Alex Plank--What the @#$% is this crap?

Post Reply New Topic

Made my day.
Listen to Tequila ladies, Don't opress the majorities just because you are lazy to write down all 2978 of them

Calm down. You are completely overreacting. Besides, Alex didn't do anything wrong; he merely stated a fact. There are more male Autistics than females.

I agree! Boys should be allowed to wear panties if they want, too!

I agree with the OP that this is an oversight that needs to be corrected. While "1 in 54 boys" might seem more frequent than "1 in 100 people", it's misleading. Focusing on male children leaves out the majority of autism cases, which are found in females, adults, or both. I believe this was a statement meant not to focus on boys but to make autism seem more frequent. But it is still misleading.

It's not about oppression, guys, it's about representation. Just because there are more cases of autism in males documented, doesn't mean that the ladies should be completely marginalized from the discussion...

But why didn't he state a fact by using the number of both males and females who have Autism(which if I remember correctly, would be 1 in 88 as someone already stated)?



Was this the reason? If this was the reason, then there was probably some dishonesty involved.

Last edited by Alfonso12345 on 07 Sep 2012, 10:11 am, edited 3 times in total.

Yeah. Unless the article was specifically about autistic boys, you can't leave out the girls. Or the adults.

Let's give the guy the benefit of the doubt, though. Don't assume malicious intent when it can be explained by the simple failure to think something through.

Ok, it was an unfortunate way to word it, but it's an oversight, I'm sure the goal was not meant to make it appear like only boys get autism. And the sort of sexist remark was just because the thing was coming off as overly feminazi, I was using the phrase as a stock remark to feminazism, not to just as a sexist phrase to declare women as overreacting. The problem is that the OP comes across as being far too accusatory and as overreacting. It's not "blatant sexism", it's an oversight.

Last edited by Ganondox on 07 Sep 2012, 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

You have a good point. It could have just been a simple mistake that was seen as something much worse.

Sex kittens with bad lippy dude

Calm down. I don't think Alex is excluding women just because he uses the words "boys" or "he".

Are you reading this, Alex? Comments? Perhaps a bit of tweaking of the article is in order...

The debate really isn't about Alex Plank's original intent, which is laudable. The OP just brought to our attention (overzealously) a very valid point about the wording itself. Not to offend anyone's personal beliefs, but I feel that females falling under the umbrella of "boys" is as likely as believing my ancestors are partially descended from some guy's rib.
The point isn't to detract from the original message at all.

I think Alex should have been a bit more thorough. I found this on RxList. There are other websites that basically is saying the same things.

Alex probably should have said something like this.

One in every 88 U.S. children -- and one in 54 boys -- has autism, the CDC now estimates.

But if a person does the math a lot more boys have autism than girls.

Autism in girls:
1 in 34

Autism in boys
1 in 54

But, rather going ballistic, I do an Internet search.

1 in 88 children has Autism

I look for the number of Autism children go up as NTs and the mental health professional becomes more familiar with it.

Do you know math?

Yeah honestly I almost peed myself laughing reading that.. unless you have some kind of a math disability.. then I'm sorry...

Well they said they did the math so I was sure they didn't have a disability in that area.