7 ms·

I have distaste for the author speaking on behalf of autistic people. Also i have a distaste of the author listing their "disabilities" in their twitter bio. I

• andybak 5y ago
  I'm not sure where you're from. I'm from the UK and it feels more generational than location based. And "not socially acceptable" doesn't feel like the right way to describe it. More that people younger than me are comfortable with things that feel like over-sharing to me.
  • blueflow 5y ago
    Germany. I meant it like, "not socially acceptable" = being made fun of. Its seen like an excuse to be special even if you have no skills to demonstrate.
    • jnovek 5y ago
      I am a disabled person (U.S. based). I've had trouble holding jobs over the last two years. I can't reliably spend 40 hours a week in front of a desk. Hypothetically, an employer is required to provide a disabled individual with "reasonable accommodations" to complete their work tasks in the U.S., but because the only recourse a disabled individual has is legal in many cases companies are willing to risk it as they have far more legal resources than their employees. I appreciate very much when a disabled individual speaks openly about their disability. It puts social pressure on everyone to appropriately accommodate the needs of their disabled employees. For me, it means that someday I might be treated with dignity and respect in my work again, like I was before I was disabled.
  • NotVerstappen 5y ago
    I think like many of the current wave of "illiberal left" trends, it is a function of both space and time. I suppose the UK adopts US woke ideas because young people here are less likely to have religious conservative views than the EU average - reserving their prejudice for simple xenophobia.
• bena 5y ago
• lr4444lr 5y ago
  Is it hard to get citizenship where you live? Asking "for a friend". ;-)
• kevinh 5y ago
  Throughout the post the author emphasizes that anyone writing about autism should get perspectives from multiple different autistic people with different backgrounds. I don't think you and him differ in that perspective.
• qahaz 5y ago
• SquishyPanda23 5y ago
  If somebody talking about their disability triggers you into such a strong political reaction, then maybe consider the possibility that you have let your own identity politics take too much control over your life. > Also i have a distaste of the author listing their "disabilities" in their twitter bio. People generally prefer disabled people not to talk about their disabilities or be public about them. But this sort of openness is incredibly useful. It's the internet and it's almost 2021. Let people talk about what they want to without being the internet police.
  • NotVerstappen 5y ago
    People talking about things is good, but people adopting their atypical traits as their whole persona (even if just online) surely can't be healthy?
    • pseudalopex 5y ago
      You think anyone's Twitter bio is their whole persona?
      • NotVerstappen 5y ago
        • pseudalopex 5y ago
• danShumway 5y ago
  > I have distaste for the author speaking on behalf of autistic people The author's entire point, and the entire point of phrases like "nothing about us without us" is to get neurotypical people to stop talking on behalf of autistic people and to give them their own voices. I think the author spends a lot of time pointing out that everyone in the autistic community is unique, and I think they spend a lot of time pointing out that even areas where there is broad consensus like identity-first language will still have some detractors among the community. I am unsure what else they could possibly do to make it more clear that the autistic community is not a monolith. They literally have a section titled "Key Takeaway: We Are Not a Monolith". It feels like a really uncharitable/shallow reading to me to say that the author is pretending to represent anyone when they spend so much of their time going out of their way to specifically avoid causing that perception. ---- > Also i have a distaste of the author listing their "disabilities" in their twitter bio. Come on, people list far more trivial stuff in their Twitter bios than this. Sometimes it's nice to be able to find other people who are like you online, and self-labeling can help with that. People being comfortable enough to talk about aspects of their identity in public is not something that's worth being mad about. And autism is 100% an aspect of people's identity, it's a really wild claim to say that a condition that affects people's brains basically from birth and for the entirety of their lives wouldn't be a part of their identity; your brain is a big part of what makes you you.
  • blueflow 5y ago
    > I’m coming to you now as an ambassador of that culture Then why did the author make this mistake? They are not my ambassador. I didn't vote for them. He shall stop talking on my behalf. This arrogant form of patronizing should be called out, and this is what i just did.
    • zepto 5y ago
      Yup - they could have easily said “I am a single autistic voice offering my view. You should listen to more autistic people and fewer neurotypical people when trying to understand autism”.
• Twisol 5y ago
  At least for me, it's not about whether it's "socially acceptable". When everyone around you tells you you're morally inferior because you can't do the things they can, the way they can, you (I) internalize a hell of a lot of guilt and trauma. A diagnosis doesn't have to be a badge of dishonor. It can help you recognize that, no, you're not morally broken -- there are factors at play that just make some things harder to reach. That doesn't mean it's not worth working on some of those things -- it's not an excuse -- but it can help avoid some of the feelings of "you can't do it because you're a terrible broken person who's just not trying hard enough". So it's actively not about what's acceptable in the eyes of society, because in the eyes of society you're already inferior. Claim some ground for yourself, is the feeling. What's wrong with listing disabilities? I don't even know what identity politics is, so maybe I'm just not predisposed by the concept?
  • teakettle42 5y ago
    > you (I) internalize a hell of a lot of guilt and trauma. If working through internalized guilt and trauma requires externalizing that guilt and trauma, have you really worked through it? > A diagnosis doesn't have to be a badge of dishonor. Honestly, I dislike that I received an autism diagnosis in the first place. The dishonor inherent in a diagnosis arises from the almost inevitable propensity to incorporate that diagnosis as an excuse within one's own internal monologue. > It can help you recognize that, no, you're not morally broken That is achievable without a diagnosis. If you have to work harder than the majority of others to achieve something, that doesn't mean you're morally broken, it just means that particular thing is harder for you to achieve. Do you feel morally broken for other areas in which you do not have a natural talent? Why do you allow others to make you feel that way about this area? > Claim some ground for yourself, is the feeling. You can only claim ground for yourself through achievement, not through a diagnosis. > What's wrong with listing disabilities? I don't even know what identity politics is, so maybe I'm just not predisposed by the concept? In general, what is the purpose of listing disabilities outside of requesting specific, personally necessary accommodations?
    • Twisol 5y ago
      I don't think I could have made my point as strongly without your contributions. Much appreciated.
• mintplant 5y ago
  > Also i have a distaste of the author listing their "disabilities" in their twitter bio. There's a long history of silencing and rendering invisible the identities of disabled people, to avoid discomfort on the part of the abled, and to divide and prevent the formation of community amongst the disabled. Putting one's disabilities up-front in a profile bio challenges both of these norms, and announcing one's "distaste" reinforces them.
  • zepto 5y ago
    > There's a long history of silencing and rendering invisible the identities of disabled people, to avoid discomfort on the part of the abled, and to divide and prevent the formation of community amongst the disabled. Where is the history that supports the idea that there was a goal to prevent the formation of community amongst the disabled?
    • mintplant 5y ago
      Deaf culture, for example, was deliberately undermined and suppressed for centuries to prevent its emergence as a distinct identity. Alexander Graham Bell, a central figure in the establishment of deaf education, opposed teaching sign language to children and insisted upon oral education, to push pupils to assimilate into the hearing world. He also argued against intermarriage between deaf people, to avert the "great calamity" of "the production of a defective race of human beings".
      • zepto 5y ago
        That seems like advocacy for eugenics, and integrated education, neither of which are good, but it’s not obvious how it would prevent the formation of community amongst the deaf.
        • danShumway 5y ago
          > opposed teaching sign language to children and insisted upon oral education, to push pupils to assimilate into the hearing world would go a long way to making it hard for deaf people to communicate with each other or form their own communities outside of hearing spaces. One of the first things you do if you want to integrate a community or break up a culture is you invalidate their language.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• mbilokonsky 5y ago
  1. Your distaste is of course your prerogative! But I'd encourage you to read the piece and recognize that I go to great lengths to encourage people to seek out views beyond mine -- I even say that plenty of Autistic people disagree with me, and that their perspectives are valid. So your distaste is up to you, but I feel like you're misunderstanding my point 2. When you put "disabilities" in quotation marks you publicly assert that I'm faking my disabilties, or that something about being open about having disabilities makes those disabilities somehow less than real. Please don't do that, I work really hard. 3. I am intentional about my twitter bio, and there's a reason those terms are there. I'm working to dismantle oppressive neuronormative cultural norms that tell people like me we should be ashamed of ourselves and hide the things about us that make us different. Your distaste here isn't some sort of moral high ground, it's literally just an uncritical embrace of dominant cultural norms. Again, though, your distaste is your prerogative. 4. I "define myself" through a number of things on my twitter bio. Why are you focusing on two of them and then insisting that I'm defining myself via those two things? Further, why do you assume that what I choose to put in a twitter bio is what defines me as a person? That's a weird choice. 5. Finally, my project is literally about changing what's socially acceptable. I expect this kind of writing to make people who are committed to oppressive status quo uncomfortable. I literally don't care if me being who I am is "socially acceptable" where you live, or if it's "socially acceptable" where I live. That's the point. Fuck social acceptability, I'm a human being. I hope that clears some of that up for you!