morninggloryvt.bsky.social
@morninggloryvt.bsky.social
AuDHD, Long Covid, not disposable
I made these for the first time today and they were fabulous. It's nice to have an easy gingerbread cookie option if you don't want to deal with rolling out and cutting cookie dough.

www.kingarthurbaking.com/recipes/fast...
Fast Frosted Gingerbread Cookie Bars
Soft and moist, these gingerbread bars are like frosted gingerbread cookies but require much less time, effort, and equipment. Bake some for your holiday table, year after year.
www.kingarthurbaking.com
December 8, 2025 at 12:56 AM
I think your work would be much more inclusive if you connected with groups like @thinkingautism.com or @autisticadvocacy.org, both of which take Covid and Long Covid very seriously. /end
December 5, 2025 at 6:17 PM
If I were not so sick with LC I would offer to write a piece for you, but I already have many posts and threads on this topic that you can read on how to approach the existence of autistic and developmentally disabled people with respect, and as allies and equals, not as bad outcomes. 4/
December 5, 2025 at 6:17 PM
Autistic people and people with developmental disabilities have high rates of Long Covid and we read your coverage! My existence as a developmentally disabled person is not an adverse event! You have the opportunity to influence the way these studies are discussed in a non-ableist way. 3/
December 5, 2025 at 6:17 PM
You might not be aware that some of the language ("adverse," quoting language about "risk") and the framing (focusing on our existence rather than our support) that you use in this piece could be considered ableist and is generally rejected by the communities who actually have these conditions. 2/
December 5, 2025 at 6:17 PM
As a long hauler, I generally love your work, but I really think your coverage of autism and developmental disabilities would benefit from a cross-disability approach and from connecting with organizations and self-advocates who work in those disability areas. 1/
December 5, 2025 at 6:17 PM
I had about 5 minutes of vaccine hesitancy in 2006 when my oldest was a toddler and I read RFK Jr's Rolling Stone piece. Then I read someone debunking him with the science have been totally fine with modern medicine ever since.
December 5, 2025 at 2:54 PM
Reposted
And what autistic adults are receiving a formal diagnosis without first self-diagnosing? It's not like we go to the doctor and they notice traits and refer us for a neuropsych eval. The only difference between me with my official dx and a self-dx autistic is that I found an assessor and had money.
December 5, 2025 at 2:41 PM
An official assessment helped me because I also got a surprise bonus ADHD diagnosis but, of course, there were no supports or services that came with being a diagnosed autistic.
December 5, 2025 at 2:41 PM
And what autistic adults are receiving a formal diagnosis without first self-diagnosing? It's not like we go to the doctor and they notice traits and refer us for a neuropsych eval. The only difference between me with my official dx and a self-dx autistic is that I found an assessor and had money.
December 5, 2025 at 2:41 PM
Reposted
Incomplete book list:
Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics
Stern, Eugenic Nation
Kline, Building a Better Race
Pernick, The Black Stork

But most importantly, for OP...
December 4, 2025 at 12:44 PM
Reposted
3. Although I think I see the point OP is trying to make, it's dangerous to simplify historical eugenics and we should never write off present day concerns over gene editing, etc. We should *always* question why we are doing something and explore all the potential ramifications of these decisions.
December 4, 2025 at 12:44 PM
Reposted
They did this through things like eugenic marriage laws, better baby contests, and fitter family contests. Some of this is certainly about preventing disease, but most of it is about preserving & supporting white supremacy. Only white protestant babies, for example, could win a better baby contest.
December 4, 2025 at 12:44 PM
Reposted
More commonly, American eugenicists believed in what some scholars call "positive eugenics." Not "positive" as in "good," but rather encouraging the "right" people to have more babies and trying to encourage the "right" genetic traits to be passed down.
December 4, 2025 at 12:44 PM
Reposted
NOW, it's a pseudoscience because it's been debunked & is no longer mainstream scientific thinking. Calling historical eugenics a pseudoscience lets science & scientists of the past off the hook (Also, PS is more of a modern-day term. We had terms like "quackery" but eugenics was not that)
December 4, 2025 at 12:44 PM
Reposted
1. Historically, eugenics was not a pseudoscience. It was *science* Almost every scientist, social scientist, academic, etc. believed in the validity of eugenics. You would have to search far & wide to find a scientist that didn't believe in some form of it. They taught it in college!
December 4, 2025 at 12:44 PM