If we argue that Autistic people have a valid existence because of our abilities, what we contribute and our independance, what arguement do those who have none of these things have?
Yes, that's how I was reading Joel Smith's criticism, too.
I just had a conversation along those lines with a person on a fanfiction e-mail list who was commenting on my story Another Look. She initially thought my argument against eugenics was weak because I didn't discuss the benefits of autism or the potential loss to society if autism were to be wiped out. My response was that I wanted to address the issue from a more personal perspective by showing the impact of prejudice on my autistic character, as well as how his non-autistic friend sees him as a human being who has value regardless of his specific contributions or traits. She replied that, after thinking about it for a while, she decided I made the point well.
It's basically a dilemma I woke up to during my time on Aspergia.
When an anonymous person wrote a post on AS Connection warning people to stay away from Aspergia("This is a false site promoting a misleading representation of Autism!"), the only valid criticism they made was done entirely by accident: Aspergia does not support people with disabilities.
Our collective answer was of course: How can we support disability rights as a group when we don't believe we are disabled?
I agree with you, Lucas, that's a false dichotomy. There is no inherent conflict between the issue of autistic civil rights and the issue of disability rights. A person can be disabled in some circumstances and not in others, depending on the extent to which the person's environment matches his or her abilities. This is true of any human being, whether autistic or not. Thus, it is entirely logical to support decent treatment and adequate services, etc., for all people with disabilities, regardless of whether or not one considers oneself to be disabled by autism or any other particular condition.
I met Joel Smith at a conference in Wyoming last winter and know him from a couple of other lists. He communicates independently by typing on a small portable device.
I think Joel has a good point. We should not limit our argument to our value simply by talking about those of us who are smart or successfull. We have value and human rights just because we are human, period, no matter what abilities we have or don't have.
I share his frustration. After almost 57 years of life, most people who know of me only know about the part of me I could care less about; the savant side. Any other attributes I value more are largely ignored. You don't need a high IQ or PhD to be considerate, generous, kind, loyal, honest, sensitive or any of the other things that many of us are.
Jerry Newport
Joel Smith was criticising the article more than Gareth and Amy, but they have put a stain on themselves by taking part. If there was any doubt at any point that the journalist was not going to base everything written on what was actually said, they should have opted out.
NO They did the right thing. They should have NOT opted out at all.
They did not stain themselves by taking part. This is absurd.
There are autistics suffereing right now under aversives.
There are some autistics are homeless.
theoretical points dont mean *** to them
If one thing that makes impressions on NTs is sheer numbers. If we all spoke up and they heard us we would become a force to be reckon with. We might not have all our ducks in a row. But silence is death. Maybe you can find judge in canada that gave a *** about theoretical points made by 2 self important autistics but believe me the majority does not.
I met Joel Smith at a conference in Wyoming last winter and know him from a couple of other lists. He communicates independently by typing on a small portable device.
I think Joel has a good point. We should not limit our argument to our value simply by talking about those of us who are smart or successfull. We have value and human rights just because we are human, period, no matter what abilities we have or don't have.
I share his frustration. After almost 57 years of life, most people who know of me only know about the part of me I could care less about; the savant side. Any other attributes I value more are largely ignored. You don't need a high IQ or PhD to be considerate, generous, kind, loyal, honest, sensitive or any of the other things that many of us are.
Jerry Newport
Jerry
We should not focus on savant abilities and the like for the reason for existence. But I do believe it is an appropiate conversation starter . if you get what I mean.
APD is about being happy with who you are
The New Science journalist wrote in the article of how a pre-natal test for Autistics would remove sources of creativity and such great gifts from the gene pool. This is not a good arguement to make against it, as in the wider picture it means those who do not possess great skills do not have the equal right earned by the 'good' Autistics.
This is a false dichotomy, too. Both arguments (useful skills and equal worth as human beings) can and must be made. We live in a society where people who are perceived as lacking all useful abilities are considered not worthy of life. There's very little time remaining before a genetic test is developed, and convincing the ignorant majority that we do not totally lack abilities is absolutely essential. Yes, we should also argue that people have intrinsic worth regardless of their abilities, but persuading society to adopt an entirely new set of values will take a lot longer than the 5 to 10 years we have.
Personally, I would agree to be interviewed by the Devil if it would stop the genocide.
Boy
that stain remark really pushed some buttons!!!
i
Oh I didn't know that we didn't have to be civil, accurate, reasonable or logical anymore, ASman. Now all we have to do is make sure there is enough of us saying the right thing and it will all fall into place.
I thought your stain remark was quite uncivil.
I will remind you to date that Autistics have made the only real successes and progress when acting as few.
Well the fact is that was the case. Those successes were few. Lets talk about the failures. Despite the successes, prenatal testing for downs syndrome became widespread. And with the advent of sonograms the identification and abortion fo babies simply for having cleft lip is widespread. Where were your persuasive arguments then??? I dont think those curebies were as worried as you seem to think. They merely patted you on the head and told you how smart you are. I am sure they did it with a smile.
The old icons of the movement such as yourself and dawson are no longer relevant. History has marched on.
It only takes one Autistic saying the right things to make curbies worry and people think. A million Autistics saying this or that about adversives is a million Autistics being discredited by the simple arguement that adversives are not policy, but incidence.
Adversives are STILL policy at some places like JRC.
But it is not a theoretical , is the simple statement. I AM HUMAN. there is no refutation. there is no facts to be brought to bear on the issue. When any autistics stands up and makes that statement. It is one more ringing noise in the ear of the curebies. The beauty of that simple statement it has so many paraphrases. A person claims their personhood by standing in the public square giving their thoughts, feelings a public airing, because as a HUMAN, their validity of being heard requires no irrefutable logic nor does it require a degree from an university. It merely requires Humanness. Being Human gives you the right to be valued if not your logic. So I would say to any autistic Shout out your thoughts. Get on that soapbox, write that letter, make that phone call. You are HUMAN ,and you matter. It is not about logic. It is about taking our rightful place in the vast conversation that comprises humans interacting with each other.
It's comments like that Bonnie, which first earned me a broken nose from a non-verbal guy. I rightly deserved it.
Don't threaten me, Lucas. And by the way, no one deserves violence in response to words. How the hell can you claim to be "civil" or "reasonable" when you are making comments like that?
I assume you are objecting to the statement, "We live in a society where people who are perceived as lacking all useful abilities are considered not worthy of life." Well, you can threaten me and Amy and Gareth and Joe all you want, but that won't change the fact that we are accurately describing the majority view. This is not a fantasy world where reasonable, logical arguments about values will make everyone be nice. You can't fight an enemy if you're unwilling to face the truth about it.
the 'we are valid because we can do this' arguement automatically validates it's polar opposite 'this is a debilitating condition which must be cured, except for those who are not disabled by it'.
Although there are some curebies who think like that, the conclusion does not follow automatically from any mention of an autistic person who has accomplished something. Not too long ago, many people thought that racial minorities were mentally inferior and incapable of meaningful accomplishments. Minority pride events made people aware that, in fact, there were non-whites who had earned advanced degrees, invented valuable technology, held responsible government positions, and so forth. This improved society's attitude toward minorities in general by debunking an irrational prejudice. It didn't cause society to develop the attitude that non-whites had value only if they had accomplished great things.
Do they then promise that they will develop a genetic test which will distinguish between low/high functioning?
Promise who? AFF? What the hell kind of paranoia is this? Do you seriously think anyone involved in developing genetic tests has made promises to any autistic people? :roll:
And we are not persuading a whole society to change it's values; we are making it accountable to the ones already in place.
The ones already in place? What might those be? Aborting almost all Down's babies? Leaving Terri Schiavo (and many other comatose people who get no publicity) to starve? Withdrawing medical care from babies with birth defects whose parents can't pay for their care?
Society is entirely accountable to its values. That's the problem.
We get 30,000 hits per day on this site, so a lot of people will read this, how many read the New Scientist article?
All the more reason to keep discussions professional and civil.
(Not trying to be offensive; sorry if I offended anyone.)
LOL
love the sig
lmao We are going to give wolfy a complex or a neurosis!!
BTW Concerning the debate about whether highlighting the special abilities of some autistics is a mistaken strategy, then my answer is: depends how it is done. If, as Lucas says, you use it to justify autistics being given equal treatment, then yes it should be a no-no. However, the fact that these special abilities are common, although not universal, is a useful fact to propagate because it shows that autism is far more complex than the devastating disability that it is often portrayed as. However, I think Lucas does have a point. In the articles I have seen in the mainstream press, there is an implicit division made between HFA and LFA autistics, and the danger might arise that such a division could become set in stone by the establishment. I think the Amanda Baggs of this world deserve our support in resisting 'cures' as much as the more high functioning, and we should resist such a division being made by anyone.
I really am not sure it is such a mistaken route to highlight the special abilities of some. Take for instance, the plight of black americans . they were prized for athletic abilities. While not all blacks did posses these, it helped (albiet in a negative fashion) for the economic empowerment of blacks and eventually helped put blacks on the path of being recognized as equals.
Lucas does make good and interesting points. But his viewpoint as shared with michelle dawson that only a few self apointed autistics can speak for all is simply unacceptable. Lucas was also rude and condencending to amy and gareth.
As far as Amanda Baggs. I think she shares that viewpoint. She does deserve respect and admiration for all she has done and endured. She is welcome here. But again all the overtures made to her have failed. That is all I am willingly to say publicly.
*SNIP*
particularly the high functioning varieties, *SNIP*.
Well that statement will draw thire of many including dawson, baggs and lucas. While I do think the distinction of high vs low is a bad one made by the medical community, there are Extremely low functioning that scream if touched or the slighest noise would send them into a rage. And those who cannot communicate at all or even understand the world around them.
But those ppeople most likely have other co morbid conditions like mental retardation
On the subject of making a distinction between HFA and LFA, I reject the idea of placing someone into either category based upon what appears to be that person's abilities. Instead I think if such a distinction needs to be made it should be from the autistic person's own opinions of what level of needs they have. My view is that every person is an individual, and every autistic person is unique and their own manifestations of autism is also unique, so it follows that drawing a line between HFA and LFA should never be done when talking about individuals apparent abilities. What's the point anyway? Such definitions only need to be made when determining needs. I think it's up to the individual autistic person to define themself and say what they need. And if the person does not have the communication ability to express such a thing then the most effective and ethical interventions and technologies should be applied to enable the person to communicate.
I quite agree. I'd like to see a complete overhaul of our current disability system, such that services would be based on individual needs and requests, rather than diagnostic categories and broad generalizations.
And with regard to Amanda Baggs, I think she's amazing. I have huge respect for her. She should write a book about her life.
Definitely. I work in the publishing industry, and if I were in a position to do so (unfortunately, I'm not), I would already have tried to sign her to a book contract.
This post, recently written by Amanda Baggs on another forum as part of a discussion of pointless rivalries and competition in the Internet autistic community, seems quite relevant to the discussion here:
Another thing I've seen at times (again dating back to when I first encountered the autistic community, and continuing onward to today) is people wanting to be the voice/leader of the autistic community, as if there is or should be only one voice/leader.
I should note that on all of these things, when someone's wrapped up in a quarrel about it sometimes it is only one person who's being competitive, and the other person is just trying to deflect the person who's being competitive. I've seen that, and also ones where both parties are competitive that way.
At any rate, I also think some part of this comes from the fact that we often have very little in the way of social status in real life, and many of us upon discovering a place where we do have one form of status or another, become afraid to lose it and take a lot of steps to preserve it even to the point of becoming completely irrational.
I will again repeat that I do not agree with AFF's policy of never breaking the law, ever ever ever.
well just in case amy forgets
:evil: :evil:
That will never ever change. go to Wrongplanet.net I hear there is a thread about organizing to committ violence