I made the title just that because people might have different ideas that I guess all should be respected.
I've seen some confusion as to what that's neurodiversity lately. On
wikipedia it says that:
Neurodiversity is an idea that asserts that atypical (neurodivergent) neurological development is a normal human difference that is to be tolerated and respected as any other human difference.
Which I guess is the basic thing about neurodiversity - equality between the different types of neurological development. I'm not sure what 'normal' means in this context.
Then the articles goes on to say:
The concept of neurodiversity is embraced by some autistic individuals and people with related conditions, who believe that autism is not a disorder, but a part of their identity, so that curing autistic people would be the same as destroying their original personalities. Proponents prefer the term over such labels as "abnormal" and "disabled".
Does "not a disorder" mean "not a disability"? Correct me if it doesn't, as I want to point out that many, if not most, of those who support the neurodiversity community reckons that disability is a very relevant term when it comes autism.
I see that the article doesn't directly state that neurodiversity is about not thinking of autism as a disorder, but the article seem to fail to mention that there are alot of different people, including parents of non-verbal children, who subscribe to the neurodiversity movement while still thinking of autism as a disability, if maybe not solely a disability.
That idea about curing autism equals destroying the original personality is something I find to be the weakest link when it comes to the neurodiversity idea - purely a philosophical idea. I think that the real feelings behind this idea could be presented in a more feet on the ground way though.
Lisa Jo Rudy who runs a really excellent blog where it seems like she tries to present information regarding autism with a neutral perspective recently made a poll which asks the question "Is there an autism epidemic?".
The far right option was:
No - and furthermore, autism isn't a disease, it's a different way of seeing the world.
I like to say that autism is more than a disability, I would also say that it is more than a different way of seeing the world if I found it necessary.
As the option could easily be mistaken for the view of the neurodiversity community some familiar bloggers, Kev and Joseph, from the Autism Hub gave it comments and Rudy apologized.
To me neurodiversity is about autism not being either good or bad, but something neutral that you just have to live with, accept and make the best of.
Kinda pissed when I make a big text of a thread and don't get replies, TLDR?
Hi Ivar,
More and more I'm thinking autism is far wider spread than 1:150. It's not that it's epidemic; it has always been there. But the focus started with disabled children. And so people connected disability with autism. Then they found out there were functional autists as well. And now talk frantically about an epidemic because numbers are rising.
I recon there are many more people who fit the autistic criteria. But they manage without extra support, and therefore are not found. If they did a proper research to find out how many people in the population are autistic they would be astonished.
There are 'neuro-typical' disabled people too. If we only focused on disabled children to define neurotypicality everyone would say it's absurd.
I do think more autists are found because society needs more and more 'drones', people who can merge magically. There is less and less need for 'weird' individuals. Because society is less and less open to the qualities of the 'weirdo' in day to day life, autism is more and more turning into a handicap.
Yes, there are disabled neurodiverse people. And there are disabled neurotypical people. Both groups need support in a way that suits them, brings out the best of them and supports what they cannot do. That means that it has to be individual.
But our society is not that individual anymore. Some how the image of the NORM, the super average overly healthy person is how we all are treated, or all are supposed to strive to become.
I'm starting to ramble, need to go and see the kids.
As to that statement about autism being not a disease but a different way of seeing the world - that's true, but not the whole truth. Yes, it's a different way of perceiving the world, but it's also other things - and yes, it can be a disability. The main thing that disturbs me about the attempts to eradicate autism/autistic people's existence is that the message is clear: we're not to be accepted as we are; we are not good enough to be anything but a broken person. Which is so ironic, as many parents of autistic people look at a cure as hope, as a way of improving their child's life, when in fact this rhetoric is used contrary to helping them.
I would argue that autism is not a disorder, disorder meaning "out of order", as if there is a thing called autism that is changing a person from ordered to disordered, and removing autism would make them in a more natural state. There are a number of us who are disabled, though, which is why it's important that autistic people, even those who aren't disabled, do not try to distance autism from disability as if it's a bad thing that should go away. Because all that does is create divisions, and ignores a whole lot of excellent things that disabled autistic people have to say.
Would say most autistic people have some traits that could be associated with autism that are disabling - like sensory issues, but then I would call just that thing a disability, not autism itself.
Being american is a disability in the UK because obesity-related difficulties are associated with being american.
... but for the sake of simplicity I will usually not object to people calling autism a disability.
I have impaired superman abilities - it's a big grief, but it isn't classed as a disability as it doesn't deviate from society's expectations.
That idea about curing autism equals destroying the original personality is something I find to be the weakest link when it comes to the neurodiversity idea - purely a philosophical idea. I think that the real feelings behind this idea could be presented in a more feet on the ground way though.
I'm not sure if there is any better way to explain that. It makes sense to me to say "trying to "cure" autism (or change any neurotype into another, for that matter) is unethical because it would be destructive" (at least, assuming that the only "cure" would be surgery, which seems likely to me).
Lemme give a shot at a better explanation.
The thought of a world without autism, equals a world without autistic people - which is not, to say the least, an appealing thought to those of the neurodiversity movement.
... If I manage to add abit of rhethoric to that point it would be magnificent!
Someone wrote something like that before, I don't remember if it was you.
I also have that idea of autism, and would also say that because autistic people lack the pre-wiring and/or instincts they are much more intellectually challanged throughout life, hence often become more intelligent in several areas.
Better at problem solving then.