Autism is NOT a disorder
Just because a disability comes with perks and advantages doesn't make it any less of a disability. People with no arms can fit into smaller spaces, blind people have a better sense of hearing, and deaf people cannot be distracted by sounds and are better at lip reading. Should these not be considered disabilities because of this? Of course not. Just like all of those other things, autistic people often need special accommodations in order to get by in society, and few people will give these accommodations to someone if they have no disorder or disability behind it. It wouldn't be a disability if everyone was like that, but the same can be said for any other disability including the ones mentioned above.
I would sort of understand if you said that Asperger's or level 1 autism is not a disability because I believed that for a while (which is largely what the "In denial that it was a problem until 2016" in my forum signature is all about). However, you said that autism in general is not a disability and there are severely autistic people who can't verbally communicate at all. If that's not a disability then I don't know what is.
_________________
Also known as MarsMatter.
Diagnosed with Asperger's, ADD, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder in 2004.
In denial that it was a problem until early 2016.
Deviant Art
The following are excerpts from Autism doesn't have to be viewed as a disability or disorder :
Just because something comes with weaknesses, that doesn't make it a disability.
Consider the following racial differences :
(source)
Each of these three races has their own unique strengths and weaknesses. Yet, no reasonable person would argue that either race is inherently disabled. Right?
When we look at gender differences, we see that women are more average than women... meaning that men are more likely to be on the outlier of a typical Bell Curve.
Consider, for example, the different distribution of intelligence between men and women :
(source)
So, again we see that each of both genders has its own unique strengths and weaknesses. Yet, no reasonable person would argue that either gender is inherently disabled. Right?
Now, data increasingly suggests that the distribution of intelligence and many other characteristics for men with Autism compares to Neurotypical men like that of Neurotypical men compares with that of Neurotypical women. Like the average Neurotypical man is less average on average than the average Neurotypical woman, the average Autistic man is less average on average than the average Neurotypical man. (Note: I don't think I ever used the word "average" that often in one sentence, but I do believe this nuance is véry important!)
So what does it mean? Well, it means that Autistic men are more likely to be either higly intelligent or intellectually disabled, compared with the rest of the population. Much the same can be said about extroversion vs introversion, asexuality vs hypersexuality and many other human characteristics. Basically, people with Autism are just more extreme in many areas than the rest of the population... which comes with great weaknesses as well as great strengths!
* Europeans may need special accommodations in order to get by in Japan.
* Japanese people may need special accommodations in order to get by in Europe.
* Men may need special accommodations in order to get by in an environment designed for women.
* Women may need special accommodations in order to get by in an environment designed for men.
See where I'm getting at? ANYONE may require special accommodations in order to not fall behind on others if they're in an environment designed for characteristics of a group of people they do not belong to.
Maybe I should rephrase my position like this :
* Autism CAN result in one or more disabilities (mutism, intellectual disability, social anxiety disorder, ...), but it doesn't per se
* Autism CAN result in one or more extreme talent (talent for maths, talent for art, great memory, ...), but it doesn't per se
Does it make more sense to you when I phrase my position like that?
That article is one person's opinion. And it doesn't fit the facts. Autism is a disorder. Autistic traits themselves are not a disorder, and can even be beneficial in some circumstances. I'm assuming that's why they survive in the population. Those with some autistic traits may have some advantages, and any disadvantages are either not particularly bad, or are compensated for by other traits which are positive.
From the article:
It's like sickle cell anemia. Having one copy of the defective gene is beneficial in some areas, because it helps protect against malaria. Having two copies causes a harmful blood disorder. So in most people it's a good thing to have a copy of the gene. But in those with two copies, it's a disability. The different sickle cell mutations exist in various populations and have been around for a long time. Does that mean that those with sickle cell anemia are "an evolutionary branch on the great genetic tree"? I don't think so. They are just unlucky enough to have two mutated copies instead of one.
A study linked autistic traits to special abilities in child prodigies. The children were able to use the positive traits to their advantage, but didn't have the disabilities associated with autism, although a few had been diagnosed with autism. And other studies have shown that autistic people have superior abilities in certain areas compared to NTs. So clearly autistic traits can be advantageous, without the disabilities associated with autism.
So if they give an advantage to certain people , yet not enough of a disadvantage to negatively affect reproduction, they'll get passed on. It's only when enough of them are present in one person, or when they are present to a greater degree that they cause a disability. That disability is called autism.
As I said in my previous post :
... and :
* Autism CAN result in one or more disabilities (mutism, intellectual disability, social anxiety disorder, ...), but it doesn't per se
* Autism CAN result in one or more extreme talent (talent for maths, talent for art, great memory, ...), but it doesn't per se
Autism is by definition a disability or disorder. If a person's traits have not caused significant impairments at one time, then that person cannot be considered to have autism. Autistic people can learn to compensate and be successful, but if they were never disabled or impaired to begin with, they aren't autistic.
So no, people who were never disabled by those traits, or those who don't have the necessary amount of autistic traits are not considered to be autistic. The definition does not allow for that possibility.
There is no point in labeling something and calling it a disorder if it's not disabling. The DSM is for mental disorders. That's why ASD is listed there.
I'm not sure what being an extreme has to do with anything. Extremes are often associated with disorders.
I only feel impaired when I'm forced to conform to Neurotypical standards.
I do not feel impaired when I'm not forced to conform I'm allowed to apply my own standards.
Does that mean I'm not Autistic? Well, I do have an official diagnosis for "Autism spectrum disorder", so I guess that means I am.
Exactly!
Autism makes us more extreme than others... which means that it makes us more likely to be either gifted, disabled or a mixture of gifted and disabled.
What you do not understand about the following statement?!
* Autism CAN result in one or more extreme talent (talent for maths, talent for art, great memory, ...), but it doesn't per se
I only feel impaired when I'm forced to conform to Neurotypical standards.
I do not feel impaired when I'm not forced to conform I'm allowed to apply my own standards.
Does that mean I'm not Autistic? Well, I do have an official diagnosis for "Autism spectrum disorder", so I guess that means I am.
Exactly!
Autism makes us more extreme than others... which means that it makes us more likely to be either gifted, disabled or a mixture of gifted and disabled.
What you do not understand about the following statement?!
* Autism CAN result in one or more extreme talent (talent for maths, talent for art, great memory, ...), but it doesn't per se
Neurotypical standards are normal standards. They are what make humans human. If autistic people were another species it would make sense to not be able to conform to those standards. But they aren't another species.
Social animals have social norms. They are expected to have necessary social instincts to successfully interact with other animals of their species. Even non-social animals need to be able to do that in order to mate.
Lack of the necessary social instincts and abilities to interact successfully with one's own species is most definitely a disability and a disorder. It usually results in the animal being outcast, killed, or being unable to reproduce. The animal will be at the least on the lowest rungs of the social hierarchy.
Just because they happen to be the majority today, that doesn't make them normal... or healty... or sane... at all!
This is NOT what I consider normal :
When considering that Western civilization has gone batshit crazy, one might argue that our inability to adjust to it is actually indicative of health and sanity :
Just because they happen to be the majority today, that doesn't make them normal... or healty... or sane... at all!
This is NOT what I consider normal :
When considering that Western civilization has gone batshit crazy, one might argue that our inability to adjust to it is actually indicative of health and sanity :
You're assuming that the state of western society is not normal for humans. Human beings are only animals, and I'd say that many older societies were far worse. Humans are not nice. Even in the best societies, social skills are needed.
Autistic people are found in other societies. They have difficulties with social skills in general, not just in western society.
Besides, difficulties with socializing are not the only disabilities caused by autism. "Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities" are also required for a diagnosis.
I'm not assuming anything. From Oswald Spengler's "Decline of the West" (1918) and Lothrop Stoddard's "The Revolt Against Civilization" (1922) onward, countless of the world's great thinkers have explained in great detail why we're accelerating towards idiocracy and societal collapse.
I'm pretty sure that in some ways life was actually easier for Autistic geniuses like Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin or Michelangelo back in their days than it would have been if they were to live today.
In spite of all this "diversity" propaganda, never in history have we been forced to conform to a very narrow range of human behavior as much as we are today.
How is being obsessed by anything from trains to dairy farming - but little else - a downside?
According to the experts at the National Institute of Mental Health, Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is the name for a group of developmental disorders. ASD includes a wide range, "a spectrum", of symptoms, skills, and levels of disability.
Autism is not just a disorder, it is a group of disorders. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about.
_________________
androbot01
Veteran
Joined: 17 Sep 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,746
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
_________________
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Visual Processing Disorder |
14 Jan 2024, 4:42 pm |
Pearl - a portrait of a personality disorder |
01 Feb 2024, 10:24 pm |
Another Disorder invented to exonerate criminals |
31 Jan 2024, 12:21 am |
Visual Motion Sensitivity / Vestibular Disorder |
11 Jan 2024, 8:44 pm |