4 ms·
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
by 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.