Page 2 of 2 [ 18 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Mona Pereth
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Sep 2018
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,174
Location: New York City (Queens)

29 Jul 2021, 10:26 pm

carlos55 wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
The question of whether a given impairment should be thought of as a "disease that must be cured" or just a "disability" -- or even a "disability" at all -- isn't primarily a scientific question in the first place. It is primarily a societal/cultural question whose answer is determined, to a large degree, by how a given society functions. That's the point of the "social model of disability."


Sounds like semantics psychobabble & word play to skip over the fact that autism for many is a serious disability.

No it's not just "psychobabble & word play." It is easy to imagine a hypothetical future world in which the mildest kinds of autism are no longer even a disability, and in which at least some of the more severely disabling kinds of autism are still a disability, but less of a disability than they are in today's world.

That world isn't today's world, obviously. The differences between today's world and a hypothetical future world aren't just "psychobabble & word play," but a variety of specific concrete differences in how society functions in these worlds.

carlos55 wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
An 18-year-old with the living skills of a 3-year-old is most likely intellectually disabled as well as autistic. So, why isn't anyone pushing hard for vast amounts of money to be spent on research toward a cure for intellectual disability? Why the focus on trying to cure autism, but not on trying to cure intellectual disability?


Autism cannot be separated from ID, epilepsy, self harm etc... Autism is not a biological diagnosis rather set of behaviours, its just a 1940`s parking space for a brain condition they didnt understand.

The biological event that caused autism caused the ID

All the more reason why "cure" research should be focused on the more severely disabling brain conditions, rather than "autism" per se.


_________________
- Autistic in NYC - Resources and new ideas for the autistic adult community in the New York City metro area.
- Autistic peer-led groups (via text-based chat, currently) led or facilitated by members of the Autistic Peer Leadership Group.
- My Twitter (new as of 2021)


carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 786
Location: uk

30 Jul 2021, 7:10 am

Mona Pereth wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
Mona Pereth wrote:
The question of whether a given impairment should be thought of as a "disease that must be cured" or just a "disability" -- or even a "disability" at all -- isn't primarily a scientific question in the first place. It is primarily a societal/cultural question whose answer is determined, to a large degree, by how a given society functions. That's the point of the "social model of disability."


Sounds like semantics psychobabble & word play to skip over the fact that autism for many is a serious disability.

No it's not just "psychobabble & word play." It is easy to imagine a hypothetical future world in which the mildest kinds of autism are no longer even a disability, and in which at least some of the more severely disabling kinds of autism are still a disability, but less of a disability than they are in today's world.

That world isn't today's world, obviously. The differences between today's world and a hypothetical future world aren't just "psychobabble & word play," but a variety of specific concrete differences in how society functions in these worlds.



Nobody disagrees with that but it’s not the issue.

Let’s make the issue simple:

ND: “Nothing about us without us”

So who is us?

ND: The Neurodiversity movement of course.

So the Neurodiversity movement wants to be the go to representative of all autism no matter how severe

Ok so what do they believe in?

Quote:
Neurodiversity advocates are opposed to medical research for a cure, believing that it will lead to eugenics, and instead support research that helps autistic people thrive as they are.[


Ok but autism is a disability for many if not most and a severe life impediment for many, short of a cure, there may be effective biological treatments in the future that gives me or others worse off a better quality of life?

ND: Not allowed since it runs against the ND doctrine of all brain impairments no matter how severe are valid part of Neurodiversity and should not be interfered with.

What if I disagree with this or talking about the adult with the living skills of a 3 year old that will die young unless receives a future biological intervention?

ND: We’ll re-educate you to love the thing that ruined your life and if your still don’t like it we’ll just cancel you and talk over your head like you don’t exist and don’t have a voice.

But what if I want a cure or at least like to know someone out there is working on effective biological treatments to try to make my life better? What right does a self appointed group have to campain to take that from us & influence my medical choices anyway?

ND: You’ll just have to suck it up those on the least severe end of the spectrum like the 100k app programmer doesn’t want to feel like they have a “disorder” so those at the severe end have to be sacrificed to serve their comfort / coping needs.

So why cant those with milder symptoms just refuse to take a treatment if ever released why impose their will on others, why cant ND be a personal optional way of life for those that like their autism?

ND: Because we want to control & impose our will on what others do

Very selfish but leaving that aside, society is made up of busy people with limited funds & only helps people who need it and the “disability” of autism unlocks that help with education, housing and welfare.

If ND are shouting that autism is not an impairment or pathology that will hinder that, or at least give those in power that want an excuse to make cuts in help, a valid excuse that autistic people are not impaired so thus expensive social welfare programs can go elsewhere or maybe interrogate autistic people giving them a hard time, to make sure they really are disabled before housing and giving them welfare? Maybe some bureaucrat decision maker will hear ND saying autism isnt a problem & like left handedness & refuse an autistic person their housing or welfare maybe the stress of that will drive them to suicide


ND: We don’t care about that or at least never thought about it.

Why is all this important?

ND: Because we aim & campaign to be the decision makers in all things autism, our decisions will potentially have an impact on others - “Nothing about us without us”

That’s the main reason many are against the movement.