thank you for your comment.
1) i do not tolerate any misgendering against me in my online spaces. please use no pronouns/my name or they/them pronouns when referring to me. or, even better, talk to me using the second person "you" and therby not risking misgendering. otherwise i will react accordingly with measures to protect myself.
2) this specific text is first and foremost an artistic and emotional text and not a strictly fact-based scientific paper. (the more energetic, polemic and combative tone is one of a manifesto.) otherwise i wouldn't have called it a rant. otherwise it would have been way longer and more in-depth, and i probably would have worked on it for months/years. the fact that i didn't have this approach of polishing towards this specific text is in the spirit of the text, form follows content here, that embraces the unfinished, the processual.
but still, in feminist theory, emotions, and especially those by marginalized people that are directed at overarching societal structures, such as anger, are valid in what they tell us about society and about marginalized subjects within that society. as for example stella young does in the ted talk that i've linked/referenced, i too subscribe to the social model of disability and neurodivergence, which definitely doesn't put any blame on any dis_abled or neurodivergent person, but on barriers and internalized biases and traditional knowledge of an ableist society. in my reading this text does make this standpoint explicit, but if it apparently doesn't, i apologize. that we are all socialized within an ableist (one could add: racist, patriarchal-colonial, misogynist, queerphobic etc) society is a fact, widely acknowledged by scholars and activists from for example the fields of disability studies and critical autism studies.
3) in my view, both several contradictory facts and feelings can be true at the same time. several facts can coexist despite contradicting each other. several feelings can coexist despite contradicting each other.
4) i think it is a good thing, if we would step back and take a more empathetic, self-reflective look at art and its creators, especially when dealing with marginalized artists and when there is an imbalance of societal power at play. this mode of making space would be, in my view, a great one for the future of art critique and the art world in general. maybe art critique served a gatekeeping function in the past that doesn't fit the 21st century? maybe we could think about whole different, whole new ways of communicating these things, and whole new concepts for art schools, in order to build an art world based in strong solidarity? right now, i always like when people stay more silent and sensitive about art, even if this means that we don't say something. additionally, i am always speaking from a perspective of institutional critique and of a more general critique of power.
i hope that this helps to clarify things.