Aspies For Freedom

I'm in two minds whether to contribute to this thread or not. I'm NT so possibly a debate about the meaning of APD is lost on me in a direct sense.

However, the nature of this debate to me, with my NT emotions is quite upsetting. And to be totally honest I can't see why.

I've read and re-read Joel Smith's piece a few times and I think he's right but I don't think he's referring to AFF or APD in any kind of negative way at all.

I read it as a worry that the meaning of what it is to be proud could be lost in a session of name-calling. Its a valid worry. To often, celebrations like this have veered off the main emotion of pride into nasty side avenues. Its easily done and I think its an important thing to raise. That said I didn't see anywhere where he referred to this having actually happened or even it being likely to happen - I certainly didn't see anything that laid any kind of blame on the shoulders of AFF at all. And neither did I see any reference to Mr Smith saying that AFF had created divisions between so called low and high functioning autistics. What I saw was a cautionary piece trying to push the message of value without bitterness or vindictiveness - towards NT's. As its something I've said on here before its only natural I should agree with it.

I'm very surprised that anyone could possibly feel that the New Scientist piece, discussing as it did for the first time in serious scientific literature the idea of acceptance rather than cure, could be in any way viewed as a negative thing. Even if one didn't think it was perfect, surely one can appreciate that every long journey has to start somewhere, with one step. Even if the only thing that comes from the NS piece is a slight widening of the debate then that is still a step in teh right direction and every step in theright direction takes us a step away from the wrong direction.

I know Lili

Its not that I'm concerned in that way, more that I can see Mr Smiths central point that its better to concentrate on the Pride rather than getting side tracked in bitterness. Thats assuming I've correctly interpretted his point of course.

I can understand that but I'm the sort of person who attaches more significance to the Ghandi/Martin Luther King style of protest. But thats just me

I completely agree  :smile:

I don't think Mr SMiths article was saying ther was such a feeling but that the potential existed for it to happen and it was better to guard against that rather than allow it to dictate APD.

Indeed  :smile: but IMO, there's a big difference between civil disobedience (which is what that is) and rioting.

Yes, well, AFAIK every single civil rights movement that has every existed has engaged in civil disobediance at some point, be it Ghandi, Martin Luther King & Rosa Parks, the Palestinians, the gay rights lobby, etc etc.

Which is why, at the risk of Amy coming out with her  :evil:  again, I will again repeat that I do not agree with AFF's policy of never breaking the law, ever ever ever. History has shown us that polite lobbying does not work. The suffragists were totally ignored until they became the suffragettes and started throwing themselves under horses and chaining themselves to the railings outside no. 10! Then they got the vote.

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.

Thats my point. Civil disobedience is a good, non-violent way to make a point. Rioting is not.

For years I lived basically as NT but having a lot of trouble with verbal communication (note: I can speak quite well, but can't always get my meaning across properly).

The diagnosis of Aspergers 2 years ago was a great relief to me and I wish it could have happened far earlier so my family and myself could have been spared a lot of grief. Generally speaking, others have been more understanding since my diagnosis because they knew something was the matter but couldn't explain what it was. I lost a couple of friends but they can't have been good friends anyway.

Maybe the situation is different in other countries, but AS is recognised as a disability in Australia and you are more likely to be able to receive assistance in some ways than if you don't have the diagnosis.

I don't know about other people, but I can live with being designated as a person with mild disabilities. It's better than continually being expected to do things that I can't do. eg. work in call centre type conditions. It also helps in understanding why some aspects of life were so difficult eg. planning and setting priorities.

The sad thing is that parents of children with autism often cannot get the extra help they need without first having a diagnosis for the child.
It can be extremely difficult to get that diagnosis though, and that is why I think there should be more funding to provide proper training for doctors in detecting autism, particularly the high functioning varieties, and less for prenatal testing.

"breaking the law" != "organizing to committ violence"

It's against the law to obstruct another person from proceeding along the highway, such as has been done by protesters at Faslane, or police at Sterling.  For some strange reason, society seems to accept the latter while condemning the former.

Quite - when I talk about breaking the law or direct action I am not talking about violence. Let us not forget that the civil rights movement in the USA began when one woman - Rosa Parks - deliberately broke the law by sitting in the whites only section of a bus. Does anyone here believe that such an act is indefensible?

However, I must say that on reflection I am not convinced that militant protest against groups like CAN or NAAR is useful at this time. It is likely that such organisations are well-intentioned, and we should be seeking to engage them in public debate more than anything else.

I also believe we should find ways of becoming more media savvy and knowing how to get publicity for our cause. This is the no.1 priority at the moment methinks!

Lili Marlene, you said "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 do define myself and say what I need but people don't often listen. I don't know how much is a communication thing and how much it is that listening skills are not so much in evidence these days due to the hurried pace of modern life.

Can you elaborate on what kind of ethical interventions and technologies should be applied to enable the person to communicate? I can see that a person who doesn't speak could use a letter-board or write. I don't need those things most times, but when upset, I find it much easier to put things in writing. Sometimes I wonder what I can do to get other people to listen.

I don't know if you're saying that I'm overgeneralising but if you are, I don't think that I am.