Tell me what you think about what I've written about autism?

Post Reply New Topic

This is just an extract of the whole thing! And it's quite long, maybe a lot of people won't want to read it. But I am interested in what people think about my own views.

Are there any areas you strongly agree or disagree with?

What do you think of it as a whole?



I will sum up what I'd say about the current terms used and what kind of terms I think should be used instead...

My general suggestion is to use neutral terms for a lot of things e.g. calling autism a "brain development disorder" compared to calling it a "different development".

This is not to say that negative terms are always incorrect, just that it's important to be openminded about when to use them.

As for a disability, for some things it's correct to call them a disability e.g. someone losing both legs in a car crash, someone being born with no legs, anything with no benefits that a non-impaired person couldn't also achieve e.g. people saying "oh but this person with no legs is better abled at x because of not using their legs" or "oh but blind people's other senses are better" - these aren't valid comparisons as a person without these impairments could stop using their legs, or their eyes etc at will if they wanted any of the proposed benefits. They could not however do anything to get an IQ of 160 for example, and this is where we are going into the realm of difference, or if you like of diversity; a person with a different set of strengths and weakness rather than a disabled person, perhaps unduly disabled due to a current incompatible environment and demands placed upon them, not being allowed to be different and play to their strengths, their diversity not being capitalised upon. Some things considered a disability are relative to people thinking that everyone is "supposed" to be able to do something in a certain way, this can still be acknowledged if it's something the individual is having trouble with according to their own feelings but I think it's up to the individual to decide on their own abilities in this regard, relative to their own goals in life rather than relative to how others say someone is supposed to be. As for autism most people do not wish to see it removed as a disability as there are many autistic people who need support and they fear for what might happen should it be considered a difference rather than a disability. I can clearly see these autistics who do need support, however I also see some who do not therefore I think it’s incorrect to generalise it as a disability, rather as I said, a development which is different and changes a person's relative (to how people generally believe one is "supposed" to be functioning) functionality both negatively and positively across the spectrum, differently in every individual autistic's case; there are autistic people who may be considered relatively disabled, others who shouldn't be.

As for the very short generalised terms used to describe autistic people, these are all negative, implying illness and this is also not accurate, there are autistic people who suffer from their own neurology, there are autistic people who are very happy with their own neurology, most autistic people would disagree that they're ill.

It will be impossible to please everyone and the closest you can get is to use terms which are accurate but also completely neutral and openminded. Autistic people do deviate from the standard "milestones of development" this is true, they also have a different physical brain, this is also true. There are autistic people who because of their differences can't look after themselves properly, there are autistic people who because of their differences are geniuses and very successful in their desired field of interest. It's a huge range to cover.


But how do you convey these facts? Do you keep unbiased and strictly to the facts or do you add feeling and implications to them?


Do you say

"autistic people develop differently, their brain grows differently, they differ from the standard "milestones of development", developing faster and/or more in some areas and slower and/or less in others to varying degrees, each autistic developing differently from other autistics as well, the attempt to classify this being called the autistic spectrum. They think differently, they often have a different perspective, some function well in neurotypical society, some do not, some have a very high IQ, some have learning difficulties etc etc" then go on to support with views of autistic people across the range of the spectrum?


Or do you say

"autistic people suffer from a brain development disorder, it affects the way they view and make sense of the world around them, it's a serious and disabling condition leaving many of them needing specialist care for life, some have an average or above average IQ and are good at maths and art"? And then go on to support with a video of an autistic child being manhandled and crying (yes this is what's currently happening). Everything currently being said carries heavy negative implications but the fact is there are autistic people who do not believe that their autism is a negative thing. Look up definitions used by the current popular portrayers of autism such as Autism Speaks and The National Autistic Society (Just two examples, almost everything I've seen is similar) and decide for yourself which version they are closer to.


This is a thing normal people do a lot, (important paired with conformism) they say things like "Tragedy! Unimaginable disaster as a tsunami hits Japan!" rather than say "a tsunami hit japan here, it was this big, went this far, damaged this much etc". People tell others how to feel about something rather than give them only facts and let them naturally come to their own conclusions. When it comes to describing other people this being used in a negative way is unacceptable and grossly biased in my opinion.


Of course this is all applicable to other types of neurologies and physicalities as well.


The world isn't perfect for us, there are many bad things and negative terms are sometimes appropriate, in appreciating diversity the most important thing is to be openminded and not jump to negative conclusions or to generalise.


Here is speculation about Einstein's autism, as you can see he also had a different physical brain, a different way of thinking and a different set of strengths and weaknesses. Was his brain a brain development disorder? Did he suffer from a condition? What does someone have to do to display the benefits of diversity and cure people's close-mindedness? Note the part in the 2nd link which says one of his sons was put into an insane asylum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_brain

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2988647.stm

http://www.character-education.info/res ... racter.htm



I think using only facts is the correct way however where descriptives and connotations are, for whatever reason, still being used it's important to look up the literal definition of any of the words used in a number of dictionary and thesauruses and to use terms which everyone knows the meaning of and can relate to, rather than to use words e.g. "condition" - what exactly is meant by that? Does everyone relate to that word in exactly the same way or is it perhaps too vague and relative to individual interpretation, straying from the literal meaning? The literal meaning of "condition" in the context of autism basically being "illness" meaning "a specific lifelong mental illness" aka a "condition", but "condition" sounds a bit different to "illness" doesn't it? More professional, as if the speaker has some kind of esoteric knowledge and great intelligence on the subject? And what exactly makes it an illness anyway? How can people say things like "autism isn't a disease it's a disorder" when the two words in the context mean exactly the same thing? This is just greatly adding to the mess.


Ok so my opinion in short just to be specific: Get rid of any negative terms where they are generalising a large spectrum and/or where they are talking about a difference rather than a disability (the difference between the two being as I've explained above). Replace with facts.


Yes it's a huge topic and it seems to be in quite a big mess right now, you have my own opinions on it, I'm just one person and I can't speak for everyone, I can only speak for myself, there are autistic people who would agree with what I've written. There are autistic people who would disagree with what I've written, who prefer the current descriptions as they relate to them and who truly feel that their development was a mistake or negative deviation, a disorder, a condition etc. It makes it confusing and hard to know exactly what to say, at least with neutrally presented facts you can't really go wrong.


Maybe it also seems I'm being overly picky about the current descriptions however you have to bear things in mind e.g. that people saying these things makes it harder for me to explain myself to others, that I have to go out of my way to explain to people I'm not mentally ill, that the current terms used aren't accurate to describe me and that I'm just different, that it's not a negative thing I differed and still do from the standard milestones of development. Because of the current definitions, terms and how they are presented I have to do damage control every time I speak to someone about myself and autism. Or how about considering that there are people out there right now trying to find a "cure" for autism and trying to find ways to pre-detect it, considering “A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91–93% of pregnancies in the United Kingdom and Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated” (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndr ... tion_rates ), and that autism is currently being classed as a mental illness which people suffer from, it puts these negative descriptions into perspective. Because of the way autism is currently presented, most people seem to think that an autistic person is someone who would otherwise be a normal person but is affected by autism, something which causes various negative effects to an otherwise normal and healthy person. In reality autism is a part of that person and every part of their personality, that's why there are a lot of autistic people who say "I don't have autism, I am autistic."

I like it-very decent job-which brings up at the end about people finding out that the unborn has Down's syndrome and terminating the pregnancy-they keep trying to detect autism and aspergers earlier and earlier so if they are able to detect it in the early unborn does that mean they will be aborted too-it makes me very sad to think that many wonderful and "autastic" people that may contribute to society will be terminated. It upsets me.

Thanks, yeah the thing that annoys me the most about abortion is the parents of autistic children who are so for it, they should be given a post birth abortion themselves in my opinion.

I really still don't know if there are a lot of autistic people who feel the same way as I do or not about all of this