I'm honestly trying to avoid getting sucked into this particular discourse again, so all I'm gonna say is this:
We all approach reading the same narratives from different POVs, shaped by our own experiences and worldviews. And my objection to the way most of the debates on this topic go down stems entirely from the fact that - whether people mean to or not - a lot of ppl seem to approach this topic from the angle of 'any disabled character would obviously want to be 'fixed' because they can't possibly be leading their best life while disabled, and if they claim to be or reject the 'obvious fix' others insist exist, they should need to offer an explanation for why they think their life is fine as is, so their motivations and sincerity can be examined.'
I'm sincerely not trying to assume anything about specific peoples' thoughts or feelings on this matter, whether they are disabled or not, and of course disabled people aren't a monolith - especially considering that 'disabled' is an umbrella that includes both people who have disabilities that DO put a ceiling on their quality of life, as well as people w/disabilities that just require different accommodations or approaches to life, that society's not optimized for - like of COURSE there are going to be drastic differences of opinions here.
All I'm saying is in general terms, the subtext I pointed out above definitely DOES have a strong presence in these arguments. Whether its intended or not, peoples' word choices, analogies, generalizations and assumptions all paint pictures that aren't necessarily a subtext some of you INTEND to put into your posts, but that doesn't mean that the subtext is never there.
And people really need to stop saying that they just want to see some mutants who do choose to 'fix' their disabilities, and ask why its okay for Xavier to do it and not others.....like, PLEASE just stop a beat and recognize that the fact that nobody on this particular forum is running around in threads demanding that Xavier be kept disabled for the sake of representation IS proof that even those of us who like Karma keeping her prosthetic, for instance, recognize that its okay for other mutants to choose differently!
The problem I have is people thinking its reasonable to expect disabled characters be put under a microscope and demand they justify being happy as they are now, and not taking every opportunity to 'fix or better' themselves.....because how does that NOT eventually at some point turn into expecting everyone to keep adjusting themselves to match societal 'norms' more closely and closely until all variations deemed even SLIGHTLY inferior are weeded out?
Why CAN'T there be disabled characters who just....don't feel a need to offer up an explanation for why they seem to be happy and content, and don't think they need to be able-bodied to exist as such? Why is your suspension of disbelief - that can accept a terraformed Mars full of thousand year old mutant demon-fighters juts fine - seemingly INCAPABLE of accepting a disabled mutant who doesn't use resurrection to become able-bodied, even if they already have working prosthetics or accommodations that keep them active on the same levels as any other X-Men?
And I'm just asking that you ask yourselves, if you never have before, if you're honestly SURE that this couldn't possibly bleed over into how you view or interact with disabled people, even if you have a disability yourself, since your needs and quality of life and possible accommodations don't necessarily line up with every other disabled person's?
Because if you genuinely can't conceive of a disabled person NOT using the resurrection process to remove their disability, like you can't fathom that without an explanation....aren't you implicitly operating under the assumption that however happy the disabled character is now, whatever their current quality of life.....its only as good as they can make it WITHOUT being able-bodied. That there's a ceiling on how good their life can possibly be, as long as they are disabled.
And can you see how this could be EXTREMELY relevant to disabled people who don't have the options of something like the resurrection process and never will - and how it could very reasonably leave people with the impression that many of you inherently view disabled people with at least some degree of pity, some measure of assuming 'well, how good COULD their life ever really be, if they can't walk or have a prosthetic limb?'
Yes, many disabled people WOULD leap at the option of the resurrection process and that SHOULD be treated as good and valid for them if its what they choose. But the problem is no matter HOW many disabled characters retain their disabilities - whether its one, two, or twenty.....the very angle of perspective that has people demanding an explanation, as though a disabled character has to JUSTIFY their right to exist as disabled, DEFEND the implication that they're already perfectly happy with their body and life the way it is.....that entire line of questioning IS the problem here, because it innately centers able-bodied as the holy grail that any and all disabled characters - and people - should be ASSUMED to always want.
Instead of approaching things from the angle of seeing disabled characters as whole, complete entities as they are while disabled, not just 'subpar but as good as they can be while disabled.'
Because if you can't suspend your disbelief that a disabled person could be happy with their self-image AS a disabled person....how can you say that you're NOT assuming at least people with certain disabilities to be if not lesser than you...at least more pitiable than you, in some respects? And if you're disabled and projecting on a character with a very similar disability to you, what makes your projection onto this character any more or less valid than another disabled person's, so again....isn't....'accepting that they COULD be fine with their disability even if not offering a specific reasoning why, and even if I wouldn't be, in their situation' STILL more accommodating of other viewpoints on this disabled character than 'there's no WAY they could be fine with their disability because I certainly am not or wouldn't be' is?
Anyway. All I have time for in this thread, so either chew on it or pick it apart, I'm honestly too exhausted to keep doing the 'hey could people accept that maybe disabled people don't view our lives as just being about hanging in there and treading water until the day we get a miracle cure' rounds.
And for the record, none of this actually has anything to do with the OPTICS of disability representation. The root of the issue is the default societal PERCEPTIONS of disability, and how people approach anything that deviates from the baseline assumption of 'well of course disabled people all want to get better, no matter how much they claim to be happy with their self-image while disabled.'
Given that the latter assumption is basically the entire foundation of ableism and everything that stems from it.