Aspies For Freedom

I don't think there's any reason to be afraid of using the term "disabled". It's a neutral thing, to me. It just means some of my skills are way below average thanks to autism. (That doesn't mean others aren't way above average. Typical scatter. Gets annoying sometimes. They think you can do anything well if you can do one thing well. Sigh.)

The way I think of "disabled" is kind of the way fat people are getting tired of getting looked down on, and are defiantly using "fat" to describe themselves, just because they're sick of it being thought of as a horrible, horrible thing. (I do. But then, I'm a literal Aspie and I've never really internalized the "horribleness" of fat. It's just extra weight, for heaven's sake.)

Anyway, Asperger's is a disability; but it is possible to adjust to it to the point that it no longer qualifies (that is, your low skill levels are up to average). At that point, though, you're no longer technically diagnosable as Aspie, though I'd say you're still an Aspie, especially since your basic brain structure hasn't changed. And, of course, there are those with autistic traits who've never been disabled--the "cousins" of the spectrum--who nevertheless get prejudice for being eccentric.

But I think we still belong to the disability community, just the way that you can belong to the deaf community just by learning and using sign especially if you also have a deaf family member. Whether we fit the "deficiency in skill" definition of disability, we all match the social definition.

It's pretty objectively true that I'm disabled when you consider that I can't drive a car, that I have trouble understanding people, that I get overwhelmed by certain sorts of input... But being disabled isn't so horrible, or so uncommon, that I consider it something particularly significant about myself. My autistic brain and the autism society I'm a part of is more significant, especially since my brand of autism involves more neutral or positive traits than disabling ones. I suppose if I had more negative traits, the disability factor would be a bigger part of my identity.

For people who decide their aspergers is disabling - all well and good. For those that don't - it doesn't seem respectful to head a thread "welcome to the disablity community" and then follow with words stating "Yes, that’s right, you’re DISABLED. Yep, you can pick that word apart and tell me why you aren’t, but, trust me, you are".

To me this reeks of will to impose an opinion and personal judgement upon someone else. Not acceptable in my mind.

Maybe a more tactful approach would have been to suggest that society was disabling - rather than appearing to point the finger at people with aspergers as though they are the ones with the problem.

The autism spectrum does extend across the "disability" line. That doesn't mean, though, that those who aren't disabled have nothing in common with those who are. The social prejudice is a major problem--possibly worse than any other problem autism can bring--and both the disabled and non-disabled autistics face it. That means that even if autism doesn't cause disability for you, you have a lot in common with those for whom it does cause disability--and thus have a good reason to join the disability community nonetheless. It's a lot like a Deaf person who is a very good lip-reader--he can function in society without using sign, and the only accommodation he needs is that people should face him when they speak. But he's still part of the disability community... same goes for a socially proficient Aspie.

If people choose not to see their asperger diagnosis - or if they have adapted their lives to cope - why (in specifics) would you say they are disabled.

And why should anyone trust you - to determine whether or not they are disabled.  Your words come across as being condemning and judgemental. Aspergers can be disabling - but it can also have advantages.

Dove in nested towers - do you see yourself as being disabled by autism - if so, how are you disabled?
[/quote]

eeekkkk - gosh I don't know how that happened - please ignore the post above - if moderators would like to delete it - please do. apologies - it looks tactless!!!

What I was thinking before that went up - I wondered how Joel would feel to see his blog posted in the way that it was in this forum. He wrote the above piece as a blog - when he wrote it he didn't intend it to be posted onto this forum in the way that it was - with the above title.

It seemed to me - that dove in nested towers seemed to post a lot of posts that could be seen as flames. So when I saw this post - I considered they were her words - I couldn't find an authors name when I looked at the site posted in the OP.

Thank you for taking the time to give detailed explanations ambuend - You have written a lot that will take me some time to comprehend - but I am interested and I will look at your blog.

Thanks.

My own personal point of view in regard to my son - I do feel he is disabled by his autism - but there have been measures taken to try and redress some of the balance. The disablity remains.

For myself - I am limited socially and in my work because of traits related to aspergers. I don't know if I would go so far to say I am disabled.

You have the right of self advocacy. Don't let anyone put definitions or labels on you that don't feel right. You know your own situation best . Believe in yourself.

Why - do you think I live in a land of make believe - do you think I am too idealistic?

The social model of disability proposes that barriers and prejudice and exclusion by society (purposely or inadvertently) are the ultimate factors defining who is disabled and who is not in a particular society. It recognises that while some people have physical, intellectual, or psychological differences from a statistical norm, which may sometimes be impairments, these do not have to lead to disability unless society fails to accommodate and include them in the way it would those who are 'normal.' The phrase 'differently abled' is sometimes used to convey an aspect of the social model of disability, although the model is not generally taken as denying that some attributes (or loss of) can be seen (when unaided) as impairments.

The above is a quote taken from wiki.
http://www.answers.com/topic/social-model-of-disability

I like strawberries and cream - but the strawberries have to be sun ripened. Strawberries are in season here - you are giving me ideas. My mouth is watering.

thank you, you are lovely

I think people are thinking along the lines of, "Disability must be severe to be called disability." That's true only in the legal sense, when it has to prevent you from working...

Realistically, though, there are an awful lot of conditions that are disabilities and yet don't hamper you too much once you have adjusted. For example: Let's say you're self-sufficient but you use a wheelchair. You have access to ramps and elevators. Nothing's really closed to you--even mountain-climbing has become accessible. So are you still disabled? Most everybody would say yes, you are, because you can't walk... Okay, so let's take a Deaf guy with a talent for lipreading. He learns to speak with what sounds like a bit of an accent. All he has to do is look at someone to understand them. Is he still disabled? Most people would say yes, he is, because he still can't hear...

But how is that different from an Aspie who has learned to cope in social situations? You still have the basic difference that cause you to put forth a lot more effort when you're in a social situation--like the deaf guy who's using a lot more brain power to lip-read than he would watching people sign.

Disability can be mild. It can be almost or completely compensated for. And in those cases, the only reason it's still called a disability is because you do have to use extra effort, or extra technology, or accommodations of some sort, to compensate. Disability isn't always something you can NEVER do.. it's often something you do differently. Like an Aspie's socialization.

Some Aspies aren't disabled, but I would not call it that until they got to the point that they take no more effort than an NT when they socialized, got no more stressed than an NT from sensory input, and could, if desired, spend no more time on special interests than an NT spends on hobbies... Only the milder cases get to that point, and usually not until middle adulthood.

Disability is in large parts a social construct; it compares someone to the requirements that society places on him, and asks whether he needs anything more than most people to fit into that society--whether it's extra energy, extra education, technology, or outside help. Move someone to a different society, and he may no longer be disabled.

And to complicate matters, some things aren't thought of as disabilities when they really ought to be; for example, ADHD can cause more problems than Asperger's, but it is not commonly categorized as a disability until it reaches an extreme level. Without the technology afforded by eyeglasses, someone with 20/200 vision can't drive and can't navigate well--but because so many people wear eyeglasses, it isn't considered a disability. Chronic illness is on the borderline, too; diabetes requires extra effort and extra technology, but it too isn't quite considered a disability.

A whole society is determining what "disabled" means. Depending on how unusual a condition is, it might be put on either side of the line without real thought. Some things that cause less trouble than Asperger's are considered disabilities just because they aren't the norm--for example, having a prosthetic leg. (Granted, that causes more trouble than Asperger's at the beginning; but let's say you were born without the leg and grew up using a prosthesis)...

Let's face it: Society determines what "disability" is. And our society thinks socializing is awfully important--possibly the most important skill, if you don't count basic self-care, or even if you do count it. Many Aspies are considered disabled; and because disability is determined by society, that means that at the base of it they ARE disabled, just because of the mismatch between what society demands and what they can give; because they have to fill in the gap with extra effort, extra education, extra technology...

The Aspies in question--disabled because society says they are--usually do not think this is a tragedy or an impediment to doing what they want with their lives. But that is true of so many people who are disabled by any measure of the term--everything from Down syndrome to quadriplegia to blindness. People exist with those conditions and just about any other who consider themselves to be quite functional, not deprived or "worse off" than anybody else, not impaired in doing what they want to do.

Just because you do not think that having a certain condition is a problem, doesn't mean it isn't a disability--because what you think isn't in the definition, really. That's why the disability community is so important; our status is defined by those around us just as a racial minority's status; and what those around us think of us affects us quite a bit more, psychologically and socially, than the actual impairments we deal with.