- IDA is cishet, heteronormative, and exclusionary to those who want to open up more conversation about sexuality and illness if that sexuality is non-heterosexual
- They’re super white and not really opened to advancing the cause of our disabled friends of color, and this is represented in their board
- This organization echoes white savior theory
- IDA refuses to discuss mental health issues as invisible disabilities
- On a personal note, up until recently I was friends with someone at the organization until she started using her account tied to them to spout white supremacist hatred, which completely goes against what our organizations should be working towards
- Any organization that needs to block those who criticize them should not be running
- The fact that the IDA does this is an example of infantilization or showcasing those of us with disabilities for funding – play nice, be the gracious, grateful pet we expect you to be, and you’ll be allowed in the dogpen, you may even get a squeaky toy– as long as we approve it first
- How the board members on the IDA have handled this crisis situation (from a social media and brand management perspective) shows they’re not ready for the big time
- What in the world gave the USPTO the right to allow an org to trademark/servicemark a term that’s been around since the early 1900s?
- The ONLY reason to TM “invisible disabilities” is to stop other groups using it, including on educational & fundraising material and the fact that IDA has used this to shit on people they know are unlikely to have the means to fight back is incredulous
- By listing blogs as part of services covered by TM, meaning they could get blogs BY us pulled down
- This is a US trademark/servicemark, meaning that IDA cannot touch organizations abroad at least so thank goodness for that