Page 3 of 4 [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,123
Location: Long Island, New York

29 Jan 2023, 11:14 am

carlos55 wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
There`s already plenty of genocide for autistic people at the moment, have you ever checked out the life expectancy of being autistic.[/quote
I posted articles about our short our shortened life expectancy. That is not a result of a plan to eliminate us being carried out so it is not genocide.


Metaphorically speaking

The end result is the same autistic people usually die young and don't usually pass on their genes. So autistic people have and are being wiped out in large numbers through physical health conditions tied to other genetic errors, accidents, suicide or poor self care.

It could be concluded that being autistic is very dangerous to health.

So natural eugenics and genocide already exist but these protestors are trying to damage the very thing that is trying to help them over an identity based on kanner`s "don't know what the hell that is so ill just give it a name and they`ll blame refrigerator mothers" miscellaneous category of psychology.

Not very logical :( :roll:


You use whatever words you please but the concept you are describing is commonly known as “natural selection”.

You could say that because black people die younger being black is dangerous to your health. While that is acknowledged the blame is usually not assigned to genetics, it is usually assigned to racism. Oversimplifying things where the disagreement is that the ND movement says it’s societies fault. What the anti ND people say is the problem is Autistics were born that way.

I think one issue those particular protesters have is distrust of Simon Baron Cohen due to his zero degrees of empathy and extreme male brain theories. Combine his theories with how eugenics has been historically used and the opposition to all is understandable if not logical.

I do think Autistic disabilities are a combination of Autism and ableism. There is no room for that in the zero sum game era.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,774

30 Jan 2023, 7:23 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
There`s already plenty of genocide for autistic people at the moment, have you ever checked out the life expectancy of being autistic.[/quote
I posted articles about our short our shortened life expectancy. That is not a result of a plan to eliminate us being carried out so it is not genocide.


Metaphorically speaking

The end result is the same autistic people usually die young and don't usually pass on their genes. So autistic people have and are being wiped out in large numbers through physical health conditions tied to other genetic errors, accidents, suicide or poor self care.

It could be concluded that being autistic is very dangerous to health.

So natural eugenics and genocide already exist but these protestors are trying to damage the very thing that is trying to help them over an identity based on kanner`s "don't know what the hell that is so ill just give it a name and they`ll blame refrigerator mothers" miscellaneous category of psychology.

Not very logical :( :roll:


You use whatever words you please but the concept you are describing is commonly known as “natural selection”.

You could say that because black people die younger being black is dangerous to your health. While that is acknowledged the blame is usually not assigned to genetics, it is usually assigned to racism. Oversimplifying things where the disagreement is that the ND movement says it’s societies fault. What the anti ND people say is the problem is Autistics were born that way.

I think one issue those particular protesters have is distrust of Simon Baron Cohen due to his zero degrees of empathy and extreme male brain theories. Combine his theories with how eugenics has been historically used and the opposition to all is understandable if not logical.

I do think Autistic disabilities are a combination of Autism and ableism. There is no room for that in the zero sum game era.


I suppose the key difference that separates so called autistic identity from any problems held by others groups like race for example is personal choices and relief from difficulties faced.

Leaving aside the fact most black people live normal and decent lives

A black kid in the worst of neighborhoods can make positive choices even mike Tyson found boxing for example some get educated or get into music or football.

Someone with severe forms of autism has no life choices

He can’t choose where he lives for example, maybe dad gets drunk and hits mom everyday maybe sexual abuse has happened.

He can’t just leave because he can’t live independently.

Maybe he wants to see the pyramids of Egypt or part of his country, he can’t just get on a plane like a NT.

He’s completely at the mercy of the kindness of NTs whether society or personal family which is dangerous in itself.

Which is why disability can’t be just another identity


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


Double Retired
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2020
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,114
Location: U.S.A.         (Mid-Atlantic)

30 Jan 2023, 10:57 am

Until Autism Spectrum differences can be reliably diagnosed with more precision I think it important to not over-generalize. Some on the Spectrum get along just fine. They might be "different" but they are educated and have good jobs. And some marry. Some have children.

Not all will be academically and professionally successful. Many will not marry and many will not have children. But...

<=>"If you've met on Autistic you've met one Autistic."

And I don't know that I consider Autism to be my identity but rather just part of my identity.


_________________
When diagnosed I bought champagne!
I finally knew why people were strange.


carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,774

30 Jan 2023, 11:33 am

Double Retired wrote:
Until Autism Spectrum differences can be reliably diagnosed with more precision I think it important to not over-generalize. Some on the Spectrum get along just fine. They might be "different" but they are educated and have good jobs. And some marry. Some have children.

Not all will be academically and professionally successful. Many will not marry and many will not have children. But...

<=>"If you've met on Autistic you've met one Autistic."

And I don't know that I consider Autism to be my identity but rather just part of my identity.


I agree 100% that’s why I said people should be free to choose their own path

The whole point though in the article is a loud minority are against this

Like I said earlier if ND advocates like their autism don’t want treatment or a cure they have no right interfering in autism research unless it’s to help

Many autistic people have rare gene mutations preventing some essential chemical for brain functioning.

If some were “fixed” it may increase cognition and IQ significantly without necessarily curing autism all together.

An IQ increase from 40 to 70 for example would be life changing for many including my now deceased cousin.

They could maybe get a job, live independently maybe take up a hobby or interest who knows

So it’s immoral for anyone to potentially get in the way of that although I agree opinions that Autism research could be better targeted are very valid.


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


Edna3362
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Oct 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,341
Location: ᜆᜄᜎᜓᜄ᜔

31 Jan 2023, 4:43 pm

Genetics? This still reminds me of the dandelions and orchids.
And autistics are definitely under the orchids category, along with many others.

The lucky, well accommodated and well raised orchids tend to be the high flyers and geniuses.

And then there are unlucky orchids -- ones tend to be filled with mental health issues and varying metabolic disorders.


In which the orchids are so sensitive to the positives and negatives -- but then "life", in most of the "societal norm" isn't accomodating enough, or worse.

Should they be 'eliminated'?
Since 'disorders' are very much a 'part of it' -- not because some ignorant people, or heck ignorant society verbally hit someone hard enough repeatedly.. Or having massively ingrained habits that made them unhealthy. :roll: Yeah, right.

This includes and not limited to cases who ended up with autism, whether or not a particular case ended up a disorder.

Scientists are not stupid enough to try and eliminate those genes, whether or not it leads to whatever particular variant autism.

And everyday people, who are either ignorant, want to deal with 'easier' kids, or they themselves want to be a 'convenient human without issues' -- should not have the right to decide that.


_________________
Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here.


longshot
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Dec 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,037
Location: In some fictional location

01 Feb 2023, 1:26 pm

Here's my stance of the following, based on what I've read as I feel, there's 2 camp's of people here:
1 those whom are doing research to better the lives of autistic people and help themselves and their caregivers including parents,spouses,overall in a meaningful beneficial manner.
2those whom are conducting research in the hopes of finding the so called,"Cure" to realistically remove autism from said person including it's traits, qualities,etc, as this includes parents seeking and some autistic persons persons too.

Myself, I've come to acknowledge the way I have been as a person over the millennia and I'm not searching nor wanting a cure; however I'm not going to berate others who seek out such. Go right ahead.

Honestly, I'm not sure if both camps of people can agree on anything at this juncture.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,123
Location: Long Island, New York

08 Feb 2023, 11:58 am

Sometimes acrimonious debate is playing out in scientific papers, at conferences, and on social media

Quote:
A long-smoldering debate among scientists studying autism has erupted. At issue is language—for example, whether researchers should describe autism as a “disorder,” “disability,” or “difference,” and whether its associated features should be called “symptoms” or simply “traits.” In scientific papers and commentaries published in recent months, some have decried ableist language among their colleagues whereas others have defended traditional terminology—with both sides saying they have the best interests of autistic people in mind. The vitriol is harming the field and silencing researchers, some fear, but others see it as a long-overdue reckoning.

But according to some autism researchers, the field still too often defaults to terms with negative connotations. For example, in addition to “symptom” and “disorder,” many scientists use the term “comorbid” rather than the more neutral “co-occurring” to describe conditions that tend to accompany autism. Similarly, some argue the oft-used phrase “people with autism,” as opposed to “autistic person,” can imply that autism is necessarily an unwanted harmful condition.

In a recent survey of 195 autism researchers, 60% of responses included views about autistic people the study authors deemed dehumanizing, objectifying, or stigmatizing. Some responses described autistic people as “shut down from the outside world” or “completely inexpressive and apparently without emotions,” according to the November 2022 Frontiers in Psychology study. “What is worse than I thought was how blatant a lot of the content was, which shows that, for [a] large proportion of participants, they did not consider the things they were saying to be problematic at all,” says lead author Monique Botha, a psychologist at the University of Stirling.

At the same time, others argue that making certain terms off-limits stifles the scientific process. “If you can’t use words like ‘challenging behaviors’ or ‘severe disorder’ or ‘symptoms’ or ‘comorbid disorder,’ then how are you supposed to study those things?” asks Alison Singer, president of the Autism Science Foundation, who laid out these concerns in a December 2022 commentary in Autism Research. Singer and others, including her three co-authors, fear that using neutral terminology—such as “traits” or “features” in place of “symptoms”—downplays the experiences of autistic people who, like Singer’s daughter, have significant difficulty communicating, intellectual disabilities, or critical health concerns. It “trivializes the severity of autism,” says Singer, who is nonautistic. Botha, Bottema-Beutel, and 61 other researchers, clinicians, and advocates have submitted a letter to the editor rebutting Singer’s commentary.

Singer and others also worry moving toward neutral language could lead major funding agencies to shift support from research exploring autism’s underlying biological causes and potential treatments to other sectors, such as services and supports for autistic people—though whether this would be a positive or negative change is also a subject of debate. For now, the bulk of funding for the field falls squarely on the side of biological research in the United States, as well as in the United Kingdom and Australia.

Amid the ongoing language dispute, researchers on all sides report coming under attack, in the form of vitriolic Twitter exchanges, remarks at conferences, and being shouted down during talks. This increasingly hostile environment threatens to drive some scientists out of the field altogether—something Botha says they have seen firsthand among autistic researchers.

“People are getting reluctant to give public presentations or to be too vocal about what they’re finding,” says David Amaral, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Davis, who is nonautistic. “Science is supposed to be about communication.” He wrote a December editorial in Autism Research, for which he is editor-in-chief, calling for civility across the board.

But, Botha says, “Civility is only possible when there is an equal playing field,” which can’t exist, they say, as long as the field marginalizes autistic people. Zeroing in on the heated nature of the debate is to “entirely overlook what autistic people are saying or protesting.”

Some hold more moderate positions, such as Zack Williams, an M.D.-Ph.D. candidate in neuroscience at Vanderbilt University. “If we have the appropriate language to say something in a neutral and nonoffensive way, we should do it by default,” says Williams, who is autistic and a co-author of the letter to the editor responding to Singer’s commentary. But, “If someone goes and says ‘autism spectrum disorder,’ they shouldn’t be canceled,” he says; the focus should be on whether and how the research is helping autistic people.

Others say the field is too fractured to even try to resolve the divide. “I think that we don’t have a unified field anymore, and I think the sooner we recognize that the less pain will be there,” says Helen Tager-Flusberg, a psychologist at Boston University. Tager-Flusberg, who is nonautistic, and others say one source of the friction is the use of a single set of terms for an extremely heterogeneous condition. She argues for splitting the field and adopting separate terminology. But the autistic community largely thinks dividing them into groups such as “high-” or “low-functioning” is harmful and unnecessarily segregating, according to a December study exploring the language preferences of 654 English-speaking autistic adults across 30 countries.

“I don’t get why we can’t have common ground,” says Bottema-Beutel, who is nonautistic. “I don’t think that anyone who is saying we should avoid dehumanizing language is saying we should avoid accurately describing people and what they need.”

“Why not just be specific?” Botha asks. For example, if a study’s sample includes autistic people who are nonspeaking, have intellectual disability, and require supported living, just say that. Phrasing like this doesn’t minimize the very real challenges some autistic people experience—but it also doesn’t dehumanize them, Botha says. “Specificity is always going to be more rigorous and accurate than generalization.”


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 08 Feb 2023, 12:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Silence23
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2022
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 255
Location: Germany

08 Feb 2023, 12:07 pm

Word games. What an irrational waste of time.



Last edited by Silence23 on 08 Feb 2023, 12:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,774

08 Feb 2023, 12:08 pm

Looks like this is coming from ND again

It’s not really a debate if a gene is mutated so that it doesn’t do the job it’s supposed to do like produce a substance which has an effect on the brain then it’s a disorder not really a way around that fact.

Changing language for the small % at the top doesn’t remove their problems especially if everyone else doesn’t believe it either.

I can tell everyone I can fly but if no one else believes me when they see my limitations in being able to flap my arms and fly what’s the point.


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

08 Feb 2023, 8:28 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Sometimes acrimonious debate is playing out in scientific papers, at conferences, and on social media
Quote:
A long-smoldering debate among scientists studying autism has erupted. At issue is language—for example, whether researchers should describe autism as a “disorder,” “disability,” or “difference,” and whether its associated features should be called “symptoms” or simply “traits.” In scientific papers and commentaries published in recent months, some have decried ableist language among their colleagues whereas others have defended traditional terminology—with both sides saying they have the best interests of autistic people in mind. The vitriol is harming the field and silencing researchers, some fear, but others see it as a long-overdue reckoning.

But according to some autism researchers, the field still too often defaults to terms with negative connotations. For example, in addition to “symptom” and “disorder,” many scientists use the term “comorbid” rather than the more neutral “co-occurring” to describe conditions that tend to accompany autism. Similarly, some argue the oft-used phrase “people with autism,” as opposed to “autistic person,” can imply that autism is necessarily an unwanted harmful condition.

In a recent survey of 195 autism researchers, 60% of responses included views about autistic people the study authors deemed dehumanizing, objectifying, or stigmatizing. Some responses described autistic people as “shut down from the outside world” or “completely inexpressive and apparently without emotions,” according to the November 2022 Frontiers in Psychology study. “What is worse than I thought was how blatant a lot of the content was, which shows that, for [a] large proportion of participants, they did not consider the things they were saying to be problematic at all,” says lead author Monique Botha, a psychologist at the University of Stirling.

At the same time, others argue that making certain terms off-limits stifles the scientific process. “If you can’t use words like ‘challenging behaviors’ or ‘severe disorder’ or ‘symptoms’ or ‘comorbid disorder,’ then how are you supposed to study those things?” asks Alison Singer, president of the Autism Science Foundation, who laid out these concerns in a December 2022 commentary in Autism Research. Singer and others, including her three co-authors, fear that using neutral terminology—such as “traits” or “features” in place of “symptoms”—downplays the experiences of autistic people who, like Singer’s daughter, have significant difficulty communicating, intellectual disabilities, or critical health concerns. It “trivializes the severity of autism,” says Singer, who is nonautistic. Botha, Bottema-Beutel, and 61 other researchers, clinicians, and advocates have submitted a letter to the editor rebutting Singer’s commentary.

Singer and others also worry moving toward neutral language could lead major funding agencies to shift support from research exploring autism’s underlying biological causes and potential treatments to other sectors, such as services and supports for autistic people—though whether this would be a positive or negative change is also a subject of debate. For now, the bulk of funding for the field falls squarely on the side of biological research in the United States, as well as in the United Kingdom and Australia.

Amid the ongoing language dispute, researchers on all sides report coming under attack, in the form of vitriolic Twitter exchanges, remarks at conferences, and being shouted down during talks. This increasingly hostile environment threatens to drive some scientists out of the field altogether—something Botha says they have seen firsthand among autistic researchers.

“People are getting reluctant to give public presentations or to be too vocal about what they’re finding,” says David Amaral, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Davis, who is nonautistic. “Science is supposed to be about communication.” He wrote a December editorial in Autism Research, for which he is editor-in-chief, calling for civility across the board.

But, Botha says, “Civility is only possible when there is an equal playing field,” which can’t exist, they say, as long as the field marginalizes autistic people. Zeroing in on the heated nature of the debate is to “entirely overlook what autistic people are saying or protesting.”

Some hold more moderate positions, such as Zack Williams, an M.D.-Ph.D. candidate in neuroscience at Vanderbilt University. “If we have the appropriate language to say something in a neutral and nonoffensive way, we should do it by default,” says Williams, who is autistic and a co-author of the letter to the editor responding to Singer’s commentary. But, “If someone goes and says ‘autism spectrum disorder,’ they shouldn’t be canceled,” he says; the focus should be on whether and how the research is helping autistic people.

Others say the field is too fractured to even try to resolve the divide. “I think that we don’t have a unified field anymore, and I think the sooner we recognize that the less pain will be there,” says Helen Tager-Flusberg, a psychologist at Boston University. Tager-Flusberg, who is nonautistic, and others say one source of the friction is the use of a single set of terms for an extremely heterogeneous condition. She argues for splitting the field and adopting separate terminology. But the autistic community largely thinks dividing them into groups such as “high-” or “low-functioning” is harmful and unnecessarily segregating, according to a December study exploring the language preferences of 654 English-speaking autistic adults across 30 countries.

“I don’t get why we can’t have common ground,” says Bottema-Beutel, who is nonautistic. “I don’t think that anyone who is saying we should avoid dehumanizing language is saying we should avoid accurately describing people and what they need.”

“Why not just be specific?” Botha asks. For example, if a study’s sample includes autistic people who are nonspeaking, have intellectual disability, and require supported living, just say that. Phrasing like this doesn’t minimize the very real challenges some autistic people experience—but it also doesn’t dehumanize them, Botha says. “Specificity is always going to be more rigorous and accurate than generalization.”


I don't understand what is this fixation with language activism. Especially activism that interferes with scientific research. It's truly an Orwellian world this one we are living in. How control of language controls our ability to address reality. If you stop calling it a mental illness then it stops being treated as a mental illness. It is what it is though. We are not normal in the sense that we struggle to survive. Those who claim they are just different I bet you they come from privileged backgrounds. For the rest of us life with autism can be hell on earth. Not to mention those with intellectual disabilities and their families.



firemonkey
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,569
Location: Calne,England

09 Feb 2023, 1:03 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
Those who claim they are just different I bet you they come from privileged backgrounds. For the rest of us life with autism can be hell on earth. Not to mention those with intellectual disabilities and their families.


I come from a relatively privileged background. My father was a diplomat. I was privately educated from the age of 8 to 18. Social drift due to a combination of SMI + ASD(that was very late dxed) has meant that my life as an independent adult has been far from privileged.

I can't identify at all with those that see ASD as purely a 'gift'. If you're struggling and you're looking for answers; then fine. However if getting a dx amounts to ' I'm brilliant, and the ASD dx confirms that' - that's a very different ballgame.



carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,774

09 Feb 2023, 10:25 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Sometimes acrimonious debate is playing out in scientific papers, at conferences, and on social media
Quote:
A long-smoldering debate among scientists studying autism has erupted. At issue is language—for example, whether researchers should describe autism as a “disorder,” “disability,” or “difference,” and whether its associated features should be called “symptoms” or simply “traits.” In scientific papers and commentaries published in recent months, some have decried ableist language among their colleagues whereas others have defended traditional terminology—with both sides saying they have the best interests of autistic people in mind. The vitriol is harming the field and silencing researchers, some fear, but others see it as a long-overdue reckoning.

But according to some autism researchers, the field still too often defaults to terms with negative connotations. For example, in addition to “symptom” and “disorder,” many scientists use the term “comorbid” rather than the more neutral “co-occurring” to describe conditions that tend to accompany autism. Similarly, some argue the oft-used phrase “people with autism,” as opposed to “autistic person,” can imply that autism is necessarily an unwanted harmful condition.

In a recent survey of 195 autism researchers, 60% of responses included views about autistic people the study authors deemed dehumanizing, objectifying, or stigmatizing. Some responses described autistic people as “shut down from the outside world” or “completely inexpressive and apparently without emotions,” according to the November 2022 Frontiers in Psychology study. “What is worse than I thought was how blatant a lot of the content was, which shows that, for [a] large proportion of participants, they did not consider the things they were saying to be problematic at all,” says lead author Monique Botha, a psychologist at the University of Stirling.

At the same time, others argue that making certain terms off-limits stifles the scientific process. “If you can’t use words like ‘challenging behaviors’ or ‘severe disorder’ or ‘symptoms’ or ‘comorbid disorder,’ then how are you supposed to study those things?” asks Alison Singer, president of the Autism Science Foundation, who laid out these concerns in a December 2022 commentary in Autism Research. Singer and others, including her three co-authors, fear that using neutral terminology—such as “traits” or “features” in place of “symptoms”—downplays the experiences of autistic people who, like Singer’s daughter, have significant difficulty communicating, intellectual disabilities, or critical health concerns. It “trivializes the severity of autism,” says Singer, who is nonautistic. Botha, Bottema-Beutel, and 61 other researchers, clinicians, and advocates have submitted a letter to the editor rebutting Singer’s commentary.

Singer and others also worry moving toward neutral language could lead major funding agencies to shift support from research exploring autism’s underlying biological causes and potential treatments to other sectors, such as services and supports for autistic people—though whether this would be a positive or negative change is also a subject of debate. For now, the bulk of funding for the field falls squarely on the side of biological research in the United States, as well as in the United Kingdom and Australia.

Amid the ongoing language dispute, researchers on all sides report coming under attack, in the form of vitriolic Twitter exchanges, remarks at conferences, and being shouted down during talks. This increasingly hostile environment threatens to drive some scientists out of the field altogether—something Botha says they have seen firsthand among autistic researchers.

“People are getting reluctant to give public presentations or to be too vocal about what they’re finding,” says David Amaral, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Davis, who is nonautistic. “Science is supposed to be about communication.” He wrote a December editorial in Autism Research, for which he is editor-in-chief, calling for civility across the board.

But, Botha says, “Civility is only possible when there is an equal playing field,” which can’t exist, they say, as long as the field marginalizes autistic people. Zeroing in on the heated nature of the debate is to “entirely overlook what autistic people are saying or protesting.”

Some hold more moderate positions, such as Zack Williams, an M.D.-Ph.D. candidate in neuroscience at Vanderbilt University. “If we have the appropriate language to say something in a neutral and nonoffensive way, we should do it by default,” says Williams, who is autistic and a co-author of the letter to the editor responding to Singer’s commentary. But, “If someone goes and says ‘autism spectrum disorder,’ they shouldn’t be canceled,” he says; the focus should be on whether and how the research is helping autistic people.

Others say the field is too fractured to even try to resolve the divide. “I think that we don’t have a unified field anymore, and I think the sooner we recognize that the less pain will be there,” says Helen Tager-Flusberg, a psychologist at Boston University. Tager-Flusberg, who is nonautistic, and others say one source of the friction is the use of a single set of terms for an extremely heterogeneous condition. She argues for splitting the field and adopting separate terminology. But the autistic community largely thinks dividing them into groups such as “high-” or “low-functioning” is harmful and unnecessarily segregating, according to a December study exploring the language preferences of 654 English-speaking autistic adults across 30 countries.

“I don’t get why we can’t have common ground,” says Bottema-Beutel, who is nonautistic. “I don’t think that anyone who is saying we should avoid dehumanizing language is saying we should avoid accurately describing people and what they need.”

“Why not just be specific?” Botha asks. For example, if a study’s sample includes autistic people who are nonspeaking, have intellectual disability, and require supported living, just say that. Phrasing like this doesn’t minimize the very real challenges some autistic people experience—but it also doesn’t dehumanize them, Botha says. “Specificity is always going to be more rigorous and accurate than generalization.”


I don't understand what is this fixation with language activism. Especially activism that interferes with scientific research. It's truly an Orwellian world this one we are living in. How control of language controls our ability to address reality. If you stop calling it a mental illness then it stops being treated as a mental illness. It is what it is though. We are not normal in the sense that we struggle to survive. Those who claim they are just different I bet you they come from privileged backgrounds. For the rest of us life with autism can be hell on earth. Not to mention those with intellectual disabilities and their families.


Your right with all your points, many are sadly brainwashed too.

SJ movements are always a double edged sword. They highlight problems in society but can also create an easy blame culture.

It’s always easier for a person to blame outsiders or society rather than recognize their own limitations whether bad choices or poor genetic hand given.

The world isn’t fair some of us don’t even get a chance from an early age because of some gene fault or whatever.

The extremist elements in the ND movement suddenly start telling people there is nothing wrong with them but everyone else needs to change and adjust and serve them

The message is targeted at a vulnerable mostly isolated audience ( nature of autism).

Is it any wonder many want to believe it.


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


Double Retired
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2020
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,114
Location: U.S.A.         (Mid-Atlantic)

09 Feb 2023, 10:46 am

firemonkey wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Those who claim they are just different I bet you they come from privileged backgrounds. For the rest of us life with autism can be hell on earth. Not to mention those with intellectual disabilities and their families.


I come from a relatively privileged background. My father was a diplomat. I was privately educated from the age of 8 to 18. Social drift due to a combination of SMI + ASD(that was very late dxed) has meant that my life as an independent adult has been far from privileged.

I can't identify at all with those that see ASD as purely a 'gift'. If you're struggling and you're looking for answers; then fine. However if getting a dx amounts to ' I'm brilliant, and the ASD dx confirms that' - that's a very different ballgame.
My father was blue-collar in a grocery store the whole time I was growing up. It was the 1950/1960s so my mother was a stay-at-home Mom until my youngest sibling got older, then Mom's first job was as a server in a cafeteria in a department store.

The "privileged" part of my youth was that my parents had a very happy marriage and chose to raise me with what I think today would be called Autism Acceptance.

I think of my Autism as being a difference. In some ways it hurt me, in some ways it helped me. While my Autism was no joy ride it turned out OK (after lots of unhappiness).

However, I emphasize that I am talking about my Autism. The unidentified underlying cause of my Autism might be completely different than the unidentified underlying cause of someone else's Autism. And I think it is quite likely my parent's decision to accept me the way I was helped me a lot. I don't think I was privileged, I think I was lucky.

If you've met one Autistic you've met one Autistic.


_________________
When diagnosed I bought champagne!
I finally knew why people were strange.


carlos55
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,774

09 Feb 2023, 11:32 am

Double Retired wrote:
firemonkey wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Those who claim they are just different I bet you they come from privileged backgrounds. For the rest of us life with autism can be hell on earth. Not to mention those with intellectual disabilities and their families.


I come from a relatively privileged background. My father was a diplomat. I was privately educated from the age of 8 to 18. Social drift due to a combination of SMI + ASD(that was very late dxed) has meant that my life as an independent adult has been far from privileged.

I can't identify at all with those that see ASD as purely a 'gift'. If you're struggling and you're looking for answers; then fine. However if getting a dx amounts to ' I'm brilliant, and the ASD dx confirms that' - that's a very different ballgame.
My father was blue-collar in a grocery store the whole time I was growing up. It was the 1950/1960s so my mother was a stay-at-home Mom until my youngest sibling got older, then Mom's first job was as a server in a cafeteria in a department store.

The "privileged" part of my youth was that my parents had a very happy marriage and chose to raise me with what I think today would be called Autism Acceptance.

I think of my Autism as being a difference. In some ways it hurt me, in some ways it helped me. While my Autism was no joy ride it turned out OK (after lots of unhappiness).

However, I emphasize that I am talking about my Autism. The unidentified underlying cause of my Autism might be completely different than the unidentified underlying cause of someone else's Autism. And I think it is quite likely my parent's decision to accept me the way I was helped me a lot. I don't think I was privileged, I think I was lucky.

If you've met one Autistic you've met one Autistic.


You may be right in your own assessment and I respect your view of your own autism as a difference.

However you are privileged same as me and most of us here because we are born in the west with Autism.

The government are obligated to help us out via social security a lot of the time especially in Europe maybe less so in US unless severe autism

Society is largely sympathetic also

Western families are smaller and most autistic people can live with parents until they die

In other parts of the world kids have to grow up quickly families are very large and poor. No one can devote enough time to look after someone with special needs.

Because of this tragedy is common for autistic kids

I heard an African lady say in her country severely disabled kids are taken to the jungle and left there.

Don’t know if true or not but wouldn’t surprise me.


_________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends upon the unreasonable man."

- George Bernie Shaw


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,123
Location: Long Island, New York

09 Feb 2023, 11:45 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
I don't understand what is this fixation with language activism. Especially activism that interferes with scientific research. It's truly an Orwellian world this one we are living in. How control of language controls our ability to address reality. If you stop calling it a mental illness then it stops being treated as a mental illness. It is what it is though. We are not normal in the sense that we struggle to survive. Those who claim they are just different I bet you they come from privileged backgrounds. For the rest of us life with autism can be hell on earth. Not to mention those with intellectual disabilities and their families.

This has changed a lot since this ok boomer grew up when pretty much all the adults in my life said “Sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never harm you”. That was not quite correct. If bad inaccurate words about autism are repeated often enough autistics are going to be hurt. The problem is we have gone to the other extreme where people are allowing microagressions and what should be trivial slights to cause them to develop PTSD. I am not talking about a person who has been repeatedly abused and what normally would be a trivial slight triggers PTSD.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

09 Feb 2023, 12:12 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
I don't understand what is this fixation with language activism. Especially activism that interferes with scientific research. It's truly an Orwellian world this one we are living in. How control of language controls our ability to address reality. If you stop calling it a mental illness then it stops being treated as a mental illness. It is what it is though. We are not normal in the sense that we struggle to survive. Those who claim they are just different I bet you they come from privileged backgrounds. For the rest of us life with autism can be hell on earth. Not to mention those with intellectual disabilities and their families.

This has changed a lot since this ok boomer grew up when pretty much all the adults in my life said “Sticks and stones may break your bones but words can never harm you”. That was not quite correct. If bad inaccurate words about autism are repeated often enough autistics are going to be hurt. The problem is we have gone to the other extreme where people are allowing microagressions and what should be trivial slights to cause them to develop PTSD. I am not talking about a person who has been repeatedly abused and what normally would be a trivial slight triggers PTSD.


I read the article that you posted and I see some commonalities with other topics of scientific research where SJ is involved. I recently had a prolonged debate with several people on the topic of gender dysphoria. The common features between the ND and transgender activism are: 1. outrage regarding the general approach towards the respective mental illness. Is it a disease or is it the fault of the society that is not accommodating otherwise normal people. Should we even try to cure or treat it. Is it an issue at all?; 2. Debate over the language used, the belief that language can change cultural attitudes; 3. Targeting the researches, organizations and professionals; 4. Professionals avoiding research on the topic in order to avoid heat and possible damage to their carears; 5. The specific field of research becomes stagnant, which is damaging to the people that it would otherwise help.

In my opinion, we should leave researchers do their job without politics involved.