Self-diagnosis

Post Reply New Topic

Yes.

But they all have one commonality: they are diagnosed as autistic.




There's a distinction between speaking 'for' an autistic and speaking 'as' an autistic.

I'm very happy for carers etc to speak on behalf of autistics.

But they don't speak as autistics.




Yes. Non-autistic views can have value to autistics.

There may be an easy solution to this dilemma. All us "posers" should have a yellow star next to our names.

Underwater, thank you for the kind words. Tony Atwood's site has some wonderful descriptions of character traits that nail me to a tee. Please excuse my sarcasm. This argument should be put to bed.

My bit is an observation, after reading quite a few of these threads last year, and paying attention to age and gender. Partly it may have to do with the fact that there are more diagnosed male autistics out there, and that young people spend more time on the internetz than older people.

That said, the typical thing about a lot of the posters who are so upset about the purity of diagnosis is that they fail to understand that other people's experiences may be very different from their own. There is a touching faith in the correctness of science - which is a bit perplexing to anyone who's being hanging around scientists or doctors a lot. There is the assumption that access to health services is easy for everyone. There is the failure to understand that the diagnostic criteria is based mostly on males, just as for a lot of other illnesses, which makes it difficult for women to get the health care they need. This is not limited to autism. A disproportionate number of women are dying from heart attacks, because the diagnostic criteria for heart attacks were originally based on heart attacks in men, and doctors fail to diagnose it quickly enough.

I don't think it's discrimination to say that someone might lack the experience that an older person has, or be unfamiliar with the experiences of the opposite sex. My post was not aimed at anyone in particular; it was a general observation. Also, I make no claims to know what it is like growing up with a diagnosis. I don't know, see, so I would not for example advise a young diagnosed person on dealing with special ed - I know nothing about it. Another thing I know nothing about is online dating, which a lot of WP members seem to be involved in. Don't know anything about it, and it scares the heebiejeebies out of me.

I wouldn't ask someone to check their privilege; I don't like making people feel bad about being born. Also, I figure, if you're on WP you are by definition pretty unprivileged; this is not the Bullingdon Club

I have some privilege too; I'm about as middle class as it is possible to be, and I had one great gift growing up; a friend who was just like me. A lot of people can't say that.

ZombieBrideXD quote:

If you don't require therapy, treatment or support then you don't need a diagnoses, that's actually stated in the DSM 5. This comes back to what I've been saying for months.

It's it's not maladaptive, unjustifiable, disturbing and/or atypical, it's not a symptom.

Requiring support is very different to requiring therapy. You can require changes and accommodations, support from other people and adjustments to your own life to make your struggles easier, without feeling that you'll get anything from sitting in a room having therapy with a shrink week after week. There is a limit where the only way you're going to get the changes and accommodations you need is with a piece of paper confirming a formal diagnosis, but before that limit there are definitely changes that people can make to their lives, for their own benefit, based on the belief that they're autistic.

I was dx w/ kanners when i was a child, in between reception and year 1 (age 6-7), at this time I couldn't tell my difference from others in school because I didn't know what autism was and didn't compare my behaviour to my peers, and we are talking almost 20 years ago here, so I won't remember every detail.

And today you'd probably expect my dx to disappear because it's known that they don't keep medical records of a mental disorder more than 15 years. So technically speaking I am no longer diagnosed but I can still give myself a self-diagnosis, just it's harder when you are an adult, but I have shown signs of anxiety, depression, social withdrawal more than ever in the past few years, just for me personally its hard to get it across to my doctor.

Really? What about all the autistics in the developing world? Do they not have autism because they don't have access to a diagnosis? This does not make sense.

Of course it doesn't. Unfortunately, this whole thread basically boils down to this one inane position, and everyone collectively going "wtf?" at it.

I can agree with the OP so far as it is semantically considered. In other words, I suspect that almost everyone would agree that an autistic individual isn't diagnosed as autistic unless and until the individual is diagnosed as autistic. Granted, this is a self-evident qualification, but I have never even been told about a non-autistic individual who has developed his or her autism falsely. I see "no there, there." Where is the evidence that there are individuals claiming their autism falsely? ANY identified fakers? Show me the evidence that this faking exists.

A lot of threads have ended with this question hanging: who exactly are the fakers and what exactly are they doing?

Can someone please tell me what is so luxurious about an autism diagnosis?

Yes. I believe that it is much more detrimental to autistic people that the general population gets the idea that a bunch of people are trying to get a diagnosis when they don't need it, than a few self-diagnosed people giving people wrong information.

In the first case, it prevents people who need help from getting it. I suspect this will disproportionately harm women, since women present less obviously. It will also mean a lot of diagnosed autistics having their diagnosis doubted and disregarded

The second case falls into the category of "someone is wrong on the internet". As Skibum said, it's very easy to ask questions.

Thank you Underwater. This is the most eloquent response to the segregationists I have read. Segregation ideas do seem to be held by very few on WP and that is a good thing for an inclusive website. The cold pricklies of invalidation do seem to come from a very small minority here, and you have made a very perceptive response IMO

To address certain positions in this thread:

'But you don't know the suffering I went through when growing up' (or any variation thereof).

Your plight is unfortunate - but it doesn't qualify you as autistic.



'I can't afford a diagnosis'

Your plight is unfortunate, but:

Tough. Life is unfair.

Until such time as you are medically diagnosed as autistic, you are only a 'may be autistic'.

This applies to entire developing nations who may have no access to such diagnostic services.



'The medical community sometimes get it wrong'

This one is more subtle as it is indirect, but:

Every profession has a margin of error. Having a margin of error doesn't qualify someone's own opinion as having more validity.


To express it in terms of logic:

Medical diagnoses are sometimes wrong

Therefore

My suspicions have more validity


is saying:


a are b

Therefore

c is d


Which is meaningless. It makes as much sense as 'Medical diagnoses are sometimes wrong, therefore my dolphin is blue'.

The cases have no commonality whatsoever.



But to give the benefit of the doubt and dismiss the distinction between medical diagnosis and self-diagnosis:



Diagnoses are sometimes wrong

Therefore

My diagnosis is stronger (or any variation thereof of 'stronger' - choose as you please)


In logical terms:

a are sometimes b

Therefore

My a is c



Which logically still falls apart.


At the most basic level of logic, the position is completely & entirely baseless, and a fallacy.

Maybe Alex should impose on a logic test on the whole membership then to weed out the "unqualified", and if they fail the test and are also self-diagnosed, he should send them to you for reprogramming and you can excise their wrongness.

Maybe you should keep it impersonal.

As I am.

The rules of this site don't tolerate personal attacks or insults - direct or otherwise.


By all means contribute to the points I make.

But make it personal and I'll report you.

And, the topic unravels in 3-2-1....

I believe this may well be the intention i.e. when you have no logical reply to statements, simply derail the thread.

But to put the thread back on track: the idea mentioned here regarding 'developing nations' is in itself something of an exaggeration.

As with all nations, there are pockets of wealth and pockets of poverty. The reality compared to what Western media exposes to the West is very different.

I've been lucky enough to travel a lot in my life. Some parts of Africa make certain parts of the UK/US look like post-apocalyptic wastelands.

Of course, the inverse is also true.

But I'm sure the point is understood.

We do not disagree about broken legs. I did not write the person in the woods self diagnosed with a broken leg, I wrote he or she broke thier leg.,

The phenomenon known as language police causes many negative consequences. Most of these result from people bieng intimidated or the the opposite becoming defiant. I am not defining language police as someone saying they think the use of a term is wrong, I define it as someone saying to another person don't use the term or you can't use the term.

Intimidation lowers the chance of alternative views bieng expressed. It has gotten to the point of people bieng so fearful they say nothing or what they say is so bland as to be useless. This lowers the chance that if the language policed idea is correct of that idea bieng heard. If the language policed idea is wrong it lowers the chance of the wrong ideas bieng exposed and corrected.

If a person reacts to bieng langauge policed by bieng defiant they can and do start to prioritize fighting the language police over bieng correct or caring about others. Again finding out the truth is less likely to happen.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 06 Jun 2016, 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.