7 ms·
It's less the specifics of the article itself (which, as the author himself notes, not everyone agrees with), and more the fact that he took it upon himself to
by AussieWog93 5y ago
It's less the specifics of the article itself (which, as the author himself notes, not everyone agrees with), and more the fact that he took it upon himself to write an article like this to begin with.
It's tone-deaf in the sense that this type of activism is unbelievably unpopular amongst Autistics, self-aggrandising in the sense that he has declared himself a representative for the (loosely defined) Autistic community without actually earning the respect, and unproductive in the sense that he's making communication between Autistics and neurotypicals harder, not easier, which limits opportunities for the culture to actually develop and become accepted more broadly.
- incangold 5y agoWhat I don't understand is what you mean by "this type of activism"? Most of the article is explaining facts about autism. The only things I can see that might be controversial are the PFL thing and "severe/profound autism" label. The rest of the article seems largely uncontroversial and quite valuable for people trying to understand the landscape. Am I missing something? On those points- PFL _is_ preferred by the majority from the surveys I've seen? Concerns that introducing the concept of "severe autism" risks non-verbal people being written off and "high-functioning" autists finding it more difficult to get accommodations seem to me at least worth talking about? You think not? If nobody writes articles explaining the basics of autism- in particular things like the double-empathy problem, then nobody will know about them. Specifically how would you write an article explaining poorly-understood aspects of autism without it being an article "like this"?
- mbilokonsky 5y ago