Autism Speaks thinks so.
/press/allen_brain_collaboration.php at Autism Speaks website
Note the language used in the press release. Autism is a "disorder" and autistic brains suffer from "dysfunction". Also, they want to force biomed down the throats of autistic kids who can't advocate for themselves. Is Autism Speaks now allied with DAN?
Autism Speaks thinks so.
/press/allen_brain_collaboration.php at Autism Speaks website
Note the language used in the press release. Autism is a "disorder" and autistic brains suffer from "dysfunction". Also, they want to force biomed down the throats of autistic kids who can't advocate for themselves. Is Autism Speaks now allied with DAN?
What did you expect from a curebie organization like AutSp? A balanced view of autism? Definitely not. Of course they are going to use such language.
Autism Speaks thinks so.
/press/allen_brain_collaboration.php at Autism Speaks website
Note the language used in the press release. Autism is a "disorder" and autistic brains suffer from "dysfunction". Also, they want to force biomed down the throats of autistic kids who can't advocate for themselves. Is Autism Speaks now allied with DAN?
pezar,
I have no problem with 'disorder'; it's a *much* better term than 'disease', *especially* in the context that AS uses!
'Dysfunction' isn't all bad, either, I have more of an issue with "underlying cellular and molecular defects in the autistic brain", to be honest.
I'm not too thrilled about the "novel biomedical interventions", either...
The fact is, this *might* be one of the things that AS is doing *right*; that *doesn't* mean that I trust them to any great degree, though.
-BobB
"Disorder" on the other hand is an insult. It's a difference.
Timelord,
Agreed that it's a *difference*; in the DSM, it *is* listed as a 'Disorder', though, so I don't see it as an insult in the same way as calling autism a 'disease' is...
-BobB
I think you'll find that the DSM is written with the law in mind, Bob, to make sure that the law recognised the Spectrum under Disability law to counter intolerant behaviour - given that the same law seeks to define "normal" (for which there is no real definition). That's why I let that fact go.
Once the world learns properly - the DSM will change to "difference".
Timelord,
I'd imagine that it will, yes. 
-BobB
It is pure conformist propaganda. Not fitting in the neurotypicals' mold = OMG DISORDER. It also doesn't help that certain quite large segments of society (particularly the more conservative/religious ones) often have anti-intellectual and anti-science attitudes, and at least according to the traditional wisdom, aspies tend to have a more scientific/intellectual worldview.
Autism Speaks thinks so.
/press/allen_brain_collaboration.php at Autism Speaks website
Note the language used in the press release. Autism is a "disorder" and autistic brains suffer from "dysfunction". Also, they want to force biomed down the throats of autistic kids who can't advocate for themselves. Is Autism Speaks now allied with DAN?
Who actually has the disorder? Is it AS individuals for doing things differently to NT individuals or NT individuals for doing things differently to AS individuals
My husband and I are (arguably NT's) and we don't want to fit in with this society. The word society isn't even applicable - people of good culture and good breeding) is the definition. AS far as being "normal", who would want to be what is billed as normal these days... Not us.
If "dysfunctional" means "doesn't fit into society", then yeah, we're dysfunctional. But so was Martin Luther King Jr...
Autistics aren't necessarily "dysfunctional" even if they're considered LFA. It's not OK to deem autistic (future) lives as dysfunctional which I feel calling autistics dysfunctional does.
Dysfunctional means impaired in functioning. Calling someone "Low Functioning" is the same thing as calling them dysfunctional.
Actually, Gnosis, I think Callista got the correct definition of dysfunctional (doesn't fit into society). It's pretty much what I said earlier as well;
Look at it this way - families that aren't "normal" (ie both parents, happy family etc) are labelled "dysfunctional".
And I'm talking about NT families when I say that as well as Spectrum ones.
Do you have a source? I do.
dys·func·tion·al [ diss fúngkshən'l ]
adjective
Definition:
1. relating badly: characterized by an inability to function emotionally or as a social unit
a dysfunctional family
dysfunctional behavior
2. not performing as expected: failing to perform an expected function
a dysfunctional bureaucracy
3. affected by disease or impairment: describes an organ or other part or system of the body that is unable to function regularly as a result of disease or impairment
Also, if happy families are normal then what does it mean when few families are actually like that? From my experiences most families are dysfuntional,
This is an important distinction: Autism is not a disability. However, Autistics are often disabled by co-morbid problems, or when Autistic traits are intense enough to substantially limit their ability to live a fulfilling and productive life.
It is very important to remember that those distinctions - “fulfilling” and “productive” - are not for others to make. Those are for the autistic individual to make, in whatever way she prefers. In those cases where we are not able to communicate well with the Autistic, it is hard for us to tell if the Autistic feels fulfilled, and the temptation is great to make that determination for him. But this is not only wrong and rude, but unnecessary. In fact, the whole question of whether or not an Autistic is actually “disabled” by virtue of being Autistic is moot.
The focus of any outside intervention should not be wrapped up in such determinations. Given the almost certain assumption that there is no realistic way to attack the cause for either Autism or most of its co-morbidities, the focus of any concerned third party should be entirely on solving any day-to-day difficulties an Autistic person might be confronted with. Instead of wondering whether a child is socially impaired enough to be considered disabled, we should direct as many resources as necessary to help the Autistic become as socially competent and possible, or as socially competent as the Autistic prefers to be.
The only time it matters if an Autistic is disabled is when he applies for government aid or compensation. The reason for such aid is generally related to how well parents can provide for day-to-day needs, or how well the Autistic can cope in society, and has little to nothing to do with whether the Autistic’s general quality of life, or self-evaluation. So, it is entirely possible for someone to be disabled from the perspective of the government because of an inability hold a job, and not disabled from the perspective of the Autistic, who spends her day painting, singing, writing, or caring for neighborhood cats. So, when dealing with aid or accommodation, the determination of disability should be made case by case and be based solely on the specific skills being hindered and whether they are relevant to the guidelines for awarding the aid.
If a person is leading a happy, satisfying life as an amateur poet and web blogger, but is unable to speak to strangers without melting down, he is disabled only in terms of his employability. If he ends up with a job as a professional columnist for an online publication, then he is no longer disabled – unless his communication problems make it impossible to grocery shop. Again, the determination of disability is solely up to the Autistic to make.
Being Autistic does not mean you are disabled. Being unable to do something you want or need to do is what makes you disabled. If you are satisfied with your ability to live your life the way you prefer, then you are not disabled.
Gnosis - with all due respect - the dictionary meaning doesn't translate into society with such accuracy.
What other definitions does it have and can you provide a source for said definition?
This is an important distinction: Autism is not a disability. However, Autistics are often disabled by co-morbid problems, or when Autistic traits are intense enough to substantially limit their ability to live a fulfilling and productive life.
It is very important to remember that those distinctions - “fulfilling” and “productive” - are not for others to make. Those are for the autistic individual to make, in whatever way she prefers. In those cases where we are not able to communicate well with the Autistic, it is hard for us to tell if the Autistic feels fulfilled, and the temptation is great to make that determination for him. But this is not only wrong and rude, but unnecessary. In fact, the whole question of whether or not an Autistic is actually “disabled” by virtue of being Autistic is moot.
The focus of any outside intervention should not be wrapped up in such determinations. Given the almost certain assumption that there is no realistic way to attack the cause for either Autism or most of its co-morbidities, the focus of any concerned third party should be entirely on solving any day-to-day difficulties an Autistic person might be confronted with. Instead of wondering whether a child is socially impaired enough to be considered disabled, we should direct as many resources as necessary to help the Autistic become as socially competent and possible, or as socially competent as the Autistic prefers to be.
The only time it matters if an Autistic is disabled is when he applies for government aid or compensation. The reason for such aid is generally related to how well parents can provide for day-to-day needs, or how well the Autistic can cope in society, and has little to nothing to do with whether the Autistic’s general quality of life, or self-evaluation. So, it is entirely possible for someone to be disabled from the perspective of the government because of an inability hold a job, and not disabled from the perspective of the Autistic, who spends her day painting, singing, writing, or caring for neighborhood cats. So, when dealing with aid or accommodation, the determination of disability should be made case by case and be based solely on the specific skills being hindered and whether they are relevant to the guidelines for awarding the aid.
If a person is leading a happy, satisfying life as an amateur poet and web blogger, but is unable to speak to strangers without melting down, he is disabled only in terms of his employability. If he ends up with a job as a professional columnist for an online publication, then he is no longer disabled – unless his communication problems make it impossible to grocery shop. Again, the determination of disability is solely up to the Autistic to make.
Being Autistic does not mean you are disabled. Being unable to do something you want or need to do is what makes you disabled. If you are satisfied with your ability to live your life the way you prefer, then you are not disabled.
Disability is determined by objective standards rather than subjective ones. A deaf person is disabled because he can not hear. A nondeaf person is not disabled if he wishes to hear subsonic and ultrasonic frequencies and can not because humans ear didn't evolve to hear them The deaf person has a valid moral claim on the resources of others, the nondeaf guy does not.
Disability is determined by objective standards rather than subjective ones. A deaf person is disabled because he can not hear. A nondeaf person is not disabled if he wishes to hear subsonic and ultrasonic frequencies and can not because humans ear didn't evolve to hear them The deaf person has a valid moral claim on the resources of others, the nondeaf guy does not.
I'm trying to be gentle about this, but that is wrong in many ways. I don't have time to go into most of them, but let me ask you this. Who is more qualified than the subject to be the judge of his level of ability? If he and some one else disagree, who wins the argument?
If a person is not deaf, but hard of hearing, is he disabled? What if he only has trouble with fairly high frequencies? What if he used to be a musician?
What if a person is color blind? Is he disabled? Doesn't it matter what he means to see?
Who sets the standards for disability? Is it something dictated by the majority? By a council of experts? Since that council appears to have the right to dictate what disabitiy is, do they have the right to change that definition later? Can they decide one day to institutionalize everyone on the sex-offenders' list? How about all autistics? Aspies? Blonds?
The world is never so binary as "disabled vs non-disabled," And it is extremely fool hardy to give over the right to judge your acceptability to strangers of ANY stripe.
Let me repeat: it is stupid, foolish and risky to let others have the right to decide when you are "able." And I, for one, will never accept that conclusion, whether it seems reasonable to you or not.
What possible problem could you have with the concept of letting the subject determine his own level of disability?
I never liked it when Asperger's is called a "disability", mainly since I have yet to find something that I completely lack the ability to do as a direct result of having Asperger's.
I'm trying to be gentle about this, but that is wrong in many ways. I don't have time to go into most of them, but let me ask you this. Who is more qualified than the subject to be the judge of his level of ability? If he and some one else disagree, who wins the argument?
If a person is not deaf, but hard of hearing, is he disabled? What if he only has trouble with fairly high frequencies? What if he used to be a musician?
What if a person is color blind? Is he disabled? Doesn't it matter what he means to see?
Who sets the standards for disability? Is it something dictated by the majority? By a council of experts? Since that council appears to have the right to dictate what disabitiy is, do they have the right to change that definition later? Can they decide one day to institutionalize everyone on the sex-offenders' list? How about all autistics? Aspies? Blonds?
The world is never so binary as "disabled vs non-disabled," And it is extremely fool hardy to give over the right to judge your acceptability to strangers of ANY stripe.
Let me repeat: it is stupid, foolish and risky to let others have the right to decide when you are "able." And I, for one, will never accept that conclusion, whether it seems reasonable to you or not.
What possible problem could you have with the concept of letting the subject determine his own level of disability?
My problem with letting one's self determine one's level of disability is the innate subjectivity of "being unable to do something you want or need to do is what makes you disabled". So if I want to make $100 billion dollars with minimal effort and can't then according to your definition I am disabled.
Society, by which I mean parents, teachers, governments, the community, and individuals, renders those with disabilities as entitled to extra time, effort, consideration, support, and other resources. Because resources are limited we need some criteria of disability so that resources go to those who need them.
Gnosis - with all due respect - the dictionary meaning doesn't translate into society with such accuracy.
What other definitions does it have and can you provide a source for said definition?
Anywhere outside the dictionary. That little booklet is not the be all and end all of what words mean. Like everything else - it's a tool that depends on how it's used. That is - interpretation. And I pick up this quote from you.....
Disability is determined by objective standards rather than subjective ones.
Society does not work objectively - it works subjectively. So it appears to me that you just "buttered both sides of the bread" (if you understand the metaphor).
I get the metaphor, but to work I would have needed state that things work objective;y and subjectively in the same sense. I did not.
The booklet defines how the word is used. When people use a different definition then the ones listed a new one is added, If the old ones are no longer used then they eventually become listed as an archaic, old and no longer used, definition.
Dysfunctional is generally used to mean impaired in some fashion. Someone who can not function in modern society could be seen as socially impaired even if menatlly and physically they aren't.