4 ms·

> Anyone that is advocating that it need not be cured is someone that is on the less severe side of the spectrum You are completely misunderstanding the point

> Anyone that is advocating that it need not be cured is someone that is on the less severe side of the spectrum You are completely misunderstanding the point being made by people that push back against this kind of language. Any argument that autism spectrum disorder is something that should be "cured" is directly and significantly contributing to stigmatism surrounding the disorder and is extraordinarily insulting to many people.

cogman10 2y ago
No I'm not. I certainly agree that acceptance and societal accommodation for autism is necessary. However, there is a loud set of people with ASD who will say that any sort of therapy or treatment harms people with ASD. Therapy doesn't cure ASD and I've never thought that or been told that as a parent with a child with ASD. Therapy helps a kid cope. I do understand that early autism therapies were brutal and inhumane, however, those are by and large completely gone from modern autism therapy. What's extremely insulting is believing that all forms of autism are just societal misunderstandings that need no therapeutic interventions for the individual with ASD.
- squigz 2y ago
  > What's extremely insulting is believing that all forms of autism are just societal misunderstandings that need no therapeutic interventions for the individual with ASD. This sums it up very nicely. Thank you.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  > What's extremely insulting is believing that all forms of autism are just societal misunderstandings that need no therapeutic interventions for the individual with ASD. I’d very much like to hear what your definitions of “autism” are, for the classroom to see, because I’m sure it’d be illuminating. also no one is really presenting the argument you’re arguing against here, but cool. The terms and language you’re using here at best suggests you’re extremely ignorant and at worst suggests that you clearly hate or hold a lot of stigma against “autistic” people (not the preferred nomenclature) and see them as a societal ill. That’s what a lot of people are pushing back against.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    > also no one is really presenting the argument you’re arguing against here You said elsewhere in these comments: > plus all the second order effects like kids being medicated/treated that wouldn't necessarily need or want it Yes, absolutely you and others in this thread have made the argument that therapy and treatments are negative things. Don't pretend like you haven't or you wouldn't have jumped in here to talk about how dangerous the word "cure" is. The thrust of my argument is that therapy is necessary and desirable despite the individual not wanting it. An example I gave elsewhere is my child is currently in OT and one of the focuses is brushing teeth (which they do not want). They are also in food therapy because they have 3 foods they actually want to eat. When you come in here talking about how "harmful" words like "cure" are, you are trying to put shame on parents that seek therapy for their kids, even when it's necessary (Or would you like to argue that my kid doesn't need the therapy they are getting?) There is no "stigma" on therapy except for the stigma you are trying to make. It's not the 90s anymore so stop acting like all therapy is somehow a failing on individuals that receive it. > hold a lot of stigma against “autistic” people First off, I never said "autistic people" go reread my comments and stop putting text in my comments. Second. I hold no stigma against people with autism. It is a spectrum of symptoms which means it's impossible to even tell sometimes when someone has autism. So apologize for uncharitably reading my comment. > I’d very much like to hear what your definitions of “autism” are, for the classroom to see Ok, for the classroom and from my own experience (not even googling it right now). Autism is a cluster of symptoms that present at varying levels in individuals. It includes behavioral, sensory, social implications, and motor control difficulties to varying degrees. Including, but not limited to, food restrictions, sensitivity to light, sound, or textures, and a hard time socially interacting with neurotically individuals. Not all people with autism have all symptoms and not all symptoms present in individuals to the same degree. For example, you can have autism but have no problem socially or behaviorally, you may have have sensory issues and food aversions. > see them as a societal ill Quote exactly where I said someone with autism was a social ill or apologize for this offensive comment. > That’s what a lot of people are pushing back against. No, what you and another commenter are "pushing back against" is anyone suggesting that therapy is needed and better therapy would be better. And that is toxic behavior that you should be ashamed of. I've had enough of that sort of toxicity here and elsewhere whenever the topic of autism comes up and I'm calling it out. Stop reading into comments like mine fantasizing what you think I'm saying or implying. Quote what I've said that I should apologize for or bow out for being wrong and an asshole.
prewett 2y ago
It's sophistry, rhetorical slight of hand, to say that talk of a cure contributes to stigma. Having any kind of condition is neutral, while stigma is relational. They are unrelated. There is a lot of Progressive sophistry around this, though. It seems that they are trying to normalize the edges of the normal distribution. The fact remains, however, that there is a normal distribution. And it is no service to the edges to deny them a "cure" that would move them more towards the middle, and more able to integrate with society.
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  > It's sophistry, rhetorical slight of hand, to say that talk of a cure contributes to stigma. It absolute does not. You must not be aware of prominent ASD voices criticizing organizations like "Autism Speaks" for this exact thing. No one is trying to deny anyone a cure, the argument is that saying it SHOULD be cured is stigmatizing (plus all the second order effects like kids being medicated/treated that wouldn't necessarily need or want it). How is it not? > Having any kind of condition is neutral, while stigma is relational. They are unrelated. This is complete nonsense.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    > plus all the second order effects like kids being medicated/treated that wouldn't necessarily need or want it This is the problem I have with ASD voices. I'll give you a simple example of a treatment my kid does not want. We do occupational therapy and part of it is building up a tolerance to brushing their teeth. Do you think we should stop this therapy because the kid doesn't want it or it's recommended by Autism Speaks? ASD voice are valuable, but they are often far to binary in their recommendations and crusades. It's not an all or nothing thing and frankly the individual matters a lot more than these activists ever seem to want to acknowledge.
spencerchubb 2y ago
No. Searching for an autism cure does not bring stigma to autistic people, the same way searching for a cancer cure does not bring stigma to cancer patients. Searching for a cure is just trying to improve people's quality of life. If a cure were hypothetically found, nobody would be forced to get it. If someone likes having autism, more power to them!
- JohnMakin 2y ago
  > No. Searching for an autism cure does not bring stigma to autistic people, the > same way searching for a cancer cure does not bring stigma to cancer patients. Searching for a cure is just trying to improve people's quality of life. If a cure were hypothetically found, nobody would be forced to get it. If someone likes having autism, more power to them! Again, completely misunderstanding the point. The point in question is arguing that it should be cured. I am not (and am not aware of any mainstream arguments that exist right now) saying that no one should even look for a cure/treatment. These are two entirely different things. There are plenty of people with varying degrees of autism spectrum disorder living completely normal lives that 1) wouldn't choose to accept such a cure and 2) probably would have been forced on such a cure if it existed in their childhoods. This is what people push back against.
  - spencerchubb 2y ago
    Would you agree that a cure should be available? Obviously everyone can choose for themselves if they want it cured.
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      Yea, I agree it should be available, but children do not have the right to choose for themselves. This is the typical ethical dilemma that comes up in these arguments. I would readily bring up the example of congenitally deaf people who have options of medical treatment - many, many of them decide to forgo treatment and stay deaf. It would be insane for someone to say it should be treated, like it’s some kind of societal ill - which is frequently how this argument is framed (and would make no sense towards deaf people). It’s a nuanced discussion that needs a lot of nuance and has affected my life personally and people I care about so I am sorry if my tone is emotional.

cogman10 2y ago

No I'm not. I certainly agree that acceptance and societal accommodation for autism is necessary. However, there is a loud set of people with ASD who will say that any sort of therapy or treatment harms people with ASD. Therapy doesn't cure ASD and I've never thought that or been told that as a parent with a child with ASD. Therapy helps a kid cope. I do understand that early autism therapies were brutal and inhumane, however, those are by and large completely gone from modern autism therapy. What's extremely insulting is believing that all forms of autism are just societal misunderstandings that need no therapeutic interventions for the individual with ASD.

squigz 2y ago
> What's extremely insulting is believing that all forms of autism are just societal misunderstandings that need no therapeutic interventions for the individual with ASD. This sums it up very nicely. Thank you.
JohnMakin 2y ago
> What's extremely insulting is believing that all forms of autism are just societal misunderstandings that need no therapeutic interventions for the individual with ASD. I’d very much like to hear what your definitions of “autism” are, for the classroom to see, because I’m sure it’d be illuminating. also no one is really presenting the argument you’re arguing against here, but cool. The terms and language you’re using here at best suggests you’re extremely ignorant and at worst suggests that you clearly hate or hold a lot of stigma against “autistic” people (not the preferred nomenclature) and see them as a societal ill. That’s what a lot of people are pushing back against.
- cogman10 2y ago
  > also no one is really presenting the argument you’re arguing against here You said elsewhere in these comments: > plus all the second order effects like kids being medicated/treated that wouldn't necessarily need or want it Yes, absolutely you and others in this thread have made the argument that therapy and treatments are negative things. Don't pretend like you haven't or you wouldn't have jumped in here to talk about how dangerous the word "cure" is. The thrust of my argument is that therapy is necessary and desirable despite the individual not wanting it. An example I gave elsewhere is my child is currently in OT and one of the focuses is brushing teeth (which they do not want). They are also in food therapy because they have 3 foods they actually want to eat. When you come in here talking about how "harmful" words like "cure" are, you are trying to put shame on parents that seek therapy for their kids, even when it's necessary (Or would you like to argue that my kid doesn't need the therapy they are getting?) There is no "stigma" on therapy except for the stigma you are trying to make. It's not the 90s anymore so stop acting like all therapy is somehow a failing on individuals that receive it. > hold a lot of stigma against “autistic” people First off, I never said "autistic people" go reread my comments and stop putting text in my comments. Second. I hold no stigma against people with autism. It is a spectrum of symptoms which means it's impossible to even tell sometimes when someone has autism. So apologize for uncharitably reading my comment. > I’d very much like to hear what your definitions of “autism” are, for the classroom to see Ok, for the classroom and from my own experience (not even googling it right now). Autism is a cluster of symptoms that present at varying levels in individuals. It includes behavioral, sensory, social implications, and motor control difficulties to varying degrees. Including, but not limited to, food restrictions, sensitivity to light, sound, or textures, and a hard time socially interacting with neurotically individuals. Not all people with autism have all symptoms and not all symptoms present in individuals to the same degree. For example, you can have autism but have no problem socially or behaviorally, you may have have sensory issues and food aversions. > see them as a societal ill Quote exactly where I said someone with autism was a social ill or apologize for this offensive comment. > That’s what a lot of people are pushing back against. No, what you and another commenter are "pushing back against" is anyone suggesting that therapy is needed and better therapy would be better. And that is toxic behavior that you should be ashamed of. I've had enough of that sort of toxicity here and elsewhere whenever the topic of autism comes up and I'm calling it out. Stop reading into comments like mine fantasizing what you think I'm saying or implying. Quote what I've said that I should apologize for or bow out for being wrong and an asshole.

prewett 2y ago

It's sophistry, rhetorical slight of hand, to say that talk of a cure contributes to stigma. Having any kind of condition is neutral, while stigma is relational. They are unrelated. There is a lot of Progressive sophistry around this, though. It seems that they are trying to normalize the edges of the normal distribution. The fact remains, however, that there is a normal distribution. And it is no service to the edges to deny them a "cure" that would move them more towards the middle, and more able to integrate with society.

JohnMakin 2y ago
> It's sophistry, rhetorical slight of hand, to say that talk of a cure contributes to stigma. It absolute does not. You must not be aware of prominent ASD voices criticizing organizations like "Autism Speaks" for this exact thing. No one is trying to deny anyone a cure, the argument is that saying it SHOULD be cured is stigmatizing (plus all the second order effects like kids being medicated/treated that wouldn't necessarily need or want it). How is it not? > Having any kind of condition is neutral, while stigma is relational. They are unrelated. This is complete nonsense.
- cogman10 2y ago
  > plus all the second order effects like kids being medicated/treated that wouldn't necessarily need or want it This is the problem I have with ASD voices. I'll give you a simple example of a treatment my kid does not want. We do occupational therapy and part of it is building up a tolerance to brushing their teeth. Do you think we should stop this therapy because the kid doesn't want it or it's recommended by Autism Speaks? ASD voice are valuable, but they are often far to binary in their recommendations and crusades. It's not an all or nothing thing and frankly the individual matters a lot more than these activists ever seem to want to acknowledge.

spencerchubb 2y ago

No. Searching for an autism cure does not bring stigma to autistic people, the same way searching for a cancer cure does not bring stigma to cancer patients. Searching for a cure is just trying to improve people's quality of life. If a cure were hypothetically found, nobody would be forced to get it. If someone likes having autism, more power to them!

JohnMakin 2y ago
> No. Searching for an autism cure does not bring stigma to autistic people, the > same way searching for a cancer cure does not bring stigma to cancer patients. Searching for a cure is just trying to improve people's quality of life. If a cure were hypothetically found, nobody would be forced to get it. If someone likes having autism, more power to them! Again, completely misunderstanding the point. The point in question is arguing that it should be cured. I am not (and am not aware of any mainstream arguments that exist right now) saying that no one should even look for a cure/treatment. These are two entirely different things. There are plenty of people with varying degrees of autism spectrum disorder living completely normal lives that 1) wouldn't choose to accept such a cure and 2) probably would have been forced on such a cure if it existed in their childhoods. This is what people push back against.
- spencerchubb 2y ago
  Would you agree that a cure should be available? Obviously everyone can choose for themselves if they want it cured.
  - JohnMakin 2y ago
    Yea, I agree it should be available, but children do not have the right to choose for themselves. This is the typical ethical dilemma that comes up in these arguments. I would readily bring up the example of congenitally deaf people who have options of medical treatment - many, many of them decide to forgo treatment and stay deaf. It would be insane for someone to say it should be treated, like it’s some kind of societal ill - which is frequently how this argument is framed (and would make no sense towards deaf people). It’s a nuanced discussion that needs a lot of nuance and has affected my life personally and people I care about so I am sorry if my tone is emotional.