Autism: a diffability?

Post Reply New Topic

i don't think of myself as autistic. i think of myself as having AS.

i also think that AS has prevented or made difficult for me certain things most people take for granted. therefore, it has dis-abled me, as far as those things are concerned.

years of experience (before i knew i had AS) have led me to "adapt" to this dis-ability by meeting people half way; by learning what to do and then remembering to do it. if i could do the things i find difficult by expecting other people to work round me then, good grief, of course i would. but life ain't like that. so i try my best. i have a good job (well, two actually); i am able to muddle along in life - it's far from easy, but i'm still here, somehow. and yes, i have different abilities to other people, probably because of my AS. but then, others have different abilities from the "mainstream", not due to AS - not all inventors, artists, mathematicians etc. have AS.

I do not understand the use of the word "technically" here. "Philosophically", maybe...

I can see this in two ways. I can see all the things called disabilities as differences; and I can see autism as a disability. And I can combine these two views, so that autism is a difference, or diffability, because all disabilities are.

I can't get my mind around concepts like "having an IQ this low, or not being able to walk, is (technically or politically or whatever) a disability, but autism isn't".

I voted for disability. The word has negative connotations but I didn't create them and I don't abide by them. It still is the word I would use to describe my condition.

Ok, here comes another argument. Someone disabled sitting in a wheelcair may be unable to walk alone. A blind person may be unable to see anything. There may also be persons who don't speak since they are born, and that's not changing. In these examples, both person are disabled to do something lots of other people do. Their inability to do the task in question does not change. Its a constantly existing inaqbility, for why it may be called disability.

If however it comes to the autistic spectrum, I wonde weather difficulties is more appriopriate that disability for the following reasons: There are some children who start talking much later, but they eventually they just start talking later. Or one may experiences difficulties understanding social situation, but with age and experience, this may become a little less difficult for some people on the spectrum. It seems to me that altough most of these people will still atract an autistic spectrum label later in life, they change in some ways. This is way different than a blind person beginning to see again just a bit. Thus I think the blind person who is not getting to see again can be called disabled, but the autistic child taking some years later until it may start using language may experience certain difficulties resulting in a longer time until the child starts talking.

How about going shopping in a supermarket? Sometimes I get overwhelmed by all these sensory issues very quickly, and I flee the place. Howver, some other times I can take it much longer. In my case, its not a fixed 'disability' going shopping, but its connected with difficulties for me.

I realize that people on the spectrum are very different in their abilities and degree of monotropism and that these examples may not be comparable. However, do they not make a pholosophical argument in what sense autism may rather be seen as having serious difficulties other than having a fixed disability?

Now it has to be a fixed disability...

Yes, some autistic people end up practically nondisabled later in life, because they compensate, learn, and grow. But for a great many of us, compensating, learning, and growing isn't enough to get a result like that. If I don't "get" some vital social clue before I'm fifty, that is simply too late if it gets me into trouble, say, with the police, in the years before I reach that age. I could (in a manner of speaking) count just the days and hours of my life when I could function as relatively normal - I was still struggling to understand, but I had at least a clue of what was going on - but that would be a very short life I'd have left.

There are many disabilities that are defined as such, which are not what you call "fixed". Their impact is not easily grasped by the general public. People see a man in the supermarket get up from his wheelchair to get something from an upper shelf, and they don't understand; isn't he paralysed? They see the woman who just used a cane to feel her way across the street pick up a book and read it, and they don't understand; isn't she blind? They see the student who was walking yesterday in a wheelchair today, and hear him say perhaps he'll be able to walk again tomorrow, and they don't understand; shouldn't he be either in or out of that wheelchair?

In a very similar way, people see a usually very verbal girl who, today, is unable to speak, and they don't understand; she's not that autistic - so she shouldn't be allowed to be. They see the young man who can never be in church because of the noises sitting easily in the back row near the door one sunday, and they don't understand; if this is possible, why has he never done it before? They see the woman who always avoids touch pick up and comfort a child, and they don't understand; either you can stand touch or you can't, right?

It doesn't have to be "fixed" to be a disability. It can be something in-between, or it can fluctuate.

I realized that "they" out there, the government stuff, doctors, forms, parking passes etc, call it disability because they have to work a bit sometimes when someone has one. We disable them a bit. Not too much we hope. But on this side of the fence we have to get on with living our lives so we focus on the benefits of our diffabilities. Thats what I do anyway. The diffabilities remind us what matters to us. The disabilities remind them of what matters mostly to them, whoever "them" is these days. My two cents. Peace Out.