ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,471
Location: Long Island, New York
13 Jul 2021, 7:38 am
13 Jul 2021, 1:36 pm
ASPartOfMe wrote:
Spectrum
Why are Developmental Disabilities and Birth Defects run from the same department?
Many ND activists will object to epidemiologists tracking autism. They will say Autism is not a disease , this is soo medical model of autism etc. But this is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention tracking diagnosis after all. Does anybody have a better social model of disability driven method of tracking prevalence?
Quote:
Every two years, the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) sets out to measure the prevalence of autism among 8-year-old children in multiple states.
ADDM clinicians pore over children’s medical and school records for diagnoses and other information to determine which ones have autism. The researchers use the resulting data to estimate autism prevalence for the 11 states that belong to the network.
This process takes at least four years to yield results.
For the 2018 surveillance year, the ADDM Network adopted a faster method to track prevalence. Under the new system, researchers no longer look for signs of autism in children’s school and medical records. Instead, they pull from three data sources: records of autism diagnoses from clinicians, special-education classifications of autism, and hospital billing codes for autism services. The system omits the ADDM clinicians’ assessments, which were time consuming and labor intensive.
The new method uses half as much data as the old one but still yields similar prevalence results, according to a published comparison of data from 2014 and 2016. The findings appeared in April in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
Spectrum spoke with one of the new system’s developers, Matthew Maenner, about the updated methodology and the new insights it might offer. Maenner is an epidemiologist and surveillance team lead for the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.
Spectrum: What were the problems with how the ADDM Network was ascertaining autism prevalence?
Matt Maenner: The previous approach was first applied to monitor autism among children in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, in 1996. It was designed to identify children who present with autism traits but might be evaluated by practitioners who do not consistently recognize autism. The process was resource intensive, and the quantity of records undergoing expert review had increased dramatically in recent years.
S: What are the advantages of the new method?
MM:
But the new method simplifies data collection and requires us to collect about half as many evaluations and cognitive tests.
This improved efficiency has allowed the CDC to support more study sites than it would have under the previous methods. It also allows the network to report data sooner, to expand its tracking of early identification and to add a follow-up with children at age 16.
The new method also more directly measures community practices related to autism identification and services.
S: How has the process of implementing this new method played out?
MM:
Our team at the CDC rebuilt the ADDM’s data system using modern tools, created documentation and training materials, developed quality-control processes and trained and supported staff at the ADDM sites to use the new method. They were successful — and finished on time.
Data collection went fairly smoothly — especially in light of all the disruptions during 2020.
S: What are the next steps for deploying the new case definitions?
MM:
The network has collected data for 2018, and we are working on the next prevalence reports. The new method has given us the flexibility to pilot a low-cost approach to doing statewide autism surveillance that will produce at least some data for every community in a state. ADDM sites typically monitor autism in only a portion of a state, but we were able to adapt our programs and tools to try to generate county-level estimates for children of all ages through record linkages.
The network also is collecting data for the next surveillance year — 2020 — which will include the same sites as in 2018. Because the communities are the same in 2018 and 2020, it may be possible to observe changes or disruptions in developmental evaluations or services utilized during 2020.
ADDM clinicians pore over children’s medical and school records for diagnoses and other information to determine which ones have autism. The researchers use the resulting data to estimate autism prevalence for the 11 states that belong to the network.
This process takes at least four years to yield results.
For the 2018 surveillance year, the ADDM Network adopted a faster method to track prevalence. Under the new system, researchers no longer look for signs of autism in children’s school and medical records. Instead, they pull from three data sources: records of autism diagnoses from clinicians, special-education classifications of autism, and hospital billing codes for autism services. The system omits the ADDM clinicians’ assessments, which were time consuming and labor intensive.
The new method uses half as much data as the old one but still yields similar prevalence results, according to a published comparison of data from 2014 and 2016. The findings appeared in April in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
Spectrum spoke with one of the new system’s developers, Matthew Maenner, about the updated methodology and the new insights it might offer. Maenner is an epidemiologist and surveillance team lead for the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities.
Spectrum: What were the problems with how the ADDM Network was ascertaining autism prevalence?
Matt Maenner: The previous approach was first applied to monitor autism among children in metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, in 1996. It was designed to identify children who present with autism traits but might be evaluated by practitioners who do not consistently recognize autism. The process was resource intensive, and the quantity of records undergoing expert review had increased dramatically in recent years.
S: What are the advantages of the new method?
MM:
But the new method simplifies data collection and requires us to collect about half as many evaluations and cognitive tests.
This improved efficiency has allowed the CDC to support more study sites than it would have under the previous methods. It also allows the network to report data sooner, to expand its tracking of early identification and to add a follow-up with children at age 16.
The new method also more directly measures community practices related to autism identification and services.
S: How has the process of implementing this new method played out?
MM:
Our team at the CDC rebuilt the ADDM’s data system using modern tools, created documentation and training materials, developed quality-control processes and trained and supported staff at the ADDM sites to use the new method. They were successful — and finished on time.
Data collection went fairly smoothly — especially in light of all the disruptions during 2020.
S: What are the next steps for deploying the new case definitions?
MM:
The network has collected data for 2018, and we are working on the next prevalence reports. The new method has given us the flexibility to pilot a low-cost approach to doing statewide autism surveillance that will produce at least some data for every community in a state. ADDM sites typically monitor autism in only a portion of a state, but we were able to adapt our programs and tools to try to generate county-level estimates for children of all ages through record linkages.
The network also is collecting data for the next surveillance year — 2020 — which will include the same sites as in 2018. Because the communities are the same in 2018 and 2020, it may be possible to observe changes or disruptions in developmental evaluations or services utilized during 2020.
Why are Developmental Disabilities and Birth Defects run from the same department?
Many ND activists will object to epidemiologists tracking autism. They will say Autism is not a disease , this is soo medical model of autism etc. But this is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention tracking diagnosis after all. Does anybody have a better social model of disability driven method of tracking prevalence?
Some autistic adults have the living skills of a 3-year-old & so are classed as disabled. Autism in general is a spectrum of severity and even those mildly effected often need access to disability services.
The label disabled unlocks the help, whether access to special schools, financial welfare, housing or for kids’ free rides at theme parks.
Nobody goes out of their way to help people the public feel dont need it.
However, selfish self seeking ND advocates who think autism is just about themselves and everyone thinks and has the same functioning level as them should be allowed to put their money where their mouth or keyboard is & opt out of such help, including disability welfare.
After all, when they complete their disability welfare form, they are acknowledging & reinforcing to the government which is power & authority including the ultimate decision maker in these things that their autism is disabling. So, they will spend all day on Twitter bullying anyone who dare suggest autism is a pathology & then walk into a welfare office to acknowledge the opposite.
No doubt they will come up with the old ND excuse of social model of disability as opposed to pathology. But by opting out of financial disability welfare they would be making a powerful political statement that autism is not a pathology or a disability.
13 Jul 2021, 2:13 pm
carlos55 wrote:
However, selfish self seeking ND advocates who think autism is just about themselves and everyone thinks and has the same functioning level as them should be allowed to put their money where their mouth or keyboard is & opt out of such help, including disability welfare.
After all, when they complete their disability welfare form, they are acknowledging & reinforcing to the government which is power & authority including the ultimate decision maker in these things that their autism is disabling. So, they will spend all day on Twitter bullying anyone who dare suggest autism is a pathology & then walk into a welfare office to acknowledge the opposite.
No doubt they will come up with the old ND excuse of social model of disability as opposed to pathology. But by opting out of financial disability welfare they would be making a powerful political statement that autism is not a pathology or a disability.
After all, when they complete their disability welfare form, they are acknowledging & reinforcing to the government which is power & authority including the ultimate decision maker in these things that their autism is disabling. So, they will spend all day on Twitter bullying anyone who dare suggest autism is a pathology & then walk into a welfare office to acknowledge the opposite.
No doubt they will come up with the old ND excuse of social model of disability as opposed to pathology. But by opting out of financial disability welfare they would be making a powerful political statement that autism is not a pathology or a disability.
Some autistic people do have a work history and have never applied for "disability welfare" (SSDI or SSI, here in the U.S.A.). Others really can't do productive paid work under any conceivable circumstances. But there is also a large in-between category of autistic people who could do productive work if only the accommodations they need were more commonplace, and if only there were more autistic-friendly ways of applying for the jobs in the first place.
As far as I can tell, very few if any ND activists deny the existence of any of the above three categories of autistic people. You're the one who seems to be denying the existence/validity of the in-between category, dismissing it as "the old ND excuse of social model of disability as opposed to pathology."
13 Jul 2021, 3:50 pm
Mona Pereth wrote:
carlos55 wrote:
However, selfish self seeking ND advocates who think autism is just about themselves and everyone thinks and has the same functioning level as them should be allowed to put their money where their mouth or keyboard is & opt out of such help, including disability welfare.
After all, when they complete their disability welfare form, they are acknowledging & reinforcing to the government which is power & authority including the ultimate decision maker in these things that their autism is disabling. So, they will spend all day on Twitter bullying anyone who dare suggest autism is a pathology & then walk into a welfare office to acknowledge the opposite.
No doubt they will come up with the old ND excuse of social model of disability as opposed to pathology. But by opting out of financial disability welfare they would be making a powerful political statement that autism is not a pathology or a disability.
After all, when they complete their disability welfare form, they are acknowledging & reinforcing to the government which is power & authority including the ultimate decision maker in these things that their autism is disabling. So, they will spend all day on Twitter bullying anyone who dare suggest autism is a pathology & then walk into a welfare office to acknowledge the opposite.
No doubt they will come up with the old ND excuse of social model of disability as opposed to pathology. But by opting out of financial disability welfare they would be making a powerful political statement that autism is not a pathology or a disability.
Some autistic people do have a work history and have never applied for "disability welfare" (SSDI or SSI, here in the U.S.A.). Others really can't do productive paid work under any conceivable circumstances. But there is also a large in-between category of autistic people who could do productive work if only the accommodations they need were more commonplace, and if only there were more autistic-friendly ways of applying for the jobs in the first place.
As far as I can tell, very few if any ND activists deny the existence of any of the above three categories of autistic people. You're the one who seems to be denying the existence/validity of the in-between category, dismissing it as "the old ND excuse of social model of disability as opposed to pathology."
Im referring to the absolutes - those with hypocritical views who deny that autism is a disability for those who are really disabled who apply the social model of disability TO ALL & try to enforce those views on others via bullying or suppressing mostly on social media, but at the same time happy to classify themselves as disabled where there is a financial / other incentive, unfortunately i have come across a few.
Of course there are many autistic people who could work but need more help to do so, but that was never my point.
The post was about those who wish the government to officially deny the disability label of autism to serve themselves at the expense of others
16 Jul 2021, 5:31 am
16 Jul 2021, 7:42 am
16 Jul 2021, 1:24 pm
16 Jul 2021, 3:27 pm
Edna3362 wrote:
The labels are also just as exploitable.
As much as any wanted to fight for disability status for welfare's sake.
There are those who will abuse it.
It's not the any ND advocates or the any caretakers.
It's those anti-social perpetrators who would gain the disability status of autism just to get away with crime, and will perpetuate the stigma by flaunting it, claiming because they're "disabled" or just "different".
The 'autism-as-an-excuse' people are the ones who made life harder for anyone who's different already.
They can and will take advantage either sides for their own benefit by instilling fear on both sides.
On top of the primal fear of unknown, the ignorant readers who misattributed words and terms, and writers who are using languages that do not inspire either sympathy or pride.
I wouldn't be surprised if some alleged autistic person happened to convince professionals they're autistic when they're not.
It doesn't matter if autism is a disability or a difference, only a 'justification' to get a lighter sentence or only receive a slap on a wrist.
While those who need genuine help have to fight for services or acceptance -- only to be dismissed, have their slots stolen or worse, lumped with the minority who famously commited crime.
Simply because these minority lawbreakers are more famous and louder to declare they're autistic than those who do not break the law -- out of shame, out of inability to, or out of cluelessness.
How would you feel if those with ASPD, who actually commited crimes and had intentionally hurt people, declared they're neurodiverse and accept the fact they will commit crime and will not do any better because it's "natural"?
Or god forbid claim to be disabled and that's why they commit crime, claiming they "do not know any better"?
There's already such cases quite similar -- defending lawbreakers or being wary around some people because someone got an extra Y chromosome or warrior gene or something similar.
Trying to get away with crime or being feared at when innocent for the same reason.
I see this weird pattern that autism -- whether a difference or a disability -- is being treated more or less the same way.
The same fascination around the narratives of violence, aggression and crime, persistent paralleling with psychopathy...
Being tracked? Reported? Wary around stigma?
It doesn't matter if the autism is a quirk or a full blown disability.
It's this weird concept of security and associations -- autism as a perceived threat.
It won't matter if it aligns with pro-cure and promises of so-called normal life, it runs in ignorance and panic.
As much as any wanted to fight for disability status for welfare's sake.
There are those who will abuse it.
It's not the any ND advocates or the any caretakers.
It's those anti-social perpetrators who would gain the disability status of autism just to get away with crime, and will perpetuate the stigma by flaunting it, claiming because they're "disabled" or just "different".
The 'autism-as-an-excuse' people are the ones who made life harder for anyone who's different already.
They can and will take advantage either sides for their own benefit by instilling fear on both sides.
On top of the primal fear of unknown, the ignorant readers who misattributed words and terms, and writers who are using languages that do not inspire either sympathy or pride.
I wouldn't be surprised if some alleged autistic person happened to convince professionals they're autistic when they're not.
It doesn't matter if autism is a disability or a difference, only a 'justification' to get a lighter sentence or only receive a slap on a wrist.
While those who need genuine help have to fight for services or acceptance -- only to be dismissed, have their slots stolen or worse, lumped with the minority who famously commited crime.
Simply because these minority lawbreakers are more famous and louder to declare they're autistic than those who do not break the law -- out of shame, out of inability to, or out of cluelessness.
How would you feel if those with ASPD, who actually commited crimes and had intentionally hurt people, declared they're neurodiverse and accept the fact they will commit crime and will not do any better because it's "natural"?
Or god forbid claim to be disabled and that's why they commit crime, claiming they "do not know any better"?
There's already such cases quite similar -- defending lawbreakers or being wary around some people because someone got an extra Y chromosome or warrior gene or something similar.
Trying to get away with crime or being feared at when innocent for the same reason.
I see this weird pattern that autism -- whether a difference or a disability -- is being treated more or less the same way.
The same fascination around the narratives of violence, aggression and crime, persistent paralleling with psychopathy...
Being tracked? Reported? Wary around stigma?
It doesn't matter if the autism is a quirk or a full blown disability.
It's this weird concept of security and associations -- autism as a perceived threat.
It won't matter if it aligns with pro-cure and promises of so-called normal life, it runs in ignorance and panic.
Yes you are correct there are those who will use an autism label as an excuse. I believe in the US one of the rioters is using autism as a defense for breaking into the US gov building.
Amusingly Julian Assange has developed autism since his arrest, funny because i never heard it before & he always sounded very NT in his earlier interviews and was lucky with girls, not really an aspie trait.
16 Jul 2021, 4:20 pm
17 Jul 2021, 1:03 pm
17 Jul 2021, 6:52 pm
18 Jul 2021, 4:47 am
18 Jul 2021, 7:06 am
Hmph.
I won't debate the damnable semantics here.
Because the semantics are usually pointless -- like the label incel.
We're not debating about names and legal definitions, do we?
Unless someone here is directly involved in writing updates in the DSM, inquiring formal services or legal matters related to it -- it's irrelevant to dismiss, validate or define neurodiversity on such basis.
Basing neurodiversity by semantics is not medical nor scientific.
But one thing is certain; it is perception and consciousness based on positively inclined attitudes.
From where it matters, it doesn't make it less real, doesn't? The rest is up to the individual and the space it occupies under -- to make it inclusive, exclusive, safe or toxic, relevant or superficial.
Between the two definitions -- textbook and social context, which reflects real life more relevantly?
The status and text definitions of disability and differences itself defined and spoken by science, accomodations in which the professionals and government is responsible for?
Or the attitudes around disability and differences defined by the unpredictable mass consciousness whether or not they choose to consume any media related to it?
Both are based in reality. Stats are important, but so is perception and reactions towards the label.
One is formally documented, controlled and artificial, the other is informally observe, subjective and organic.
Any denials of either these two are either miseducated or unaware and fed with outdated BS.
Only a fool insists another to prioritize against the other. 
Note I'm not here to 'uplift' people of knowledge, this is simply my thoughts. Take it as you will.
I think anyone who cannot separate or distinguish medical from social definitions, especially those who immediately perceives it as some political agenda, are either incompetent or unaware to be in any advocacy scenes (and likely does not deserve any influence -- like what happened in the west 10+ years ago), too rigid/close-minded or too conditioned to a certain doctrine and/or context against paradigms (conditioned to fight against X side because it's political, or thought one's POV is more real than the other), or has more language issues than I do -- a person with below average verbal IQ.
It's easier to get the point of disability, wherever it's through text book definitions or social implications.
But heck sure not all people will ever get the point of neurodiversity the same way. 
Some people understands it's purpose beyond it's definitions from any websites.
Some people only sees it as some conspiracy against gate keepers who claims 'severe autism is only real autism' with zero sums games in their heads, because autistic should not have any human rights movement families who loves the person behind autism and scientists who works for the greater good.
18 Jul 2021, 12:42 pm
Edna3362 wrote:
Hmph.
I won't debate the damnable semantics here.
Because the semantics are usually pointless -- like the label incel.
We're not debating about names and legal definitions, do we?
Unless someone here is directly involved in writing updates in the DSM, inquiring formal services or legal matters related to it -- it's irrelevant to dismiss, validate or define neurodiversity on such basis.
Basing neurodiversity by semantics is not medical nor scientific.
But one thing is certain; it is perception and consciousness based on positively inclined attitudes.
From where it matters, it doesn't make it less real, doesn't? The rest is up to the individual and the space it occupies under -- to make it inclusive, exclusive, safe or toxic, relevant or superficial.
Between the two definitions -- textbook and social context, which reflects real life more relevantly?
The status and text definitions of disability and differences itself defined and spoken by science, accomodations in which the professionals and government is responsible for?
Or the attitudes around disability and differences defined by the unpredictable mass consciousness whether or not they choose to consume any media related to it?
Both are based in reality. Stats are important, but so is perception and reactions towards the label.
One is formally documented, controlled and artificial, the other is informally observe, subjective and organic.
Any denials of either these two are either miseducated or unaware and fed with outdated BS.
Only a fool insists another to prioritize against the other.
Note I'm not here to 'uplift' people of knowledge, this is simply my thoughts. Take it as you will.
I think anyone who cannot separate or distinguish medical from social definitions, especially those who immediately perceives it as some political agenda, are either incompetent or unaware to be in any advocacy scenes (and likely does not deserve any influence -- like what happened in the west 10+ years ago), too rigid/close-minded or too conditioned to a certain doctrine and/or context against paradigms (conditioned to fight against X side because it's political, or thought one's POV is more real than the other), or has more language issues than I do -- a person with below average verbal IQ.
It's easier to get the point of disability, wherever it's through text book definitions or social implications.
But heck sure not all people will ever get the point of neurodiversity the same way.
Some people understands it's purpose beyond it's definitions from any websites.
Some people only sees it as some conspiracy against gate keepers who claims 'severe autism is only real autism' with zero sums games in their heads, because autistic should not have any human rights movement families who loves the person behind autism and scientists who works for the greater good.
I won't debate the damnable semantics here.
Because the semantics are usually pointless -- like the label incel.
We're not debating about names and legal definitions, do we?
Unless someone here is directly involved in writing updates in the DSM, inquiring formal services or legal matters related to it -- it's irrelevant to dismiss, validate or define neurodiversity on such basis.
Basing neurodiversity by semantics is not medical nor scientific.
But one thing is certain; it is perception and consciousness based on positively inclined attitudes.
From where it matters, it doesn't make it less real, doesn't? The rest is up to the individual and the space it occupies under -- to make it inclusive, exclusive, safe or toxic, relevant or superficial.
Between the two definitions -- textbook and social context, which reflects real life more relevantly?
The status and text definitions of disability and differences itself defined and spoken by science, accomodations in which the professionals and government is responsible for?
Or the attitudes around disability and differences defined by the unpredictable mass consciousness whether or not they choose to consume any media related to it?
Both are based in reality. Stats are important, but so is perception and reactions towards the label.
One is formally documented, controlled and artificial, the other is informally observe, subjective and organic.
Any denials of either these two are either miseducated or unaware and fed with outdated BS.
Only a fool insists another to prioritize against the other.
Note I'm not here to 'uplift' people of knowledge, this is simply my thoughts. Take it as you will.
I think anyone who cannot separate or distinguish medical from social definitions, especially those who immediately perceives it as some political agenda, are either incompetent or unaware to be in any advocacy scenes (and likely does not deserve any influence -- like what happened in the west 10+ years ago), too rigid/close-minded or too conditioned to a certain doctrine and/or context against paradigms (conditioned to fight against X side because it's political, or thought one's POV is more real than the other), or has more language issues than I do -- a person with below average verbal IQ.
It's easier to get the point of disability, wherever it's through text book definitions or social implications.
But heck sure not all people will ever get the point of neurodiversity the same way.
Some people understands it's purpose beyond it's definitions from any websites.
Some people only sees it as some conspiracy against gate keepers who claims 'severe autism is only real autism' with zero sums games in their heads, because autistic should not have any human rights movement families who loves the person behind autism and scientists who works for the greater good.
Edna I’m not against everything ND stands for like general acceptance and accommodations, but just about every disability representative organization does that so ND is nothing special in that regards.
Help for the blind for example would probably like more acceptance and accommodations for blind people.
I just don’t support their ideology that autism is a natural difference when it’s clearly a disability for many.
They use Pseudoscience terms as a means to promote that idea and try to suppress anything that shows autism as a real severe disability whether via Twitter bullying of parents of severely autistic children or any media footage real or movie characters that show this.
It’s almost like they try to own the top part of the autism spectrum and which to hide the severe part, as if society doesn’t know they already exist.
This is all linked to their anti cure stance as a principal that they try to impose on others and society in general when that should be a personal matter.
They would be best sticking with promoting acceptance of autistic behavior, accommodations and promotion of opportunities for autistic people and leave the science to the scientists.
18 Jul 2021, 2:42 pm
carlos55 wrote:
Edna3362 wrote:
Hmph.
I won't debate the damnable semantics here.
Because the semantics are usually pointless -- like the label incel.
We're not debating about names and legal definitions, do we?
Unless someone here is directly involved in writing updates in the DSM, inquiring formal services or legal matters related to it -- it's irrelevant to dismiss, validate or define neurodiversity on such basis.
Basing neurodiversity by semantics is not medical nor scientific.
But one thing is certain; it is perception and consciousness based on positively inclined attitudes.
From where it matters, it doesn't make it less real, doesn't? The rest is up to the individual and the space it occupies under -- to make it inclusive, exclusive, safe or toxic, relevant or superficial.
Between the two definitions -- textbook and social context, which reflects real life more relevantly?
The status and text definitions of disability and differences itself defined and spoken by science, accomodations in which the professionals and government is responsible for?
Or the attitudes around disability and differences defined by the unpredictable mass consciousness whether or not they choose to consume any media related to it?
Both are based in reality. Stats are important, but so is perception and reactions towards the label.
One is formally documented, controlled and artificial, the other is informally observe, subjective and organic.
Any denials of either these two are either miseducated or unaware and fed with outdated BS.
Only a fool insists another to prioritize against the other.
Note I'm not here to 'uplift' people of knowledge, this is simply my thoughts. Take it as you will.
I think anyone who cannot separate or distinguish medical from social definitions, especially those who immediately perceives it as some political agenda, are either incompetent or unaware to be in any advocacy scenes (and likely does not deserve any influence -- like what happened in the west 10+ years ago), too rigid/close-minded or too conditioned to a certain doctrine and/or context against paradigms (conditioned to fight against X side because it's political, or thought one's POV is more real than the other), or has more language issues than I do -- a person with below average verbal IQ.
It's easier to get the point of disability, wherever it's through text book definitions or social implications.
But heck sure not all people will ever get the point of neurodiversity the same way.
Some people understands it's purpose beyond it's definitions from any websites.
Some people only sees it as some conspiracy against gate keepers who claims 'severe autism is only real autism' with zero sums games in their heads, because autistic should not have any human rights movement families who loves the person behind autism and scientists who works for the greater good.
I won't debate the damnable semantics here.
Because the semantics are usually pointless -- like the label incel.
We're not debating about names and legal definitions, do we?
Unless someone here is directly involved in writing updates in the DSM, inquiring formal services or legal matters related to it -- it's irrelevant to dismiss, validate or define neurodiversity on such basis.
Basing neurodiversity by semantics is not medical nor scientific.
But one thing is certain; it is perception and consciousness based on positively inclined attitudes.
From where it matters, it doesn't make it less real, doesn't? The rest is up to the individual and the space it occupies under -- to make it inclusive, exclusive, safe or toxic, relevant or superficial.
Between the two definitions -- textbook and social context, which reflects real life more relevantly?
The status and text definitions of disability and differences itself defined and spoken by science, accomodations in which the professionals and government is responsible for?
Or the attitudes around disability and differences defined by the unpredictable mass consciousness whether or not they choose to consume any media related to it?
Both are based in reality. Stats are important, but so is perception and reactions towards the label.
One is formally documented, controlled and artificial, the other is informally observe, subjective and organic.
Any denials of either these two are either miseducated or unaware and fed with outdated BS.
Only a fool insists another to prioritize against the other.
Note I'm not here to 'uplift' people of knowledge, this is simply my thoughts. Take it as you will.
I think anyone who cannot separate or distinguish medical from social definitions, especially those who immediately perceives it as some political agenda, are either incompetent or unaware to be in any advocacy scenes (and likely does not deserve any influence -- like what happened in the west 10+ years ago), too rigid/close-minded or too conditioned to a certain doctrine and/or context against paradigms (conditioned to fight against X side because it's political, or thought one's POV is more real than the other), or has more language issues than I do -- a person with below average verbal IQ.
It's easier to get the point of disability, wherever it's through text book definitions or social implications.
But heck sure not all people will ever get the point of neurodiversity the same way.
Some people understands it's purpose beyond it's definitions from any websites.
Some people only sees it as some conspiracy against gate keepers who claims 'severe autism is only real autism' with zero sums games in their heads, because autistic should not have any human rights movement families who loves the person behind autism and scientists who works for the greater good.
Edna I’m not against everything ND stands for like general acceptance and accommodations, but just about every disability representative organization does that so ND is nothing special in that regards.
Help for the blind for example would probably like more acceptance and accommodations for blind people.
I just don’t support their ideology that autism is a natural difference when it’s clearly a disability for many.
They use Pseudoscience terms as a means to promote that idea and try to suppress anything that shows autism as a real severe disability whether via Twitter bullying of parents of severely autistic children or any media footage real or movie characters that show this.
It’s almost like they try to own the top part of the autism spectrum and which to hide the severe part, as if society doesn’t know they already exist.
This is all linked to their anti cure stance as a principal that they try to impose on others and society in general when that should be a personal matter.
They would be best sticking with promoting acceptance of autistic behavior, accommodations and promotion of opportunities for autistic people and leave the science to the scientists.
Do understand I'm referring to people who do -- not specifically you or anything.
Did you.. Actually went to twitter and some?
And the whole social platform overall?
I wouldn't recommend that though.
If someone's staying at such places, I wouldn't recommend staying unless they know what they're doing.
The statement and representation of "autism is a disability" that emphasizing the disability.
10+ years ago, exposing it would benefit narcissistic parents, ableists, social-darwinists and some rhetoric.
Along with the associations of disability as a whole -- one with self loathing, pity, unworthiness, the idea of burden, uselessness and themes of being a center of conflict.
Can you or anyone honestly say this isn't the case at large now? Because I don't know yet out there.
There won't be a largely agreed talks and choices around pro-cure if not.
There will always be toes stepping toes, ideas imposing on others.
But one thing is certain; the reversed became true. Where favoring 'autism' benefits the narcissistic, anti-social, egoism and other sentiment.
You can keep saying pseudo-science or point on science.
The fact remains; humans are caught up at this polarizing dynamic, pseudo-science or not.
The human ego, in a collective sense, is very adaptive to it.
Double Retired
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2020
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,250
Location: U.S.A. (Mid-Atlantic)
18 Jul 2021, 4:00 pm
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Autism |
13 Mar 2024, 7:44 am |
| Grief and Autism |
13 Feb 2024, 1:53 pm |
| Different types of autism? |
06 Apr 2024, 10:22 am |
| Autism and therapy |
04 Apr 2024, 6:32 pm |
