Why do Neurotypicals consider Aspies Disabled?

Post Reply New Topic

I understand, and I did account for misdiagnosis in what I wrote. But I know one functioning man - me - who never even considered he might have something like AS until his son was diagnosed, and he started researching it - and he certainly has it.

I'm assuming that there are undiagnosed people with AS who are coping, because a year ago I was one. I'm assuming there are because I know for a fact that there have been.

I find these comments problematic. This is a thread about why AS might be construed as a disability. Callista has referred to unemployment/underemployment as one indicator of disability. You who describe that you have been effected by underemployment as a result of AS (even if you did not understand this when it occurred), then negate this by claiming that you are functioning and coping.

This only makes sense if in your opinion, disabled people are not functional and do not cope. In addition to being denigrating, this is not factual. Again I suggest those who claim that AS is not a disability, do so because of their own counter factual stereotypes (their prejudices) about people who are characterized by disability.

Many people characterized by disability can and do work (although among those who can work, unemployment/underemployment is higher than the general population), and they can and do cope. They are real, competent people, just like many of us.

I do not wish to offend or accuse you in particular, but in my view this attitude toward disability and disabled people is no more respectable or legitimate than similar stereotypes and prejudices on the basis of ethnicity, sex/gender identity, sexuality, etc.

Disabled does not mean that one cannot function, cope or work, and notions that those with AS cannot be disabled because we are not universally incapable of “functioning” only make sense if one holds denigrating stereotypes and prejudices about and against people characterized by disability.

To add a piece of irony here, you actually need to be disabled to receive a diagnosis of AS.

Says you....

I'm not disabled, and I got diagnosed.

So sayeth the DSM-IV-TR.

Fair enough, though I really don't consider that a disability.

I know a lot of normal people don't know much about the word disability. They cannot believe that disorders such as ADHD and autism with speech are disabilities. For they think a disability is a horrible genetic defect.

In the past year, I talked to a group who had been caring and supporting special needs children and youths for several months. We discussed what disabilities are, what exactly the word stands for. I explained that disabilities are those differences from the norm that result in that a person is disabled by society from doing what others do. I said that a near-sighted person is disabled, but that they are (almost) no longer disabled if they got glasses.

At that they protested and claimed that near-sightedness was normal and that it isn't a disability if left uncorrected. They just didn't understand that a disability just means someone is disabled by others, because all their live they were told that disability is something strange and foreign.

Somebody needing glasses on the other hand is a familiar concept to most people and people who put down their glasses rarely say that they are disabled now. They say something such as that they are 'just' near-sighted and that's all.

But to me, being near-sighted and needing glasses for it means you're impaired too and if you don't get your glasses and can't do lots of things because you don't see like everyone else, then you're disabled. You're not, if you get your glasses from the optician and can do everything fine.

Likewise, a person in a wheelchair isn't disabled anymore, unless they have problems with the wheelchair or because they are restricted in where they go because they cannot enter buildings with their wheelchair.

From the discussion about disabilities, I got the impression that people tend to mix up disabilities and impairments. Near-sightedness is commonly thought of as an impairment, while uncorrected vision can pose a disability. The difference between many impairments that lead to disability is certainly that not every disability can be solved as of now. Even the same impairment can lead to disability in one person but not in another.

Many people are fine with glasses, but some are not. If they're unhappy, if they do not get along with glasses or cannot use them, then they might still be disabled although others with the same impairment aren't.

A person with mental retardation might be profoundly impaired but not disabled, because they are happy and can do what they want to do.


Impairment seems to be measured by the norm, disability may be the better measurement because it can be individual. What do you think?

I know that I am disabled and impaired by my autism. I don't want to be able to do everything that the imaginative typical person can, but because I can't, I'm impaired.

Some impairments really disable me. People reactions make up a part of the disability. Ignorance and lack of knowledge disable me more and more suddenly now that I want to do lots together with people.

Some disabling aspects other people have nothing to do with. They'd be present even if I never has contact with people and would be the only person on earth. But I want to do the things that these restrict me in, which is why that is the other part of my disability.

I personally do not think that the word disability is something bad. It is bad in the minds of people and this negative association is passed on to children from their parents without meaning to usually. I think it is a misunderstanding of the word that people believe is true, because I really cannot see how there is a difference between a person who has trouble walking, a person who has trouble seeing or a person who has trouble without routines.

Actually, if the triangle has the same base and height as the square has, it fits quite well in it.


Look who's talking.

You very obviously have a different idea of "disabled" than most people, and ought to be using a different word. "Unfulfilled", maybe. Or "Blocked by society". Disability is usually present where there is significant impairment, by definition, because "impairment" refers to a skill that is significantly below other people's; and if that skill is required for doing things expected of the average person, then there is a disability. Your person with MR, "profoundly impaired" but not disabled, most likely cannot live independently. That means he is disabled no matter how happy he is. Disability does not mean being unhappy. In fact, it usually does not mean being unhappy. It does not mean not being allowed to do what you want. It simply means that there is a mismatch between what you can do and what others can do in such a way that it prevents you from living in the same way as everyone else. It does not mandate either an inferior or a less happy lifestyle.

Callista, but while my understanding likely differs from the way the social model of disability in some points I think, the part about that society excludes people who deviate from the norm is in the social model too. It is not in the medical one, I'm pretty sure about that. I don't know how much the definitions of disability between countries differ though.

About the happiness you are right. I only said that someone with that MR can be not disabled because they are happy to be able to do what they want to do. I really didn't say about what they are happy. That wasn't specific and together with the part about that they can do what they want this can really be understood in lots of ways unless you know my thoughts about it. Which you can't, so that was a bad sentence, sorry.

I mean, rereading it, it could include stealing or murdering too. With that in mind, in case you're wondering about what I was thinking, I can say that I was thinking of an article I read in the newspaper yesterday.

It was about that children and youths with various disorders often cannot attend regular sports clubs because the trainers and participants often don't know how to react to their differences. More often than that, organisation and equipment isn't taking impairments into account.

The article also reported that there now was a sports club that has acknowledged this problem and offered children and young adults with various disorders to participate to be able to do sports in a club the same way as typical children.

That possibility to participate in a football training if that is what someone wants was the kind of happiness I had in mind when writing the sentence. Allowing someone to participate in society by allowing them to do want they want to do, even if a physically impaired child who has trouble with walking and coordination or a child who misunderstands or cannot keep in mind the rules wants to play on a football team.

I don't understand how the 'inferior' refers to what I wrote though? Edit: I thought about it. Like, if you cannot lead a typical life you're not inferior? I agree with it, I think typical achievement should not be a way to measure worth.

Last edited by Sora on 03 Sep 2009, 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

They do because we are just that sexy and talented...

What I meant are undiagnosed people who are coping well, and who meet some of the AS criteria, but not all. For example, an individual who is an expert in their field or has an aptitude for math and science (even though these aren't official criteria, some people associate these with a diagnosis with AS). Math and science have become synonymous with AS, in the minds of some.

Broader autism phenotype. NT with autistic traits. Not diagnosable. Very close to autistic; cousins, if you will; but not diagnosable. There are a great many of them; more than there are actually autistic people. I'd wager to say the undiagnosable "border" of the spectrum may hold as many as one in twenty or thirty people.

Thanks, pandd.

I've made no comment on the question of whether AS is a disability at all. All I've said is that I'm not persuaded that people with AS can't find work, because finding work makes someone with AS less likely to be identified as such. My view on the disability quesion, which I haven't indicated previously, is that AS is a disability which may or may not prevent individual sufferers finding and keeping jobs.

Perhaps you're confusing my remarks with someone else's. No offence taken, anyway.

I have not confused your comments with anyone else’s, although my response was generally directed at a common (recurring) theme as much as at your comments (and person) specifically.

The chain of happenstance which led to my inferences is that someone cited unemployment/underemployment as an indicator of disability. You objected to this, yet you described missing out on jobs and not being promoted as a result of the effects of AS. That does constitute underemployment. Since you describe that you have experienced underemployment, by process of elimination, I inferred it must be the designation of disabled you were rejecting.

I know plenty of not entirely functional, non coping non disabled people who work. I honestly do not understand why you would need to refer to coping or being a functional man to comment on employment, since one can be functioning and coping and unemployed/underemployed, just as one can be dysfunctional, not coping and appropriately employed. Are you able to explain the connection for me?

So true. They would fit an autistic spectrum personality type. They incorporate the benefits into their strategy for success and are not hindered by the negatives so much.
Someone diagnosed with mild Asperger's might be able to channel it into a personality type rather than a disability with the right coaxing.