being a fucked up way of policing what kind of queer community is acceptable, it's also a pretty gaping loophole that employers could easily use to discriminate against gay people that dressed or acted "inappropriately" or "unprofessionally" or in a way that "made clients uncomfortable" or whatever they want to say because they were too masculine or too effeminate or whatever.

It reminds me of an article I read about the "assimilationist bias" in anti-discrimination law called Covering by Kenji Yoshino. It's the idea that, if you can't change it (eg skin color), then you are "helpless" to change it and it's protected, but if you can (eg straighten or cut off your kinky black hair) then you should, and your "difference" (rather than society's structure/oppression) is what's generating the social inequality, and it's not protected. It's still racism if a black person can't be fired because of their skin color but can be fired because of having their hair in braids or locks rather than cut short or chemically straightened to look like white hair.

It' part of an idea there are a few different levels of assimilation: all-out conversion (think ex-gay movement), passing (think being in the closet at work and passing for straight), and covering (discreetly mentioning you've got a "partner" at work but making sure you didn't flaunt it in anyone's face or be yourself in a way that would make any straight people you work with too uncomfortable or challenged, maintaining your expected gender norms, etc.). Just because someone can "cover" or "pass" (and not everyone can, obviously, and many do so with trauma and/or self-suppression) doesn't mean they should have to - and an ENDA without gender identity could encourage this.

I'm writing from a position of a lot of privilege to be able to sit back and reflect on this in a really abstract/theoretical way. For a lot of reasons, I haven't experienced overt hostility or discrimination in employment because of my gender or sexual orientation. But to me it seems like supporting an exclusive ENDA is the wrong way to go.

The Fantasy

Wow, that really sucks, but it's gonna be OK, and you're already good at _____ and ______, so that will help a lot.

Man, I'm so sorry. I wish you didn't have it. But we are going to be there for each other so much for support.

It's ok, I know it's hard. You need to be self-sufficient, but if you've had enough for tonight and you want me to, I can just give it to you, and then you can do your own shot tomorrow.

It's The Fantasy. The fantasy that I sometimes catch myself playing through in my head, that a close friend or family member will get diagnosed with diabetes too. I think the fantasy is always about type 1 and not type 2, which is interesting for a few reasons including how I identify with type 1 (and mark that difference), and the fact that it is WAY less likely (especially since most of the people close to me are adults or close to it).

I think I don't even stop and realize that I'm fantasizing, that I myself am creating this scene, until I've already manufactured a whole scenario and am running lines in my head between me and whoever my brain has chosen that time.

I don't actually want it to happen. Well, clearly part of me does, but when I weigh everything out, I definitely don't wish it would happen. I hope that it won't happen when I stop and think hard about the actual consequences.

So what is it about? I think fantasies in general are interesting. They are what the mind creates drawing from experiences and desires and all kinds of social norms and ideas and categories. And I think often they manifest themselves in a way that disavows, or tries to deny, some of the desire that is behind them. I notice sometimes that I am pondering a situation thinking about the situation or dialogue and what it means, and how I'd respond, as if it was something that actually happened or might happen. As if the people I'm thinking about had themselves done or said the things, and they could be responsible for them, when the actions or words are actually my creation. It can be really hard to figure that out and own that. Because it can be hard to even realize they are mine when the words came from the other persons' mouth in that fantasy, but also because it can be painful or make me look bad to have those thoughts actually be mine.

A class I took last year helped me think about things in this way and recognize how those fantasies work, especially pertaining to race stuff. I notice myself and other people, especially in the media, articulating racial situations and characters that are actually fantasies, creations, caricatures, reflections of our own thoughts, fears, desires, and sometimes even our own selves. It's really crazy but I think important to realize what I'm doing when I have those kinds of thoughts that are fantasies.

So back to this one... what does the diabetes fantasy mean?

Part of it I'm sure is that I want some company. I want someone to understand, to share some of my experiences. I actually have found a lot of company here online over the past year (diabetes blogs, facebook groups, tu diabetes, listserves), which does help me feel connected and supported a lot more than I ever expected from internet sources. But it's still a different fantasy about one of the people close to me, that are already in my life and share my experiences, to share this too, and maybe understand better.

On a deeper and kind of scarier, maybe uglier, level, I think I want to be able to comfort someone. Is this about comforting because that would validate me to be able to help make things better for someone else? Or because I want this kind of comfort from someone else? I don't think much about wanting or needing this intense kind of comforting from someone but maybe I do want it in some ways.

In a similar way, I want to be able to help someone by sharing my knowledge with them. I have all this intricate knowledge about blood sugar and food and insulin and exercise that is helpful to me, but somewhat random to most other non-diabetics. I want a chance for this knowledge to be useful. So that I could help someone else but also to validate myself. Interesting because I'm not sure how much I'd want this kind of "help" from someone else, but that's after years of building up knowledge. I guess I have absorbed a lot from other people over the years, although before I was part of this online community most didn't come from other diabetics. But that's also why my fantasy is about someone being newly diagnosed, and not someone else just having diabetes (remember this is created - it's a fantasy - so anything could happen, even though it's easier to imagine the newly diagnosed scenario because technically that is possible right now).

I think some of it is more superficial too. Just general speculation, playing around with the idea, since diabetes stuff is something that's so much a part of me and what I think about on a day to day basis, that I just think about and am curious about how it would play out with someone else.

I was worrying about how vulnerable I may have made myself by being so brutally honest in this post, and was encouraged to post it by what Amanda wrote over at BallastExistenz about there being no dumb questions, and reasons for writing difficult posts. Partly it's what she said, that other people may be thinking this and it may be helpful for them, or spark dialogue between us, if I post this. But others don't have to be thinking similar things to make it ok for me to post this.

It's more about the people I know that I worry than those that I don't - sometimes I wish I could have the opposite of a friends-only lock on an entry. A non-friends-only lock. I've wanted this on other things I've thought about writing. So that only people that don't actually know me could read it. So that I could say whatever I was thinking and not self-censor myself before it even comes out since I am thinking about my audience and what they might think. So that I don't have to worry about offending or hurting anyone, that I wouldn't have to worry about something seeming like a passive aggressive attack when I really just needed to say it, and wasn't directing it at anyone (whether it did or didn't actually have to do with them).