Friday, January 13, 2017

Is Asexuality Subject to Religious Prejudice?

Online, I've encountered some people who are adamant that asexuals don't belong in the queer community - particularly cisgender heteroromantic or aromantic asexuals. One reason they cite is the idea that prejudiced religious people are fine with asexuality but are usually vehemently anti-gay.

To be honest, it doesn't really make sense to me why we'd let homophobes define what is queer. But in any case, is that claim accurate? Is asexuality (specifically aromantic and heteroromantic asexuality) fine with religious bigots?

Not really.

Generally, Christian conservatives are stereotyped as anti-sex. But that's not true. They're opposed to any kind of sex that occurs outside of a heterosexual marriage. But generally they expect that you will find yourself an opposite sex partner to marry, and you will  have sex with your spouse.

For a Catholic, the only religiously supported means of opting out of sex is to become clergy (nun, priest or monk). I could see that working for many aromantic asexuals, although not everyone with that orientation is suited to that lifestyle. But it very much doesn't work for heteroromantic asexuals.

And most Protestant churches don't have celibate clergy, so that option is out. And if you're not a member of celibate clergy, regardless of what brand of Christianity you're in, you'll be expected to marry an opposite sex partner.

For an aromantic asexual, this means feigning romantic feelings. Some aromantics are romance-repulsed, so that would be very difficult and unpleasant for them.

A heteroromantic asexual doesn't need to feign any emotions to find themselves an opposite sex partner. But once they get married, the problems begin.

In most Christian traditions, sex validates a marriage. It's to the point where if you've never had sex with your spouse, even if you fulfilled all the other requirements to marry them, many churches wouldn't consider the two of you truly married.

Furthermore, many Christians don't necessarily require consent for marital sex, especially the female partner's consent. Marital rape is considered acceptable in many Christian churches - indeed, in many cases, 'withholding' sex from your partner is a sin.

This is obviously a big problem for sex-repulsed asexuals. But even sex-indifferent or sex-favourable asexuals are prone to getting bored with sex, or simply not being willing as often as an allosexual partner is. They might get away with it if they're male, but a woman who refuses her husband sex runs the risk of him ignoring that refusal.

Plus, babies are expected in these religious traditions. If you're not making enough babies, then people start to wonder if something's wrong. And using ART is sinful - although you might get away with IVF using your own gametes, as long as you don't discard any spare embryos, and possibly find a way to collect sperm without masturbating.

Speaking of masturbation, while some asexuals have no libido, and some are just as happy masturbating as having sex, there is a group who are actively turned off by sex, but nonetheless have a libido. (For example, autochorissexuals are excited by sexual fantasies that don't involve them, but turned off by the thought of getting involved.)

And masturbating is definitely considered a sin in most Christian churches. Masturbating because you're single is sinful but understandable. But masturbating in preference to sex with your spouse? That's definitely not OK.

So far I've discussed only Christianity. But from what little I know of Islam and Judaism, conservative groups in both religions have broadly similar rules, and being asexual would be just as unpleasant.

So the answer is yes. Both aromantic and heteroromantic asexuals are subject to religious prejudice. It simply takes a different form that the prejudice against people with same sex attractions. But then again, so does transphobia. Prejudice is prejudice, no matter what form it takes.

Friday, January 06, 2017

Signing Gloves: Useful for AAC

Recently there's been a bunch of hype and controversy over this invention:

These gloves are designed to detect when the wearer produces signs and speak the equivalent word out loud.

The criticism has focused on several points. Firstly, proper ASL has a different grammatical structure than English, so word-for-word translation might make about as much sense for ASL->English as it does for Japanese->English. (Not a random comparison, by the way - as someone learning both ASL and Japanese, I've noticed the two languages have some grammatical features in common that aren't found in English, such as starting a sentence with a topic phrase.) ASL also uses nonmanual markers, such as furrowed brows for wh-questions or shaking your head to negate a statement, which will be missed by these gloves.

Secondly, and more importantly, the gloves only translate one way. Let`s say a Deaf person wearing these gloves signs something, and the gloves say it out loud. Then their conversation partner responds verbally, and they have no idea what that person just said to them. Not very useful, is it?

However, both of these criticisms are only an issue for Deaf signers, and not for hearing signers with AAC needs.

Firstly, most hearing AAC signers have much better receptive than expressive verbal language. Some disabilities, such as apraxia or tracheotomy needs, don't affect receptive verbal language at all. Others cause delays in receptive language, but not as severe as expressive language delays. So if the person they signed to responds in speech, this doesn't pose a problem in the slightest. While having signs modeled by others is important for learning, they don't need the signs to understand what others are saying to them.

Secondly, regarding the grammar issue, most AAC signers don't use ASL grammar. They're typically taught to sign using key word signing, a variant of SimCom where only a few key words are signed as the sentence is spoken. (An example, with signed words bolded: "Let's go get something to eat.") Since their models use telegraphic signing with English word order, that's what AAC signers tend to produce as well. They also don't tend to use ASL nonmanual markers, instead using similar body language to hearing speakers.

So, who would benefit the most from these signing gloves? Uncommon Sense's post, The Limitations of Sign Language for Children With Speech Delays, is relevant here. She lists four reasons that using aided AAC is preferable to signing - most people don't understand signs, children shouldn't depend on another person to translate, fine motor issues lead to garbled signs, and aided AAC can be learnt more quickly than signing can (I can confirm that this is true for me, too).

The signing gloves eliminate the first two concerns. With signing gloves, an AAC user can sign to anyone who understands English and be understood, with no need for translation. They also bring the same benefit for verbal language that an SGD does - many kids using SGDs learn to speak better by echoing the SGD voice.

However, the gloves can't compensate for fine motor delays, and they don't help the AAC user or their models to learn new signs. If the gloves can be reprogrammed for each user, they'd be more useful for an AAC user with fine motor issues, but only to a point - if the user's production of two different signs is indistinguishable, or if they simply can't produce even an approximation of certain signs, the gloves won't solve the problem.

As for the learning issue, this is something that needs to be considered on a case by case basis, taking into account how young the AAC user is (how much do you need to catch up on?), whether they have access to a trained sign language instructor, what resources untrained caregivers have to learn signs, and so forth.

One of the big advantages of signing over using an SGD (the person always has their hands) is also lost by the signing gloves. I've seen no information about whether the gloves are waterproof or not, but I'm guessing they aren't. And no doubt there will be many other situations where the gloves must be removed - doing messy activities, fine motor activities, etc. However, anyone who can use the signing gloves can also sign without the gloves, provided their communication partner is able to understand them.

However, signing gloves also have a couple more advantages over an SGD. Firstly, an experienced signer can sign as quickly as most people speak, whereas an SGD user, no matter how skilled, will always be slower to communicate than a speaker is. The signing gloves don't seem like they would seriously impede signing speed (although their designer certainly isn't capable of demonstrating that!).

Secondly, they're quite portable. Ambulatory SGD users, especially small children and those with poor balance and/or strength, often have difficulty carrying their communication device around with them. Tablet SGDs are more portable than most dedicated devices, and there are various carrying straps and similar options, but none of them are as easy and convenient as wearing gloves.

In conclusion, while they certainly wouldn't work for everyone or in every situation, signing gloves seem like a promising option for some AAC users - especially if they've already had a lot of success with signing.

Monday, January 02, 2017

Asexuality and Feminism - What Are Women For, Anyway?

OK, so the blog carnival topic for January's Carnival of Aces is pretty broad - "Many Ways to be Ace". They suggest several ideas for how to approach this topic, and I'm choosing the first one:

How your asexuality intersects, or doesn't, with one of your other identities (ethnicity, religion, romantic orientation, gender, background, career, etc.)
My first thought was to write about autism, but I've written about being autistic and asexual before. And recently I've been thinking a lot about how my experience of oppression as an asexual woman very much feels linked to oppression experienced by allosexual women as well. In particular, my experience of pick up culture in practice is one of the primary ways in which I encounter prejudice for identifying as asexual.

Several years ago, while taking the bus to university, I had several guys try to pick me up. (I still regularly take that bus, but for some reason I haven't had pick up attempts in a while. No idea why.) I also got a pick up attempt in an MMO I play. From my own experience, I've learnt that saying I'm asexual only seems to encourage these guys. Disturbingly, so does saying I'm a sexual abuse survivor who's afraid of sex.

In general, most of these guys only seem to be deterred by the idea of me being 'taken' by another man. Or as the 'gallant knight' put it, whether I had a boyfriend who would be angry if he knew I was hanging out with another man. (Which, given that I did nothing inappropriate with any of those men, implies my imagined boyfriend is a possessive asshole in their minds.)

I've never been involved with another woman, but judging from this thread and this story I'm guessing that wouldn't count as 'taken' enough for them to back off. No, I have to 'belong' to another man, because they only care about other men's desires, not about my desires.

And this highlights a broader misogynist view of women. In the eyes of many men, we are here for the purpose of having men to have sex with us. What's the point of a woman who's asexual or a lesbian? We're not fulfilling our purpose. We're not giving men sex.

The flipside to this is that if a woman isn't lesbian/asexual or taken, she couldn't possibly be selective about which man she chooses. Especially if she's unattractive or undesirable in some way (which is the reason PUAs neg, to tap into women's socialization and make her feel undesirable so she'll be less choosy). An illustration of this can be seen early on in The Walking Dead TV show, when Merle is trying to convince Andrea to undo the handcuffs used to restrain him. He makes a crude sexual advance at her, and when she looks disgusted, he says she's a 'rug-muncher'. In other words, either she's interested in him, or she's a lesbian. (Andrea, by the way, is clearly portrayed as heterosexual. She's just not interested in misogynist redneck racists who pick stupid fights with other survivors in a zombie infested city.)

As an asexual woman, I'm seen as a challenge. Rather than being someone with no interest in men, I'm someone who needs to be cajoled into sex, to convince me that I actually do want it. I need a 'real man' to show me what it's all about.

Because that's what women are for, right?

Friday, December 30, 2016

Interview With Anthracite_Impreza: Objectum-Asexual/Mecha-Bromantic

My first actual interview. Here, I'm interviewing Anthracite_Impreza about their identity as objectum-asexual.

What do you identify as?

I am aromantic, objectum-asexual and platonically, sensually and aesthetically attracted to certain machines (I use the term mecha-bromantic).

What does objectum-asexual mean to you?

It means to be orientated in some way towards objects, but feeling no sexual desires toward them.

Does objectum-asexual have any synonyms or overlapping terms? What umbrella terms include objectum-asexual?

Not many I know of, though I've heard of objectophilia. I reject that as 'philia' typically means a fetish or "abnormal" desire, which has negative connotations, and is incorrect.

Why do you identify as objectum-asexual rather than as a synonym or umbrella term?

See above.

Are you out as objectum-asexual? How did you come out, and what response have you gotten?

I am on AVEN and to a couple of very close friends. On AVEN I made a big "coming out" thread because I was sick of hiding this part of myself, and to my friends I just told them one at a time, gradually over months. I've received generally supportive responses on AVEN and as I knew, my friends will always support me as I do them. I have also come out to a couple of therapists.

I have never dared come out to any of my family, I don't want to deal with the fallout. I know they'll think I'm mental and try to deny it, and I really can't be arsed with that.

Do you think of objects as having distinct personalities? What features of the object's appearance, use or history suggest personality traits to you?

I do, yes. It's hard to explain, but it's just a gut feeling or a sense, like how you can tell there's tension in a room. The physical appearance/use/history don't have anything to do with personality, it's internal and different for all.

What would your ideal relationship look like?

I'm not after a romantic relationship, nor am I searching for anything else; if things happen they happen. I have mechanical family already and they suit me fine. I love snuggles, kisses and spending time together; quite often I fall asleep or rest my head on them. We go out on drives together and I take ridiculous amounts of photos of them.

Have you ever had sexual, romantic or queerplatonic relationships, and how did being objectum-asexual affect them?

None, with neither objects nor humans.

Do you experience romantic attraction? What does romantic attraction mean to you?

Nope. I think of romance as in the scientific theory, namely addictive behaviour towards a certain object of desire and seeking out an exclusive relationship with them.

Do you experience sexual attraction? What does sexual attraction mean to you?

Also nope. Sexual attraction is being aroused sexually toward an object of desire.

What is your response to people who wonder how you can be attracted to an object?

I wonder how people can be attracted to people tbh, so I'd have to just say it's something deeply ingrained you can't fundamentally understand unless you experience it. Of course it doesn't make sense from an evolutionary perspective, but nature likes to try out new things and it's just one of those.

Are you on the autism spectrum, or suspect you might be? Do you think there might be a link between being objectum-asexual and being on the autism spectrum? A lot of symptom lists for autism include "unusual attachment to objects" as a symptom of autism.

I do have ASD, and there are a lot of OS people with it (though not all), so there could be a link. Being attached to an object isn't the same as OS though, though we may be more likely to explore such feelings. Autistic folks are also more sensitive, which I think is the main reason that we can sense things that neurotypical people usually can't.
Would you be open to question from the readers about being objectum-asexual? How should they contact you?

I would, but I only have my email and I don't want to post that directly on the internet. If they're interested they could contact you and I'll give you my email then.

So if you have any questions for Anthracite_Impreza, send them to me and I'll relay them.

Friday, December 23, 2016

Interview With Myself: Cupioromantic

This is the first part of my new series of interviews about lesser-known labels for gender, sexual and romantic minorities. I've decided to interview myself, to provide an example of the format I'm planning to use for these interviews and to highlight why I identify as cupioromantic.

What do you identify as?

I identify as cisgender female, sex-repulsed nonlibinist asexual and aromantic/cupioromantic.

What does cupioromantic mean to you?

Cupioromantic means I feel a strong desire for a romantic relationship, despite not actually experiencing romantic attraction. In my case, it's a mix of wanting someone I can cuddle, not wanting to be alone once my parents die and my brother (probably) finds a partner, and wanting to be someone's first priority in life.

Does cupioromantic have any synonyms or overlapping terms? What umbrella terms include cupioromantic?

To my knowledge, there are no synonyms for cupioromantic, except possibly romance-favourable aromantic. Personally, I feel that cupioromantic is a type of aromantic identity.

Why do you identify as cupioromantic rather than as a synonym or umbrella term?

Aromantic people are pretty varied in their willingness to have a romantic relationship, just as asexuals vary in their willingness to have sex. I know aromantic people who are strongly romance-repulsed and wouldn't be able to handle a romantic relationship even if they tried to make it work (as some have). There are also aromantic people who would be OK with a romance, but aren't really bothered by not having one.

Even though I don't feel romantic attraction, my desire for a romance is very real and significant to me. In addition, I like having a term that describes my overall attitude towards romance rather than only one particular aspect of it. This is the same reason I describe myself as sex-repulsed and nonlibinist, to locate myself precisely among the wide variations in how asexuals feel about sex.

I don't describe myself as romance-favourable aromantic for two reasons. First, it's more of a mouthful, and second, I don't feel it properly captures the fact that I long for a romantic relationship rather than just feeling like I'd probably enjoy one.

Are you out as cupioromantic? How did you come out, and what response have you gotten?

Only to my family and online. Most people I know don't separate romantic and sexual orientations, so I just call myself asexual.

My parents and I are extremely close, and they've basically known what's going on through every step of my questioning, for both asexuality and cupioromanticism. They're very supportive, although they had some trouble understanding the difference between romance without sex and friendship. (Then again, so did I.) I'm not sure they entirely get what I want from a relationship. My brother gets it more, because he watches a lot of anime and I told him I basically want a nakama.

What would your ideal relationship look like?

It would look like being #1 in someone's eyes, and having them live with me and cuddle me and spend a lot of time with me. If I had to move, it would look like them visiting as often as they can while making plans so we can live together again. This person would be an equal partner in raising my child or children and would be considered their parent. We would not kiss or have sex, though, and probably wouldn't sleep together, though I might want to sleep in the same room with them. I could see this person being male, female, or nonbinary, though I'd prefer a female. We might marry, because of the legal benefits and because I like the idea of us publicly declaring our commitment to each other. But it wouldn't be a typical marriage.

Have you ever had sexual, romantic or queerplatonic relationships, and how did being cupioromantic affect them?

I haven't, no. The closest I've come is having creepy pushy guys come on to me, and me running away as fast as I can. I feel that being sex-repulsed asexual has impacted those interactions more than being cupioromantic, because they were pretty clearly interested in me sexually and didn't believe that I could be asexual when I told them.

As for QPRs, the closest I've had would probably be the strong bond between me and my brother. We're extremely close and he's definitely my best friend and has been for most of my life, even though he's 8 years younger than me. If he doesn't decide to marry anyone, I could see us living together and co-parenting. Obviously I'd never marry him, but I'd be willing to do everything else I described in my 'ideal relationship' above with my brother.

Do you experience any romantic attraction? What does romantic attraction mean to you?

I define romantic attraction as limerence, and no, I don't experience it personally.

I do experience something that may or may not be some form of platonic attraction. Basically, when I'm with someone I care about, I'll suddenly feel intensely drawn to them and overwhelmed by how wonderful they are and how amazing it is that something so wonderful could actually exist. I have physical reaction to this feeling, too - it makes me feel shaky and weak in the knees, and sometimes my chest will ache. I feel like there's a line connecting my heart to theirs. When I feel this way, I want to hug and squeeze them and never let go. This feeling comes over me abruptly, and fades in around 5 seconds or so, though I might feel it again later.

The first time I remember feeling this way was towards my brother, when he was 2 and I was 10. I've also felt this way towards my cats, children I've played with or volunteered with, and my closest friends. Usually we've already formed a bit of a bond first and I feel like I know who they are as an individual.

What do you think about The Thinking Asexual's claim that cupioromantic individuals are aromantic people suffering from internalized amatonormativity?

That doesn't apply at all to me. In fact, I've long assumed that being asexual means I'll never have a partner, and I'm pretty sure I can live with that if I don't meet the right person. I really don't think my desire for romance is created by some desire to be 'normal', and in fact a big part of me would prefer if I had no desire for any kind of romantic relationship, because I'd feel less lonely.

As for the idea of having a queerplatonic partner or very close friend instead, sure. My ideal relationship can be called pretty much anything - if it meets the criteria I described above, I'll be happy. To me, I think if you want a QPR and you're not romance repulsed, you'll probably enjoy a romantic relationship just as much. I don't see how it's so crucial to separate those out as separate things, unless you're romance-repulsed.

I also don't get what's wrong with the idea of being an aromantic person who'd like a relationship with someone who's romantically attracted to them. As long as the other person understands that my feelings are different but no less real, and feels that I can meet their emotional needs regardless, and is willing to respect my boundaries, I don't see a problem with an allo/aro mixed relationship. I don't think mixed relationships are inherently exploitative or problematic, although they certainly can be if the lines of communication aren't kept open.

I'd also like to note that saying I'm cupioromantic in no way implies that I think I'm any better than other aromantic people. I don't think my worth as a person is in any way affected by my attitude towards romance.

Would you be open to questions about cupioromanticism?

I would. You can post any questions as comments on this blog, or else message me on one of the forums I'm active on. (I'm Ettina on almost every forum I have an account on.) Be aware that I might take a long time to answer, depending on when I see your message and whatever else is going on in my life.

If you're interested in learning more about cupioromantic identity, you can also check out Cupiosexual-Cupioromantic on Tumblr.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Highlighting Rare Identities

This post is to announce a project I'd like to do to increase awareness of some of the rarer types of gender, sexual and romantic minorities.

I'd like to interview people who identify with rare, lesser-understood labels for their gender, sexuality and/or romantic orientation. I'm thinking the kinds of labels that:

  • A Google search finds mostly or only glossary entries with single-sentence definitions for that label, with few or no accounts by people who actually identify with that label
  • Many people wonder why that label is needed or important, or point to that label as a sign that you're a 'special snowflake'
  • Most of the time, 'coming out' requires that you engage in a lengthy explanation of what that label even means, or else leave people confused and wondering 'WTF is that?'
If that sounds like your experience around a label you identify as, I'd like to feature you on this blog.

If you participate in this project, I'll ask you a series of interview questions by email or some other mutually accessible format, and then post your answers in a blog explaining one or more labels you identify with. If possible I'll also put in what my research managed to turn up. If I ask a question you're not comfortable answering publically, feel free to decline to answer that question.

The interview questions will vary by the specific label, but in general, I'll ask you to explain that label and how it describes you in your own words, whether that term has synonyms and why you chose that label over synonymous or overlapping labels, how you first came to identify as that label, what umbrella terms you feel that label falls under (eg grey-asexual, greyromantic, multisexual, genderfluid, nonbinary, etc), and why you personally choose to seek out that specific term rather than simply identify as an umbrella term, and whether and how you've come out and what response you've received. I'll also ask if you're comfortable getting questions from readers of this interview, and if so, how they can get in touch with you.

For romantic and sexual orientations, I'll ask you what your ideal relationship status would be, whether you've had romantic, queerplatonic and/or sexual relationships before and how your orientation impacted those relationships, and what your experience of attraction is.

For genders, I'll ask what your pronouns are, what gender you were assigned at birth, whether you experience gender dysphoria/euphoria, and how you generally conceptualize of gender. However, be aware that as a cisgender person, I don't have as much personal experience to draw upon to understand this area as I do with sexual and romantic minorities.

If applicable, I might ask about a controversy specific to that label (such as "how can autism be a gender?" for autigender or "is it just internalized amatonormativity?" for cupioromantic). I'll also add in things I'm personally curious about. I might also ask you to clarify your answers if I'm confused by anything.

If I wind up with a backlog of submissions (I can always hope!), I'll prioritize the labels that have less information available online, since those labels have the most need for this treatment.

If you have multiple lesser-known labels, we can either do separate interviews for each label or one interview for all of them, whichever will work better. Of course, you can also decide to be interviewed about only one of your labels. If your labels interact in a significant way, then I'll probably want to do a combined interview so I can discuss this interaction.

My goal in doing this is to provide information to help two groups of people. First, the people who are questioning their own identity. I know firsthand how hard it can be to read a single-sentence blurb and ask yourself "is that me?" It's a lot easier if you can read a more detailed and personal account.

Second, these interviews will also be for the skeptics. The people who look at a lesser-known label and wonder "why is this a thing?" "do we really need a label for that?" "why would anyone call themselves that?" I know some people will never listen, but some are willing to learn if they can find the resources to teach them. I've been skeptical about some unusual orientations in the past. I used to question, for example, whether romantic attraction even existed, or whether it was just touch hunger. It's OK to be confused or skeptical about an experience that's out of your frame of reference. It's OK to have questions, as long as you're interested in hearing the answers.

I'll kick this off by interviewing myself about my newest and most unusual label - cupioromantic. Expect to see that interview sometime soon.

[Edit: List of completed interviews:
Cupioromantic - Myself
I'll add each interview here as it goes public.]

Friday, December 16, 2016

You Could Just Adopt

This is a common response to anyone considering assisted reproduction technology (ART). “You could just adopt.” I used to believe it myself, and sort of badgered myself into only thinking about adoption as an option for having children - even though it wasn't really what I wanted.

It's not that I'd love an adopted child any less. My instinctive wish to kidnap random cute children I'm interacting with has convinced me that I'd love an adopted child just as much as a biological child.

But adoption isn't the easiest option.

Firstly, healthy white babies have the biggest demand, but are only a small percentage of the adoptable children out there. They are usually adopted out via private adoption, which costs money and requires a birth mother to pick your profile over others. The sheer emotional insecurity of hoping some woman I've never met decides I'm worthy of having her child, over all the more conventional NT heterosexual couples who are also looking, sounds pretty unpleasant to me.

I'd have an easier chance with a non-white baby, and I am open to that option. But many white would-be adoptive parents aren't. Some, I'm sure, are racist. But many more are probably turned off by the extra challenges of raising a child of a different race. Worrying about your son's interactions with police. Trying to give your child a cultural background you don't have. Dealing with judgment from people who think white people are stealing their babies. (Many Native people keenly remember the ‘snatch’ generation, when Native children were removed from their homes in large numbers for frivolous reasons. Nowadays, most adoptable Native children were removed for much better reasons, but the hurt still lingers.) Even just being an obviously adoptive family, getting stares whenever you're out in public, is enough to worry some people. (As a single mom, I don't have to worry about it as much because people will just assume the child takes after his or her father. Plus, I'd probably stand out anyway.)

And then there's disabilities. You can often adopt young babies with disabilities, and personally I'd be open to anything that doesn't cause a high mortality rate or severe behavioral issues (Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome, for example). But I'm also not entirely certain I'll be able to live independently. I will most likely outlive my parents - my child will be even more likely to. If I have a child that needs perpetual care, the logistics will get pretty tricky. Whereas if my child can live independently, if worst comes to worst, they wouldn't be the first child to wind up looking after a disabled parent in adulthood.

Plus, I'd like an autistic child. In particular, my ideal child would be twice exceptional (gifted & autistic) and high functioning. Given my genetics, there's a pretty high chance of my biological child having that profile - especially if I pick an autistic or 2e sperm donor. But 2e HFA kids aren't generally identified at birth, so my chances of adopting a baby like that are extremely low.

Which brings me to older adoption. There are a lot of children 12 months and older who are adoptable, and few parents looking to adopt. This is especially true if you use the cheapest means of adoption - foster-to-adopt - where you foster a child while getting first dibs for adopting them.

The problem is, my parents did older adoption, after becoming kinship foster carers, and you can see from my sidebar how that turned out. They have many horror stories, both about my cousins themselves and how the system responded to their needs as foster and adoptive parents. Granted, most adoptable older kids aren't severely abusive teenagers, and I'm planning to refuse to adopt over a certain age, but even a child adopted at 18 months can have severe attachment issues. And I have very little trust in the foster care system, and a general dislike for bureaucracy.

And that brings me to my biggest reservation about adoption - the home study. I know why home studies are important, and in principle, I support them. But I don't think they have the right standards set. Really, given how many children need adoptive homes and don't get them, any home that would be an improvement on continued foster care should be approved - and that's a low bar to set. Basically, if they wouldn't pull a biological child out of that home, that's the standard they should set. But they don't. They want a good home, not just a good-enough home.

Plus, I'm autistic and not independent. I've already had people tell me that my disability should preclude me becoming a parent, and they were more accepting than most. I've heard other people make claims that an autistic parent is inherently incapable of sensitively parenting a non-autistic child. I've heard people debate whether autism should be considered a reason to give custody to the NT parent in the case of a divorce. I've even heard people blaming autism for violence. If all I knew of autism was the bad press it got, I wouldn't give a child to an autistic person any more than I'd give a child to a psychopath or a pedophile. And I have no guarantee that my social worker will understand that those claims aren't accurate. I know I'd be a good parent - but will they?

ART doesn't pose those concerns for me. I've heard it described as a ‘Wild West’, without enough regulation, and while this is understandably considered a bad thing by many people, as an anxious hopeful parent, that's very appealing to me. And I'm sure to many others, too.

So that's why I don't just adopt.