AS-D The view to "Disorder"

Post Reply New Topic

I agree with you. I'm not a defective NT, I'm a mentally healthy aspie. Every last one of my impairments is not a result of being defective, but being different. All of my problems revolve around living in a world designed by and for NTs.

Also, you might want to look at this.
http://www.tonyattwood.com.au/pdfs/attwood10.pdf

This is like a fish saying "I can breath fine except when I am under water".

Exactly. Saying that I'm impaired is like saying a fish is impaired because it doesn't have lungs.

Some out of the spectrum are having this as a disorder. Low functioning autism I guess it's called, right?

But being an Aspie is not the same as having a mental disorder.

Except that in a society where the majority had ASD, many of us WOULD still be disabled. How would I get around? How would I support myself? Who would take care of me? How would I get food?

If ASD people were the majority, and NT people were the minority then it'd not be a disability, because then we'd not have the problems. Similarly, if there was the assumption that everyone used a wheelchair, the requirement of using a wheelchair wouldn't be a disability.

This is sophistry.

ASD's are NOT in the majority. The number of people on the spectrum that are self sufficient are a minority within a minority.

Reality is harsh, but denial is harsher still as reality always imposes itself on denial.

I'm really opposed to people thinking Aspeger's is less or more a disorder or disability than, say, mental retardation, schizophrenia or difficulties/inability to walk. I picked them because they are rather well-known in Germany, so that should get the meaning across.

What is supposed to be the key difference in Asperger's and mental retardation (and the other two) that makes one "not an disorder" and the other a disorder?

If you can't think of positive aspects or so-called strengths that people with mental retardation can have, you should check that out. It's always possible to work as a volunteer in Germany to get to learn about people with other disorders - or even others with Asperger's. There aren't enough people in this country who know how to get along with autistic children and adults.


Back to the topic on hand, you should note that you also cannot have Asperger's and not be impaired.

Okay, here is the problem:

If you are not impaired, you are not qualified for a diagnosis of Asperger's syndrome/Asperger's disorder.

Asperger's Syndrome was created to mean a disorder.

Hans Asperger, the guy who gave Asperger's Syndrome its name, described impairments (that equates to Einschränkungen, Beeinträchtigung in German) he observed in his patients. Besides their impairments, he also described their individual peculiarities and their individual strengths. Some of which seemed to be shared by some of his patient, thus may be linked to Asperger's Syndrome.

Asperger's Syndrome is the term used to mean exclusively those with an impairment who meet the criteria of AS. That's as restrictive as it sounds.

It means that those who do not meet the criteria do not have AS. Even if someone who doesn't meet the criteria is found to have a similar neurological make-up as someone who does meet the criteria, only one of them has this thing called "Asperger's Syndrome".

(One a side note - I really do think that they should acknowledge that there people who have coped with their AS and do not present as impaired - not feel impaired anymore. If something happens to strip them off their coping strategies and messes up their lives so badly their AS does impair them again, it's unreasonable that they would not receive help.)

Asperger's is merely a name to mean that collection of traits with at least one impairment. Asperger's Syndrome does not describe a special neurological wiring.

Why is that anyway?

That's worth a thought, I think. Remember that there are always people who happen to not quite meet one or two criteria, but even if they can't get the label AS, they're definitely not as normal and as non-autistic as other people.

Wouldn't it be more useful to actually pay attention to the special neurology and call everyone with it an "aspie"?

Probably, but there is no common cause known to this date that leads to a special neurological. Those with AS and those who would have it, if they were impaired or met all of the criteria, are not found to have one common neurology. As with everyone else on the spectrum, no matter whether they qualify for diagnosis or not, the causes for autism spectrum disorders are extremely diverse (vielfältig).

Two people with Asperger's Syndrome may have vastly different disorders. Or, if you'd prefer to say it like this: Two people with Asperger's Syndrome may have vastly different brains. How would two people with similar behaviours but different reasons for their behaviours be thought of? Are they alike because of their behaviours or are they different because of their brains?


Two people with Asperger's Syndrome can be different in how mild or severe they are. I know by now that specialists (not just in Germany) like to think that AS = mild autism, but truth is, there are plenty of people with a diagnosis of AS or who would qualify for a diagnosis of AS who are not mild. At the same time, there are people with classical autism who're milder than those with AS. There are people who're not as mild as someone else may be, but who present more high-functioning. Someone who is mild can even give people the impression he or she is low-functioning.


This is really a complicated topic you talked about.

Not only are there a lot of details to be read-up, but these do not give a very accurate picture of what AS (and all of the autistic spectrum) are without the experiences of all those who consider themselves on the spectrum. Official diagnosis or not, few traits or all the traits, mild to severe, they pretty much all have something to contribute about what broader autism phenotype, AS, classical autism and atypical autism/PDD-NOS are like.

Um, I never said that ASDs aren't a disability. You are misquoting statements that were supporting that they /are/ a disability. It's the same as the fish example. If a fish functions fine as long as its out of water, and all fish function out of water, then its fine, but the fact is that fish live in water. And the fact is that we function in an NT-based society. The arguments that we aren't disabled if we don't have to interact with others are only saying that if we were ASD-dominate, then we'd not necessarily have disability (some would some wouldn't), and don't say anything about the situation we /are/ in..

This makes no sense to me. We don't get to speculate about a universe without gravity except in science fiction, fiction being the key word. We must accept gravity as real and a universe without gravity as imaginary. Reality imposes itself on us, we do not dictate the conditions of the real. Talking about hypothetical societies where ASDs are the norm is just speculative, and wishful, thinking.

Except that a fish must live in the water just as an autistic must live in an NT world. I cannot make the world different than it is no matter how much I try. The world is dominated by a neurology that is different than mine. My neurology impairs my interactions with the vast majority.

Examples - if you need special time to do your tests in school, and/or people needs to talk to you in a special way, giving you detailed explanations, etc., you have (if your problems are severe enough) a disability/disorder; if your only problem is that you have an "eccentric" behaviour that attracts bullying, it is only a difference.

Alright, seriously. What about AS is debilitating? The only thing I can think of is an inability to read details in body language effectively.

Difficulties socializing can easily cause problems finding and keeping employment. Ability to monetarily provide food for and shelter yourself is rather important. When you don't understand in office politics and this means you're fired for no good reason, or when you don't know how to read people and can't get through an interview despite being well prepared for the job both are issues.