AS-D The view to "Disorder"

Post Reply New Topic

Science difines Autism and Asperger part of the autism spectrum to be a disorder. I know this got reviewed so many times already. Just wanna write my view about that. Who ever ants to join me is very welcome!

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. There are NTs who have mental problems, but are not ill or can be called ret*d or whatever. Humans are different, have qualities and diffecultis. That's what makes us human! But I do not like to be put into a drawer, having an disorder. The focus should be: what qualities do I have being an Aspie? Pick a hundred people randomly off the street and aks them diagnose them. How many will have any mentaly problems? Sure, many may have some mentaly problems which can be healed. And some may have problems which they can learn to compensate, so it is not a problem or a little one hardly noticable in daily life. But will anyone of these 100 people like to be pointed out havig mental problems? NO ONE I guess!

So, yes, people having mental differences compared to NTs, aspies, low/high functioning autism etc. just have a different brain structure and feel, see, think differently in some departments. But tolerance dictates that this should not be pointed out but rather should be the question how their qualities they have and NTs mostly do not have can be used by them, how the qualities can be supported. A blind person can feel and hear better than others, but Aspies may be able to feel and hear and smell better as well like a blind person. But an Aspie can see as well. Just as an example: I can see if a light is broken or near by being broken or I can see if a graphic card was either bad configured or has failures. Even I can see if a vga cable has problems and the TFT gets soem wrong signals an NT would not be able to see. I understand much better how a computer works than how people are working. So, is this an disorder having trouble being social or is it an advantage being a self skilled computer specialist? It is the point of view. If I would tell someone I am an Aspie, like telling that to an IT company HR employee I send in my application, he/she thinks first about that I have a illness and I would be no good for the company rather tan to think and ask me what my specials are and how good I may be for the company using my special interests. Why do NT people first look at the disadvantages and act accordingly negativ?

Why is it called a disorder being an Aspie? ASD = Asperger Syndrom Disorder - I like to just call it a Asperger Syndrom, a different and mild form of autism spectrum.

I completely agree that Asperger's Syndrome is more of a difference than a disorder, but there is a very valid reason for referring to it as a disorder. If Asperger's Syndrome is referred to as a disability or a disorder those who have difficulty functioning but do not fit the criteria for Autism can still receive the care and support they need from government programs.

First, ASD does not mean "Asperger Syndrom Disorder"; it means "Autism Spectrum Disorder".

But about Asperger's being or not a disorder: there are two logical and consistent positions about that:

a) "Asperger's Syndrome is a disorder"

b) "Asperger's Syndrome does not exist; this label is an attempt to pathologize what is simply a variant of human personality"

But accepting the concept of "Asperger's Syndrome" but denying that AS is a disorder does not make much sense - the only reason because the concept of "Asperger's Syndrome" exists it is because it is considered a disorder.

Please do not overgeneralize. There are many people with Asperger's who are truly disabled. My psychiatrist diagnosed me with Asperger's, albeit probably incorrectly. I am far from "quirky genius," but rather am truly affected and disabled by the condition, whatever you want to call it (Asperger's or autism).

Please do not overgeneralize. There are many people with Asperger's who are truly disabled. My psychiatrist diagnosed me with Asperger's, albeit probably incorrectly. I am far from "quirky genius," but rather am truly affected and disabled by the condition, whatever you want to call it (Asperger's or autism).

I consider it a disorder or disability for me, because it is disabling. It doesn't make me a different person to anyone else, because we're all different. It just makes me find difficulties in certain things, especially socialising.

Otherwise, I feel like an ordinary person. Why should I keep splitting myself up from NTs and throwing myself into a completely seperate group just because I've got a disability? I know there is more to AS than social difficulties, but I still believe it to be a disability. I understand the world as much as the next person. What is there about the world to not understand?

I may not agree with conforming but I do understand why we humans conform. And I do understand how money makes the world go round.

The only thing I don't understand about life is why some of us have to be born with disabilities!

I like to think of ASDs as "conditions" that affect how a person's brain and nervous system work. The word "condition" doesn't seem to have the same strong negative implication(s) that "disorder" has.

One person's ASD might cause so much difficulty that they are significantly disabled, and need a lot of support in life.
Another person's ASD might cause much less difficulty, so that whatever support they need is comparable to the support NTs need (<--it's not "out of the ordinary").....

Based on thinking about autism as a spectrum, both of those hypothetical people have the same "condition," but that condition causes much more "dis-order" in the first person's life. The second person might (very reasonably!) be uncomfortable with thinking of their ASD as a disorder, because it doesn't seem to cause any dis-order in their life.

Some aspects of my ASD are disabling (e.g. executive functioning problems, sensory sensitivities, language deficits) and cause disorder in my life, while others aspects I think would be better called "differences" (e.g. social differences).

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.

ASDs as a whole are defined around impairment. Impairment -> disability -> disorder.

There is no question in my mind that my AS is a disability. I can't do things that others can. I have issues with things that are not "normal" to have issues with. For example, I can't drive because of my AS. Some people on the spectrum can drive, others can't, but those on the spectrum that can drive still have other problems. The social difficulties we have are not standard of the average population.

It is required for there to be an impairment to get a diagnosis of AS.


At the same time, it being a disability, does not make me lesser to others. I have a harder time than they do functioning in society, but I am not innately better or worse than they are. This isn't only true of autism though. Someone with General Anxiety Disorder isn't lesser to someone without anxiety, though they have difficulties in our culture; someone with insomnia isn't lesser to others. We have difficulties. We need to take these into account. However we're still all human in the end.

I might need help but that doesn't mean I can't succeed. In fact, my ASD includes some advantages as well. At the same time, let me admit that I need help and give me the help I need.

It hurts us to have it considered not a disability. At that point we are just expected to fit in with society without any specialized help.

Why this belief that "disability" or "disorder" is automatically bad?

Now, if you'd objected to the idea that autism is an "illness", then I'd be with you at every step. Someone who has autism has a healthy brain that developed differently--not a sick brain that has to be cured. The idea that autism is an "illness" leads to lots of damaging therapy for people all across the spectrum. Rather than teaching useful skills, people who have this "illness" idea tend to try to extinguish autistic behavior, often without trying to figure out its purpose or benefits to the person involved. It can even lead to growing up being told that who you are and how your brain works is unacceptable and wrong--your parents and school essentially rejecting you in favor of the theoretical person who would exist if you hadn't been born autistic.

"Disability" or "Disorder", though, make sense. They mean that you have problems with some things and that some parts of your brain don't work as efficiently as NT brains do. What a lot of people seem to object to is not the idea that they have impairments, but the mistaken belief that someone who is disabled in one area cannot have average or superior abilities in another area. Or else, they will point to their average or superior abilities as "proof" that they are not disabled. That misconception needs to go: Disabled people, just like non-disabled people, can develop very strong abilities and talents that are better than those of most of the population.

Disability doesn't change the potential for talent in areas that the disability doesn't affect. Some disabilities are even associated with talents that are made more likely by the disability itself, such as the ability to use the sense of hearing more effectively if you are blind, or the savant syndrome often seen in autistic and developmentally delayed people, or the way you couldn't be near as good at wheelchair basketball if you didn't use a chair in everyday life.

I don't know where it came from, but this "disabled people can't have talents" thing needs to go. It just doesn't apply.

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

Viewed rationally, you cannot have Asperger's unless there is sufficient impairment. You can't be simply an introverted, quirky person. You must actually show impairment across several traits. The diagnosis of any ASD requires impairment to exist. The impairment can be attenuated through various means, but it still must exist.

I'm not really impaired unless I'm in a room full of NTs, and I'm expected to make small talk with them.

Just like a paraplegic isn't disabled unless he's expected to walk. Your point?

I mean, yeah, disability is determined by the society you live in--the gap between your skills and the skills society expects of you. But that doesn't mean it's "not really disability".

I never, ever call Autism an illness or a disease. I just find it grossly offensive.

Like everybody else, I say some rather harsh things when I get angry, and when I sometimes get angry about having AS, I have called it things like ''a cruel disability'', ''the curse'', ''the disability from hell'', ''the wrong brain'', and the list goes on. But I have never called it a disease or an illness before. OK, I might have done when I was a child, but I didn't understand it properly back then. But now I have researched it a bit more, and am still trying to accept it, and calling it a disease or an illness isn't going to help me accept it. The last thing I want to consider myself is ''diseased'' or ''ill''. It even says on the bottom of this very page ''Asperger's is not a disease''. So when I get angry on WP about having AS, I still don't call it a disease or an illness, because other people may get offended just as much as I do.