Anti-cure Cowardice?

Post Reply New Topic

I think people horribly underestimate their ability to be true to themselves. All these aspies seem to be thinking that if their AS were somehow wiped out, they'd suddenly become knowledge less, interest less, attention-whoring socialites. You know people, you are capable of being weird, interesting, outside-the-box, or intellectual without being an aspie. There are tons of unsociable, intellectual, analytical weirdos in this world who aren't aspies.

Matter of opinion of course, but I still believe that AS is technically a disorder and actually hinders you from doing the things you really were meant to do in life. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a disorder.

CIRCULAR DEFINITION: See DEFINITION, CIRCULAR.

Yeah, ACTUALLY a disorder means dis-order! That means OUT(dis means bad or in this case out) order(order or in this case ordinary). So a dis order is out of the ordinary, or out of line with what is considered normal.

If non-autistic people don't want to become autistic, and aren't considered cowards and all that other BS for not wanting to, then why do autistic people have to be treated to all this amateur psychoanalyzing for not wanting to become non-autistic?

I mean, both would lose abilities as well as gain them in the process. (And no, I don't mean the stereotype of "logical thinking" and stuff, but there are actual ability profiles that are different between non-autistic and autistic people, and both would lose something in the process as well as gain.) So why is it wrong to not want to? Why can't anyone trust autistic people's actual statements about why we want to remain autistic. And why do people have to be so profoundly disrespectful to us for wanting to stay the way we are?

In addition, why is it that parents are allowed to have opinions that encompass the entire "spectrum" but autistic people are derided and treated as if we're generalizing only from our own experience when we have such opinions as well? How do people know we're only generalizing from one experience? How do people know what we might or might not actually happen to know about autism, or to have experienced? Why for that matter is it that the more closely you fit a certain (false) stereotype of autism, one that doesn't even match Kanner's patients, then the more you're considered a "real" autistic person? And why is it always those of us who don't want a cure (or who don't want to cure our children) who are treated like we just don't know how horrible autism can be? Can't it be that we have other reasons that don't rest on whether it's "horrible" or not?

Of course, the assertions in the first post are non-falsifiable, and anyone can believe them about anyone if they want, but it won't make it true.

Lelia and Joeker, you are two voices of reasoning. It's escaped many that for some, Autism is very crippling. It's easy to judge when you're HF or Aspergers and can live a half decent life on your own. Have compassion for those who will never be able to do that and will need a lifetime of medical and supervisory care. Compassion for them and the families who will have to sacrifice everything to support them.

Am do not want a cure,am not hf [lf/mf] and have complex needs as a result of autism but am would not change the person am have grown up as,am would say yes to weakening the problems and difficulties but no to cure,how exactly is wanting the 'easier' option [of a cure] "less cowardly" than staying with autism or as?

Totally agree. A cure will never change the person you are. If anything, it will make you better being the person that you are.

The notion of a "cure", whatever that may entail in practice, is completely hypothetical at this point. I'd say it's a bit premature to start predicting what, exactly, a cure might or might not do. I'll reserve judgement until there are reproducible studies and demonstrable proof. And the concern expressed by some people about potentially eugenicist policies is well-founded. Human history abounds with acts of genocidal atrocity; it's not like there isn't any precedent.

Agreed.
I've noticed that there are posters here on WP who border on arrogance and condescension when mentioning "neurotypicals" (I hate that word!). It makes me wonder where this almost-elitist view among some Aspies comes from. Is it because SOME of the "greatest minds" in history were (or are suspected to have been) autistic?

There are LOTS of highly intelligent individuals in the world who are successful in their chosen field, and who are NOT Aspies.

Another thing I've noticed here on WP is that there's often mention of qualities that people believe are the result being an Aspie, such as: being able to "notice the finer details of things", or being able to "gain valuable insights into things". Really, who's to say you wouldn't have these qualities if you weren't an Aspie?

I agree with KristaMeth and Spiral dude. And I find it interesting to point out that many deaf people feel the same exact way about the idea of a cure for deafness. Apparently some of them believe that it enhances their ability to use their other senses, to perceive the world in a whole different way, etc. And that is all fine and dandy. But is that genuinely true? Are they simply afraid of change? Or do they use their beliefs as a coping mechanism for being deaf?

I do need a "lifetime of medical and supervisory care". In fact, I've had one case manager remark that I needed more assistance than anyone else served by the team he was on, and another case manager remark that he'd never had a client with more medical needs than I have (I just got home from two specialists, one of whom used me as an example to show a doctor-in-training what a particular severe untreated medical condition looks like, another of whom diagnosed another severe medical condition, and this sort of thing keeps happening). I am sick of people automatically assuming that if I don't want a cure for autism then I must just not be aware of people like... gee... me and a lot of people I happen to know and love. It's insulting.

It's also insulting for people who would purport to want to help people who need "a lifetime of medical and supervisory care" to promote a view of our existence as bleak, awful, hopeless (except for the hope of a cure, of course), and obviously in need of changing to another sort of life that is just assumed to be superior. And irresponsible besides.

This form of insisting that a cure (or something close to cure) is the only way to help our problems led to multiple suicide attempts when I was a teenager, as well as many attempts to run away from home. The disability community talks a lot about how cure and death are seen as the two main options for disability, but I always heard "cure or institutionalize forever". I knew that there was no cure (and that I was in fact becoming less and less capable, and that the only "capability" they were teaching me when they did at all, was "capability at faking capability"), and I'd already experienced enough of institutions not to want to be there permanently. It's absolutely imperative to teach parents and autistic people alike that there are way more options than that, that there isn't in fact some level past which if we can't do things we have to be locked up for the rest of our lives. (And this goes for even people who want to be cured, given the fact that there is no cure.)

What I think is a good thing, is teaching, treating medical problems (never confusing this with "treating autism"), exposure to lots of autistic adults so we don't feel like aliens (or at least not like stranded aliens) and so we might actually connect to someone more easily (it happens a lot even with seemingly "very low functioning" children), and helping people do the best they can do ("can do" includes "can do without completely collapsing"). This also includes teaching us different things than you have to teach non-autistic children. (How to recognize and manage overload and shutdown, for instance.) And teaching us in different ways than you teach non-autistic children. (For instance, science is showing that autistic people learn best through implicit rather than explicit learning, which means basically we need a lot of repeated exposure to the actual situations in order to learn from them, even if it looks like we're taking in nothing. Also, teaching a child with severe receptive language problems is done differently than teaching a child with good receptive language, for instance. But it also shouldn't be assumed that a person can't understand language just because they don't respond typically. Etc.) Never putting form before function. And lots of other things. And knowing that hope and cure are not synonyms. And that you could never predict what someone will be like at 30 from what they are like at 5, 10, 15, or even 20 (nobody has ever made an accurate prediction about my future).

I obviously don't believe in "doing nothing", certainly. And I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge suffering (but I do think it's wrong not to take a hard look at the ableism that allows a lot of that suffering to continue needlessly, either by barriers erected or assistance and support not given, etc).

I just refuse to agree that non-autistic is better. I don't think that autistic is better either.

And I think that promoting a view of neurological diversity that is only for those closest to the norm, is a failure to understand the meaning of the term "diversity" (I fail to understand why so many people think "diversity" means "only those closest to normal", when it couldn't be further in meaning from that). I find that sort of only-to-some-halfway-mark acceptance of neurological diversity more offensive than just not bothering to accept it at all. It's basically saying, "Yeah, accept your difference, but only to the degree that none of the rest of us have to change much of anything we're doing." It's sort of like, instead of the abolishment of bullying, just taking half the kids that are bullied, integrating them into the "in-crowd" at school, and then letting that entire "in-crowd" continue bullying everyone else.

I wrote a book review called Neurodiversity... but not quite (that's a link to it) that deals with what I see as some sort of diluted only-halfway version of neurodiversity (the book had "neurodiversity" in its title, wasn't by an autistic person by the way). I am told that the author has read it and will revise her book eventually. Towards the end of it, I have collected a number of quotes that people might find interesting. (And, by the way, unlike the way that "neurodiversity" has been redefined by people who wanted to vilify it, "neurodiversity" is not the opposite of any specific method of "treating" or "curing" autism. I have seen it redefined, over the years, as the "opposite of ABA", the "opposite of biomed", etc, but none of them are accurate to the term's actual meaning.)

Give me a cure, NOW.

Your question is based on your conclusion that autism in fact is not a condition of severe and pervasive impairments in social interaction, communication (verbal and non-verbal), emotion, and behavior. However, autism, in fact, is a condition of severe and pervasive impairments in the above mentioned things.

You have not responded to anything in my original post. Instead you simply put forth your own opinion which doesn't directly address any of the main points in the original post.

Your reasoning is a psychological attempt to deal with your condition, and the medical approach to it, and your limitations, and your profound deficits, and the way non-autistic people treat you. Your reasoning is psychological, and only that. But you believe you're an activist, and you believe you're saying something of conceptual importance. What you're doing is, only, trying to turn the tables. It is not an important question to ask "If non-autistic people don't want to become autistic ... then why do autistic people have to be...considered cowards...for not wanting to become non-autistic" because of simple rationality. (I would recommend that you learn about various conceptions of rationality; they have to do with well-being, actions that promote well being and avoid harm, etc). That is, questions about matters like these are important and relevant if they express rational considerations, and asking a non-autistic person if she would want to be autistic, is a question of irrationality, as it is to ask a neurotypical person if they would like to have any other condition that would entail a loss of essentially all core abilities that most human beings find to be fundamentally valuable, and, abilities that are a core part of the development of society (economy, political structure, education, arts, sports, religion, family, city development, international relations, etc), such as basic social abilities, communicative abilities, physical abilities, conceptual abilities, emotional abilities, etc.



False. Neurotypicals would enter a state of profound dysfunction compare to their usual state.

You may also want to consider this: Hypothetically, any neurotypical entering into a state of autism would without any question object to it and want to re-enter their previous state of non-autism. It is this certainty that undermines all of your views and your approach, as well as others like you.



You inappropriately speak for all autistic people. You may want to consider that this is yet another psychological aspect of your approach.



This was the main point of my original post - to give possible explanations for your objections and your approach - and you have not responded to any of the possible explanations I provided. Psychological again. Your approach is thoroughly psychological. My original post provides various considerations and explanations, and your psychological approach is to try to speak over them, without considering them or responding to them. It's like you listen to what I said at voice volume level 5, then either not understand it or ignore it, then merely reiterate the questions I responded to, and do so with voice volume level 10.



Quite a psychological response. People believe things based on the reasonableness of what is said or written.

I've seen your views expressed before, as well as those like you, and I understand your views and can reconstruct them and discuss them fairly clearly. And, I can also provide specific explanations for why, in my view, you believe what you do, as I did in the original post. You, on the other hand, do not understand my view, do not reconstruct it or discuss it, and do not provide any direct objections to what I discussed.

What I've found with you and others like you is, from your side, a shouting match, a psychological match, an emotional match. I don't engage with this, and I don't do this, as clear in my original post.

WOW!! !! So we have a CURE!! !! !! ! Drink a glass of water, and there is your cure! As you said, water "will never change the person you are"! !! !! !! The ONLY problem is that I fail to see how that is a cure for being the person you are! If an item, by its existence, must change who you are, but doesn't, what is the point?

Your view is one of what I think would be widely considered in science, medicine, academics, and politics (the art of social organization) to be profound irrationality. And your view appears to also fall into one or more of the categories I provide in my original post, none of which you have addressed in any way.



IT led to nothing ... YOU led yourself to it. Psychological again is your approach.

And you provide some examples about this. Here you accept and promote special education for autistic persons. This acceptance and promotion is consistent with the desire for a major treatment to overcome the entirety of autism. The pro-cure or pro-major treatment approach is AN EXTENSION of the pro-special education approach. Special education entails treatment to OVERCOME AUTISTIC IMPAIRMENTS AND SYMPTOMS, and efforts to develop a major treatment or cure are done for the purpose of FURTHER overcoming autistic impairments and symptoms.

Well I don't want to not be who I am. If that offends someone who does not want to be the way THEY are, hmmmm.... frankly I don't give a flying f**k....

Arrogant? If you think that, again... idc.

WHY?

Partially because I'm an Aspie, granted. I've referred to us a "Nature's little noblemen, forever at the 4 year old stage where everything is MINEMINEMINEMINE and it's all about MEMEMEMEMEME". We're completely self centered. So? I'm not "social". Well I'm perfectly social with those who want to talk to me about things I find interesting. My observation is NT's are exactly the same way. If they want to talk about sports and you feel organized sports are a complete waste of space... they aren't very social either. If they want to talk about rap, and you like listening to everything BUT rap and have a violent reaction if someone tries to bust a rhyme, they aren't very social are they? WE'RE not that different... duh. Or they want to talk about their "personal relationship with Christ" and you want to throw yourself from the Sears Tower rather than listen to one more SECOND of it... is it arrogant to tell them you really don't want to discuss such things and would they please stop, or should you lie to them and plead a sudden case of diarrhea?

I understand there are people out there hurting because they have not been able to accommodate the NT world the way I have. I understand that there are people suffering daily from conditions that need treatment. Treatment is not a "cure", it is a treatment. I have no objection to someone relieving their pain, whether that's physical or psychological. Hell, if you really feel, that if you were relieved of your physical hurts, if you were able to take in and process sensations without screaming from the intensity, if you were able to breathe and walk and speak, when you wanted to, if you had ALL those things and you STILL want to be "cured" of autism... you want to change your brain, then by all means, be my guest. Unless someone pours a few trillion dollars into it, which at this point in time appears to be a very unlikely chance, I see no way in HELL that anyone will be able to rewrite and rewire an established neural network. Barring the old fashioned and always popular lobotomy of course... again. Be my guest, but leave my invitation in the trash. I want to be who I am. If you don't, then change if possible. If impossible, you have to find a way to live with that, or to paraphrase a character from "Dead Like Me", "you go away, peanut... you go away and you never get to want anything again...".

I will NEVER object to people getting appropriate medical and psychiatric care to make their lives the best we can accomplish. I think we should be getting that in the United States under a National Health Plan. I'm willing and able to pay my share, and to pay more for the people who have nothing to get coverage too. It makes me sick to my stomach to see people who have to defer or go without treatment completely. To see families forced into bankruptcy because their medical bills exceeded their insurance cap (usually $1 million US dollars). A preemie newborn with just a FEW medical issues can rack up a bill like that in most hospitals in as little as a month. I will NEVER object to my brothers and sisters on the spectrum who need treatment for conditions that arose from our shared heritage. But I will never surrender my core "person" so that I can "be just like everybody". Damnit I KNOW you're lonely. Here's a newsflash SO ARE THEY. NT's have ALL the problems we do, just in different ways. The major difference I can see is they are judged NOT "on the content of their characters" but on how high they can claw up on a social status ladder. I listened to two mothers conversing about their teenaged daughters once, and one said "Well, you know my daughter was a cheerleader last year, dated the captain fo the football team... we moved and in the new school she didn't even make the cheer squad, that's real hard on her, going from being somebody do you know... being nobody...".

I was horrified. Had her child had her brain removed? Had she had her limbs amputated?? No, she just wasn't a cheerleader, it didn't change the PERSON, it changed the status, and that was more important to them than her daughter's character, or personality, or self worth as a human being... I would rather have my children be good human beings, live by a code of ethics, give help to those who need it and accept help when they need it in their turn... from what I can tell they're well on their way. Never having "been on a sports team" never having played that status game at all. I'd rather have them be Aspie's than some gang of thugs, I mean high school football players... By no means are all NT's driven by that, but the ones who end up RUNNING things are... Rather than the content of their character, we have leaders who managed to beat down all their opponents on the way up.

Goddess help us... no wonder we suck...