Do You Support Neurodiversity - What do I say?

Post Reply New Topic

I've been obsessed with the concept of Neurodiversity since my DX last year. I've also been obsessed with human and animal evolution for years (before DX). In my mind Neurodiversity seems sensible for many reasons, based in science, research, and well thought out (because I AM that nerd girl).

The other day, on a blog by a doctor telling Paramount Pictures not to make Neurotribes into a movie I started with one comment - "I actually would really like to see this as a movie." This is a true statement, but I should have realized I was stirring the pot.

The next first from a reader was not too bad:

I" shall assume that you identify yourself with Neurodiversity. If that is the case, I would like to ask you something. Have you ever been asked “what is the difference between yourself and someone neurotypical”? Just curious."

To this I responded - "I’m pretty sure of who I am, and use this to explain my needs clearly if bringing up this topic. Not much left to question."

The next question of me was longer more accusing -

"To Neurodivergent Rebel,

Maybe you should read the blog a bit, one of the faulty pillars holding up neurodiversity is the idea that nothing negative could be behind autism.

There is evidence of poor health overall and neurological conditions. And if autism were entirely genetic, why does it still exist? Many severely autistic people cannot have children. Why can there be two identical twins where one is not autistic? It’s not just DNA.

Also do you wonder why people with schizophrenia or bipolar, two other conditions, do not seem to flock to neurodiversity? They share overlaps with some of the symptoms of autism (mainly the negative symptoms, occassionally a positive symptom too). And the health and enviromental insults to development found for those conditions are also found to play a role in autism too, yet the communities of the other disorders do not deny it and neither does the mainstream yet there is ample denial when it comes to autism?

Why don’t they view their disorder in such a positive light? Could it be that neurodiversity or seeing autism as a gift is an invented social construct, not something innate in an autistic person? There isn’t much neurodiversity in China when I visited. It’s a learned belief."

I responded with a long answer (then finished my thoughts on my own blog).

"I was born this way, and talking to others on the spectrum we almost all have a lot of very similar talents, abilities, and YES disabilities too.

When you look at my family (5 generations back) you can see hints of and traits of autism (previously Aspergers). Most recent generations seem to have more traits.

Opponents of neurodiversity argue that neurodiversity conveniently ignores people on the spectrum who need extra help and cannot live on their own or are more severely handicapped by their neurological differences.

Autism is the way a person thinks – but IBS, migraines, sensory overload, insomnia, and even brain damage ARE NOT AUTISM.

Technically they are comorbid conditions that commonly occur in autistic people. Again – related to Autism but NOT Autism. Not opposed to medicines to help any of these issues.

Everyone has a genetic predisposition to some sicknesses, autistic people just have a common list of accompanying illnesses.

The definition of neurodiversity is stretched when we include people under the umbrella who were not “born this way”. This is inaccurate and a problem.

People with traumatic brain injuries often develop symptoms of Autism and other comorbid conditions such as sensory overload. The similarities are undeniable, the effects look very similar to autism and other natural neurological differences (although they tend to be more severe).

You mentioned twins where one is not Autistic. I suggest you do a bit o research on the topic of environmental epigenetics – truly fascinating.

We are only just now beginning to understand how exposures to stimulus in the environment (chemicals, foods, and even stress) can impact our genetics before and after leaving the womb.

Epigenetics, where environmental factors turn gene expression off and on, DOES seem to be a big part in all the different “types” of Autism.

So why do we view ourselves in a positive light? Because we need to. We need to accept ourselves so that we can feel good about who we are as people.

We are not broken people, less important because of our differences. We are living, breathing humans.

When you tell autistic children they are defective they grow up with self-esteem issues, feeling broken and not good enough.

It is essential that we build these kids up (and the adults) so that they can be the best people they can be.

If someone tells you that you’re “broken, stupid, or not good enough” your whole life you will begin to believe it.

THIS is why neurodiversity is so important – for the self worth of those involved."

Now I am stuck on the last question, feeling like my response is pointless. This person has already mad up their mind. What do I even say to this:

"Hints in your family are not the same as having a diagnosed disorder. Also autism is a syndrome, a collection of malfunctions that are common enough together to not be mere coincidence or a matter of some bell curve. Autism is an effect of something else such as a rash could be caused by a hundred things. People on the spectrum are not united by a unique determined factor as is the case for the genes for skin color, but share a similar consequence.
Cortisol is an important steroid hormone in the body, but too much of it leads to cushings disease. “Hints of autism” is not the same as having diagnosed Autism DISORDER. When cortisol is too high, the evolutionary benefits it has is spurned and only causes physical sickness. It’s like saying because having cortisol is important, which it is, having a ton must be anything but unhealthy.

Also you haven’t answered why people with Schizophrenia or Bipolar don’t view their disorders in the same light. Considering the overlap and connections they share with autism in many areas, they do not share the same attitude so it implies to me that an innate identity is not so innate.

Also people with conditions such as the above are not “born that way” but develop it in their teens usually, but the role of prenatal development still exists. And there is also later onset autism too, even on the higher end, we cannot know for sure where it truly set in, it could have set in at 2-3 but not be severe enough to make a person think there was a period before onset.

Nobody should tell autistic people they are defective. That is why the medical and scientific view sees the existence of a person that is not their illness. Plus I see also no objection from schizophrenia or bipolar sufferers about being told “they are defective”, maybe nobody is telling anyone they are defective, maybe they are told they have a disorder which is not who they are.

Self worth is important, we need to encourage overcoming and perserverance in spite of setbacks or struggles. Autism is not a way of thinking, there is ample evidence for an ongoing neuropathology even in adulthood that disrupts existing functions. It is not a linux to a windows, it is a glitch or malware in a windows.

Also about epigenetics, what are those epigenetic factors you suggest that could possibly be anything other than harmful enviromental factors?

A healthier pregnancy does have a lower percentage chance of a child with a disability or disorder, and that includes autism.
Finally, the realms of science and social are two separate entities, like separation or church and state. You cannot use scienctific methods to perfectly determine social phenomena, only some guess work, this falls into determinism common to extremely destructive modernistic ideologies like Stalinism, seeing everything as cause and effect or following a neat straight arrow, that everything is calculable.

The other way around, using social views and sentiment on science related areas such as disease or disorder is absurd as well, science is impersonal, blind like justice, unbiased. A “social” view of a disorder (and for this one specifically, it seems there is no word from schizophrenia or bipolar communities) is like claiming the answer to 2+2 is based on what you feel, which is the other extreme of an extreme postmodernistic ideology.

Feelings do matter for the unpredictable and subjective parts of this world. But feelings do not matter when a scientific experiment or mathematical calculation is carried out. You cannot disregard evidence just because it doesn’t fit a narrative. And claiming we need neurodiversity because there is a need to feel empowered and have better self esteem is also ironically an objective absolutist statement.

Who says there aren’t other ways of approaching it that can accomplish the same things without disregarding some basic truths?"

IF you care to join in the conversation is here - corticalchauvinism.com/2017/06/20/paramount-pictures-do-not-produce-neurotribes-which-is-a-book-about-autism-by-steve-silberman-as-a-movie/comment-page-1/#comment-17785.

So now what do I say? The activist in me wants to respond back cautiously, line by line, explaining all the misunderstandings. The more wise part of me says "let it go - they have already mad up their minds." I think I will let it go, but there is a nagging in the back of my mind.

I don't understand how people who are not neurodiverse get to make these types of decisions about neurodiversity and its people (us).

WHY are we such a threat? I feel like I'm a mutant in the X-men movie!

Cortical Chauvinism is the worst and has been for a long time. Just don't bother with these people.