4 ms·

Would you draw a distinction between those with autism who cannot live a self sufficient life with those who can live a self sufficient (though not normal) life

Would you draw a distinction between those with autism who cannot live a self sufficient life with those who can live a self sufficient (though not normal) life? Especially in the cases of those who don't need significant resources during childhood to live self sufficient lives. To apply this to some other disorder, do you think there is a difference (in terms of how society should respond) between someone with OCD enough to cause issues but not significantly hamper their life versus someone who is unable to leave their house?

jerf 11y ago
I'd draw a ton of distinctions, in fact, I'd draw one per person. Everyone's unique. But I have no idea what in my post would even remotely lead you to the conclusion that I am the one treating "autism" as an atomic condition that you either have or don't, what with all the distinctions you'll find in it if you look. My concern is that I know where this sort of "acceptance" push leads. Already I see autism researchers have to precede their perfectly acceptable and even wonderful research with "Not that autistic people aren't wonderful, but..." That's a step, no, that's several steps down the road to where soppy-headed thinkers start babbling about "autistophobia" and run the researchers out of town on a rail. (And then congratulate themselves on running the researchers out of town on a rail.) Oh, jeez, when I typed that word I really hoped it was a neologism... https://www.google.com/search?q=autistiophobia https://www.google.com/search?q=autistiophobia That's not what my son needs. I don't think internalizing that one is intrinsically and inescapably a victim is good for anybody's psychology but he really wouldn't be able to deal with life if he incorporated that into his worldview. (And carefully note my claim there... it is not that people are not sometimes victims, even at scale, and it's not that sometimes they don't need this pointed out... but convincing someone that they are intrinsically and inescapably eternally a victim is a terrible thing to do to a human being.)
- tjradcliffe 11y ago
  Thanks for this. All you have to do is look at the "Deaf Culture" folks to see where attempts to normalize a disease state leads. The lack of ability to hear is not a difference to be celebrated, and anyone who does celebrate it is a sad, pathetic individual spreading harm and--very often--hate. It is possible to gracefully accept who we are and the things about us that can't yet be fixed, while at the same time striving to fix them. Our diseases are not our identities. Deaf Culture and other similar movements start off by accepting the lie that collectivist bigots have imposed on them--that our diseases are our identities--and then simply declare that that identity is good. Accepting the identity that hostile collectivists want to impose on you is rarely a good thing. In the case of disease states it really does end in opposing any attempt to cure the disease, and if there's a purer kind of evil than that--cloaked in the brightly shining garb of rights and defense of the oppressed--I'm not sure what it is.
  - pavedwalden 11y ago
    Although I'm sure there are examples of inappropriate dogmatism in the Deaf Culture conversation, I think you're painting the whole situation with too broad a brush. Unlike autism or OCD, deafness inducts you into a culture that exists parallel to the hearing world. It has its own schools, its own norms, and even its own bars. I'd say it's more similar to an isolated small town than a pathological "disease community" like a pro-anna message board. So for adults considering surgical intervention, there are very reasonable questions about what it means to be reaching beyond their language community. As for deciding when surgical intervention is appropriate for children, that's an ethical shitshow I'm glad I don't have to sort out.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    On the topic of deaf culture, to me the biggest issue there is genetically engineering babies to be deaf, which from my understanding does happen in rare cases.

jerf 11y ago

I'd draw a ton of distinctions, in fact, I'd draw one per person. Everyone's unique. But I have no idea what in my post would even remotely lead you to the conclusion that I am the one treating "autism" as an atomic condition that you either have or don't, what with all the distinctions you'll find in it if you look. My concern is that I know where this sort of "acceptance" push leads. Already I see autism researchers have to precede their perfectly acceptable and even wonderful research with "Not that autistic people aren't wonderful, but..." That's a step, no, that's several steps down the road to where soppy-headed thinkers start babbling about "autistophobia" and run the researchers out of town on a rail. (And then congratulate themselves on running the researchers out of town on a rail.) Oh, jeez, when I typed that word I really hoped it was a neologism... https://www.google.com/search?q=autistiophobia https://www.google.com/search?q=autistiophobia That's not what my son needs. I don't think internalizing that one is intrinsically and inescapably a victim is good for anybody's psychology but he really wouldn't be able to deal with life if he incorporated that into his worldview. (And carefully note my claim there... it is not that people are not sometimes victims, even at scale, and it's not that sometimes they don't need this pointed out... but convincing someone that they are intrinsically and inescapably eternally a victim is a terrible thing to do to a human being.)

tjradcliffe 11y ago
Thanks for this. All you have to do is look at the "Deaf Culture" folks to see where attempts to normalize a disease state leads. The lack of ability to hear is not a difference to be celebrated, and anyone who does celebrate it is a sad, pathetic individual spreading harm and--very often--hate. It is possible to gracefully accept who we are and the things about us that can't yet be fixed, while at the same time striving to fix them. Our diseases are not our identities. Deaf Culture and other similar movements start off by accepting the lie that collectivist bigots have imposed on them--that our diseases are our identities--and then simply declare that that identity is good. Accepting the identity that hostile collectivists want to impose on you is rarely a good thing. In the case of disease states it really does end in opposing any attempt to cure the disease, and if there's a purer kind of evil than that--cloaked in the brightly shining garb of rights and defense of the oppressed--I'm not sure what it is.
- pavedwalden 11y ago
  Although I'm sure there are examples of inappropriate dogmatism in the Deaf Culture conversation, I think you're painting the whole situation with too broad a brush. Unlike autism or OCD, deafness inducts you into a culture that exists parallel to the hearing world. It has its own schools, its own norms, and even its own bars. I'd say it's more similar to an isolated small town than a pathological "disease community" like a pro-anna message board. So for adults considering surgical intervention, there are very reasonable questions about what it means to be reaching beyond their language community. As for deciding when surgical intervention is appropriate for children, that's an ethical shitshow I'm glad I don't have to sort out.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  On the topic of deaf culture, to me the biggest issue there is genetically engineering babies to be deaf, which from my understanding does happen in rare cases.