Harder to be gay, or autist?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't know if you can place one over the other... they have enough differences that it seems unfair to say one is harder than the other. They have different challenges. I'm asexual/of a very alternative sexuality and autistic, and both of those things are hard in different ways.

Correct



No offence taken, just saying


Cheerfully,
Wallourdes

There's quite a difference between a satirical site and a piece written by a doctor from the Yale developmental disabilities clinic who's quoting Hans Asperger himself for a lot of it (I'm not pulling out an appeal to authority fallacy, as this is accurate information). There's that "discovery criteria" by Attwood and someone else, but that's not exactly accurate insofar as "we" all go, objectively.

It'd be quite easy to write a satirical piece on the negative stereotypes of people with ASDs.

The other reason I drew the Nazi example was because Gays were also put to death during WWII

There are still places in the world gays are put to death

(or in Iran forced to undergo sex change operation to "become straight" under threat of stoning)

First, a disclaimer: I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay, or being an Aspie, and I in no way intend to imply that one is worse or better than the other, or that someone who is one of these things has an easier time of it than someone who is the other...

Ok, having said that...

As a male Aspie, the social awkwardness that comes with the condition has always lead to a general lack of success on my part with members of the fairer sex - something not uncommon for us I guess - and I think at times some people may have assumed I was gay simply because I never seemed to date or have a girlfriend. So I guess the "irony" for me, related to this whole thread, is that being an Aspie, beyond whatever stigmas that fact alone might subject me to, has also caused me at times to be subjected to the same stigmas that gay people are subjected to as well.

now that's ironic.

It's satire, yes, but it also makes a good point, which is that if you look at it from the other side, you can easily classify NTs as having a disorder if you compare them to us. Just as the NTs have classified us as having a disorder by comparing us to them.

The ONLY, and I mean ONLY, reason we're the ones who are "disabled" is because there just happen to be more people who aren't on the spectrum than people who are. And autism rates are only increasing. If that keeps going, we may very well overtake the NTs and NT Syndrome may become more than satire.

I think you have a very narrow view of the autistic spectrum if you truly think that's the only reason people on the spectrum are considered disabled.

No, it's true. Even if you were talking strictly LFA's, they wouldn't be considered disabled if they were the majority, because they'd make up most of the humans in society.

If you're talking HFA and Asperger's, though (and Aspies and HFAies make up the majority of autistic people), there's a much bigger argument than that, because we have a lot of extra talent that NTs don't possess, we just happen to lack in a few other areas.

Difference isn't deficit

You are making a very abstract claim here. How would a society of LFAs even function? You are confusing "normal" with disabled. Even if 99% of the population were LFA, while it would be normal, the 99% would still need care from the 1%.



This is a different argument. Again, normal is not the question. Asperger's is not normal..Neither is homosexuality. Both reside on the ends of the bell curve. I agree in principle with the neuro-diversity mind set, but there are no absolutes. Were those on the spectrum in no way impaired, then early intervention would have no impact on outcomes. But it is clear that early identification and intervention can markedly improve the lives of those on the spectrum.

What is at stake here is the definition of 'good outcomes' and hence the hostility against organizations such as Autism Speaks. They seem to want to fully eliminate the phenomenon of autism wheres it seems more reasonable to me to find ways for those that are higher functioning on the spectrum to flourish in their gifts while accepting that the cost of that may be accepting the greater needs of lower functioning individuals.

That's kinda an appeal to the majority fallacy though:

If you have the majority of the population with OCD, and only 1% don't, the 99% with are still irrational in what they do when they display symptoms of OCD. Good ol' logic, it saves the day.

I still can't compare one's sexual preference to a pervasive developmental disorder. The former had/has problems due to prejudice. "We" do too, of course, but in a different way. The former doesn't affect one's ability to function in social schooling and social vocational pursuits (only who a person finds attractive), and it doesn't hinder one in choices in regards to these things. We're still given the same opportunities as normal folk are (like people who're gay), but we're far less "successful" then they are in comparison to societal adaptation.

The larger crux is, "we" still don't adapt to things if it were only people with ASDs involved. A group of people with ASDs or a group without, it doesn't matter.

It would function a lot differently than this one, but it'd find some way of working.



I disagree with the idea that we have to be brainwashed to act like NTs to be successful. Do I really need to post the video of Bill Gates rocking again?

We are not impaired. We are only "impaired" by the standards of NTs. But if Aspies were the majority, the NTs would be the impaired ones for not being able to think logically or understand the exact details of how CPUs work.

My main point is that the idea of disablement is very subjective. NTs assume everyone not like them is somehow broken, that's why we're classified as disabled. And they do it while surrounded by technology built by autistic people.

What hypocrites, eh?

I don't think brainwashing is appropriate either.



It doesn't matter if you use the word "impaired" or "unique". Having a certain set of skills makes success in this society easier than not having them. From a strictly evolutionary perspective, if autism was such an advantageous trait then why is it present in such a small minority? Millions of years of evolution have made us a species that is fundamentally social.

Autism is a neurological state that is antithetical to socializing. That is just a fact. But the value judgment placed against that neurological state is an entirely different matter. And this is what you rightly bristle against. What makes your value intrinsically different than an NT? Nothing. Autistics suffer from the tyranny of the majority.But suggesting that that neurological state is not a deficit is just arguing over definitions, because for all practical purposes, I am at a disadvantage in a highly social world. I consider it a deficit because it interferes with my goals and because no amount of screaming to the wind will change the social nature of our species. It is what it is. But this thing I call a deficit does NOT diminish my value as a person. And anyone that thinks I am worth less because of my challenges is worth less than they believe of themselves.


My main point is that the idea of disablement is very subjective. NTs assume everyone not like them is somehow broken, that's why we're classified as disabled. And they do it while surrounded by technology built by autistic people.

What hypocrites, eh?[/quote]

Ok this enough, people - normal does not exist!

It's made up! To be able to compare it like you do in a experiment with a control group.

Blame Darwin he started for setting a norm for normal development (link!), but this has to stop!

No one is superior to another, be it homosexual or heterosexual, Autistic or Non-Autistic! It's all in your head!

It's not good, it's not bad, it just is - no judgement applied.
Everyone is lacking in comparison, or to put it more positive:
You all have something complementary to one another, use it!

Please - stop this non-sense with something being a disorder or not. It's just damn comparison.
You're boxing yourself in a hypocondric state.
Autism is just a label, Homosexuality is a natural preference.

There used to be no name for autism - those people where just a tad eccentric most of the time. Or the village fool, but no matter that. It's recognisable and predictable from childhood.
That does not make it "less" then more common behaviour - just less frequent.

Homosexuality was never a big problem (yes, other animals do it too) until it was made one by some influencials who thought it was wrong for some reasons, thus becoming tough to be.

I rationally never got the whole deal with suppremacy issues, it's another of those damn King of the Hill games. Damn impulses, gnōthi seauton people!

*End Rant*

Cheerfully,
Wallourdes

well the one common thing we have is that no matter what our label might be we are all human and we all have feelings and we all have desires,want and needs.

Then what type of "early intervention" were you talking about?



No, you're all wrong here.

Aspies are not any worse at socialising than NTs. We just do it differently. That's why two Aspies are more likely to be able to talk to each other well than an Aspie and an NT. And, if you look at it from the other side, an NT is less likely to be able to successfully socialise with an Aspie properly than they are with another NT.

If you're gonna bring evolution into it, then allow me to remind you that autism rates are increasing, and actually, in a world where technology is used for absolutely everything, Aspies will come out on top in the years to come. There are already companies which specifically look to hire Aspies for testing software.