Excerpt on a Grandin article...

Post Reply New Topic

I just thought this was great. Temple wrote this in a 1990 article:

Say! We should make T-shirts that say something like this-- you know, about accountants. Make more autties, not accountants!

Eh, I don't know. My creativity is nill tonight.

Actually I think it would be worse if the world were taken over by realtors. Accountants seem pretty benign to me.

I'll be frank: Temple Grandin, despite her credentials, is talking out of her ass with that statement, and I'm going to explain why:

What she is implying is that autistics only have worth in this world because of our special abilites, not because we should be treated equally as human beings. Not every autistic person, especially those with AS, has these abilities. What then?

Her statement is based on guesswork, not science. She's only catering to those who are "able" in society.

I have read research locating savant characteristic genes with the autism ones, though.

But I get your point. We are worthwhile more than just our talents or intelligence. But it seems a more moving argument to most to think the world might be losing out on more Einsteins. That has more sway for most people.

I didn't take it that way at all. To me it seemed more like she was advocating neurodiversity, saying that despite our weirdness, we have strengths that are useful.

Anyone who seriously breeds animals (or plants) or has experience in the livestock field realizes how extremely important genetic diversity is, and how shortchanged we can quickly become if we limit that.

Yes and no: Yes, she is saying that we have special abilities (and we all do, savant or not) and are special because of it. But I think she meant more that; not that this is the basis of our worth as humans, but that this is the reason why the curebies should think long and hard before trying to cure us all and rid the earth of autism. After all, if our only worth as auties is that we're human, then why not cure us all?

Oh, hell, I don't know! Why doesn't soemone go and ask her to clarify this?

If that is an argument which is supposed to support the existence of autistics worldwide, then that is a weak one to make; it is saying that autistics have rights only if they exhibit abilities that will prove beneficial to society, which then validates the argument forwarded by the pro-cure lobby that autism causes impairments (but these impairments are indefinable by using the Social Model of Disability).

So, in other words, if I was a highly-intelligent autistic, who has abilities that will prove to be beneficial, I’ll be okay because I’m supported by society under the condition that my level of ability and intelligence contributes to the rapid growth of society at large, despite my autism. But if I was an unintelligent, jobless autistic, who needs to rely on others for the rest of my years (yes, they do exist, despite what label is given), then the argument for a cure is justified.

If people here support this kind of hierarchy, the secularisation of autistics based on their abilities, then in order to establish an equilibrium to support such a structure, NTs must also undergo the same treatment.

Why should it be just us, and not them?

But one must admit saving "talented people" rather than just "people" is a bit more tempting and would likely have more sway to NA masses. Potentially being more productive for society and all. I don't know. People are rarely gonna be just and fair enough to put anyone but themselves first in most cases, so you gotta offer them a carrot instead.

That's fine, as long as unintelligent NTs are also subjected to it.

Other than that, I don't see how it will work.

Whatever...I think you are reading much more into it than what she intended, which was to put a positive spin on autism in contradiction to the miserable "oh woe is me" mothers of autie children and the curebies who would not be satisfied with our being functional and autistic, but want to cure us and make us all normal regardless. To me, it seems like she's saying "Hey, wait a minute, have you thought of this?"

I am certain that she is well aware that many of us are jobless and still have value and rights anyway.

If you don't like Temple Grandin, then I guess you just don't. Personally, I think she's a very positive figure for us. She has a really great website. Here, for example, is her article on animal rights and welfare. http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.things.html

As for the cure, as long as the pharmaceutical companies make enough money off of Autism with all of us as Autistic as opposed to NAs who use fewer medications, I kinda wonder if The Cure will ever be "found".

Similiar to how I've heard talk of the Cure for Cancer has long been discovered, but a cure offers only a one time money-making fix. The pharmaceutical companies wouldn't want that now would they?

They want people taking medications the rest of their lives. And while we have no pills that relieve Autism, we have plenty of comorbid conditions.

I am reading her most recent book, Animals in Translation right now. Each and every paragraph is enjoyable!

In future, please be aware of your actions beforehand before you start accusing others of reading too much into a topic.

At no point in this thread did I claim that I dislike Temple Grandin. I just happen to not agree with this anti-cure argument that autistics shouldn't be made extinct because we house genes that could make us geniuses. That alone is a poor argument to make in order to justify our existence; not all autistics have these abilites, and having "savant" abilites does not justify being autistic.