I was using "you" in a general sense--as in "one". The point being, if one (not YOU(the second person singular pronoun)) believes that autism is like cancer, then one might think the way wilky thinks, without wishing that autistics should wither and die.
I think that wilky, who may or may not be misguided, only wants the best for people; her opinions of what is best are only profoundly different from yours. (I also acknowledge the lowliness of flaming and personal attacks that also stem from this thread; but I don't think wilky has anything against autistics in particular).
What your saying is true - there are two "camps" of how Autism is thought of, and if she belongs to the camp that thinks Autism is a disease, then it would follow that the best course of action would be to cure autism. The reason that I mentioned politics is that this site was set up as a protest against this type of thinking - as a counter to the many pro-cure organisations springing up.
Wilky knew this, and chose to deliberately insult us by calling Autism a disease. It is quite self-apparent that this was her intent, as she actually refers to AFF "politicising" autism, and says she hopes the founders feel ashamed that they have created this site.
Yes, you're probably right, there really is no good reason for that. I agree that the form is bad, but that doesn't mean the content is malicious.
Remove cancer, and you're not the same person. Remove poor eyesight, not the same person. Everything, both good and bad, about you, contributes to your person. Hell, you're not the same person you were a minute ago, or an hour, or a day or week or lifetime.
I do not believe this is an attempt to destroy or annihilate anyone.
Semantics - we're talking about brain alteration with the deliberate intent to alter a group of personality traits. A personality is the person. Replace it with a different personality, and you have a different person.
This isn't the same as a persons experience altering their personality over time, either - in this case, it's a personality that is a natural extension of the pre-existing personality. In the case of an Autism "cure", it is a deliberate, forced personality change by surgical or chemical means.
An actual cure for an autistic person is pretty much science-fiction for now, anyway. The more realistic form of "cure" is pre-natal testing, followed by abortion if the child turns out to be autistic.
Well, if there were such a cure, my opinion would be that it should be their choice to use it.
As for pre-natal testing, I consistently view embryos from early in a pregnancy as non-persons. If there were a "cure", in that they could somehow alter the conditions for the embryo before birth so as to make autism unlikely, I wouldn't oppose the parents using it, as there would be no real person to change, just a blob of organic matter.
When the embryo has become a person with a personality and consciousness of its own, things are very different. From that point on, dramatically altering their neurology is so serious that I think the choice should be that person's, unless their life was provably inferior.
I don't think anyone can prove or disprove the idea that a non-communicative person has a low quality of life. I mean, who knows what goes on inside anyone else's head? NTs like to think they do, but all they do is look up cues, and when these external cues aren't there, everyone's in the blind.
No one is trying to eradicate us anymore than treatments for cancer eradicates cancer-patients. It is my view that an embryo of some weeks is not a person, and deserves not the rights of a person, so I don't care much for non-persons aborted due to prenatal testing. And no one wants to kill off real persons, i.e., autists that have been born.
This means that Autism itself will no longer exist, and Autistic culture will be destroyed - essentially, genocide.
What is this autistic culture you speak of?
I think genocide is a very strong and wrong word to use. No one's arguing for killing anyone.
I don't think "autistic culture" has much value in and of itself. It's just like every other culture in the world, some come and go, some stay. What I'm concerned with is the people that make up the culture. Are they preserved? That is all that matters.
I have stated that before something's a person (and I don't consider early stage embryos persons), you can treat it like you would other non-personal stuff. Once it becomes a person, it should have the right to a say in what happens to its person, proportional to its ability to understand and make informed decisions on the matter.
We have previously non-communicative people that are now able to communicate what they want. These people are being ignored.
Well, they shouldn't.
I don't think they have any legitimate voice "for" anyone but themselves--but then again, I don't think you or I have any legitimate voice for anyone but ourselves either.
Gareth and Amy don't mind people coming on and using the forum for support and enjoyment, but the main purpose of the site is to launch the autistic rights movement. It's on the front page description of the site, and it's what Wilky was referring to when she talked about "politicising autism".
I see nothing of the sort on the frontpage. It says AFF is a hub for the online community around autism/AS, for "autism, offline groups, autism rights, legitimate therapies for comorbid conditions, diagnosis, employment and education and AS special interests".
It states the political viewpoints of AFF, including:
- We have the view that aspergers and autism are not negative, and are not always a disability.
- We know that autism is not a disease, and we oppose any attempts to "cure" someone of an autism spectrum condition, or any attempts to make them 'normal' against their will.
- We aim to strengthen autism rights, oppose all forms of discrimination against aspies and auties, and work to bring the community together both online and offline.
On reading again, it does not explicitly state that this is an Autistic Rights site, but the indication is there. Don't worry about debating this one with me personally, as Gareth will be able to actually tell you the reasons he set up the site next time he drops past.
My impression is that this is a place for people with or involved with autism. I understand that it has a certain general dogma and some opinions, but my understanding is that it's not set up only for people of a particular persuasion.
If it is, I'm not sure I want to be here, even though I don't really share that particular other persuasion.
