Where do we show our work? I have a short story that might be appropriate, but is probably too long for this thread.
And, of course it is a good analogy in another way.
It isn't actually feasible to separate a turtle from its shell - it is an integral part of the animal.
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461518448/t...leton.html

Just as it isn't feasible to separate the autism from the person - will we ever be able to get through to people that autism isn't a removable shell with a neurotypical person 'trapped' inside, desperate to get out!

I just sent in a contribution, which doesn’t lambaste anyone in any way (although I did find your poem extremely funny and thought-provoking, BobB!). Although I do not agree with Autism Speaks, I think one of the best ways to be “anti-cure” is to act as kind (e.g. natural kindness, not falsified social ‘kindness’), original, and intelligent as possible, because if everyone with Asperger’s/Autism were that way and/or were actively contributing as much as physically/mentally possible to society, than hardly anyone would want a cure anyway (or at least, theoretically. Feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong).
Should I post the letter and the poem I wrote/sent here? I have no concerns with doing so other than the possibility of theft of my poetry. Or I could just post the letter, without the poem. However, if they publish an altered version of my work, I will certainly post about it here.
Will
http://dontunderestimateautism.blogspot....rs-nd.html
and a second part:
http://dontunderestimateautism.blogspot....ustin.html
TheZach is confusing Neurodiversity (definition: a diversity of neurologies, none of which is any better than the others) with Aspie Supremacy (definition: the belief that asperger's makes you better than anyone else, LFA's and NTs included), which often hides behind Neurodiversity-related terms in an attempt to hide its ugly bigotry.
Maybe, but could you really trust Autism Speaks not to have some kind of ulterior motive for all of this? BobB, I really like your poem and story.
For once I have to disagree with you, I dont think Autism Speaks would alter a submission.
No ifs, ands, or buts about it, AutSp can and probably will alter submissions as they see fit. The important bit there is the part that says Content. Many magazines reserve the right to copy edit submitted pieces if the wording is off, etc. However, "right to edit content" means AutSp can change anything they want to about the piece, up to and including changing it from something positive to something negative. They may not, but they've given us plenty of reason to be suspicious and no reason at all to trust them, so I would be wary.
Of course, this means if you send your pieces to them you have to be prepared for the eventuality that they will be changed. You cannot sue, you cannot threaten, there's nothing you can do about it; they've reserved that right and by sending it in you've agreed to it.
That's why I suggested the website, so that if things do get changed we can show people the original versions.
For once I have to disagree with you, I dont think Autism Speaks would alter a submission.
No ifs, ands, or buts about it, AutSp can and probably will alter submissions as they see fit. The important bit there is the part that says Content. Many magazines reserve the right to copy edit submitted pieces if the wording is off, etc. However, "right to edit content" means AutSp can change anything they want to about the piece, up to and including changing it from something positive to something negative. They may not, but they've given us plenty of reason to be suspicious and no reason at all to trust them, so I would be wary.
Of course, this means if you send your pieces to them you have to be prepared for the eventuality that they will be changed. You cannot sue, you cannot threaten, there's nothing you can do about it; they've reserved that right and by sending it in you've agreed to it.
That's why I suggested the website, so that if things do get changed we can show people the original versions.
Luai_lashire,
I second your suggestion! 
The 'right to edit' language is pretty much standard for *any* newspaper, magazine, newsletter, etc.; for example, if a newspaper's limit on letters to the editor is 200 words, and you send in a 350-word missive, you can expect it to be edited, or returned with a suggestion to cut it down to proper size. If a particular story generates a *lot* of responses, most of them being fairly similar, an editor will often just include unique quotes, instead of printing *every* letter in its entirety.
Autism Speaks is going to be walking somewhat of a fine line with this showcase; they want to present works by autistic writers, but if it comes out that they're hacking and slashing to suit their *own* agenda, it's going to make them look like a bunch of jerks (who'da thunk it?). They'll be more likely to just not print something that doesn't kiss their asses, to be honest.
Of course, that gives us the opportunity to accuse them of censoring *some* autistic writers, so it's a win either way! 
-BobB
Exactly- and the more submissions we have, the better our case will be in either situation! If they are hacking and slashing, then being able to point to such changes in many submissions is stronger evidence than in only one or two; and if they omit them, we need a great many submissions to be able to say that it is misrepresentation.
?
I don't understand what you are asking.

If everyone agrees to that, people can just send me a PM with the submission and any additional information they want included, and I'd post it.