Aspies For Freedom

Well, amy you've put alot of work into this! But i must say that there are always consequences about 'sending the letter to the UN'. Think about it? It means that a gouvernment has to accept people on the autistic spectrum, as a minority group, with the privileges tied to it. That means that there is a right to gather in groups, building a community having subsidies from the gouvernment. Won't some people find this bulloks (sp?)? Wont our mister Cohen, the major, laugh reading the letter? I think NT wil think that AS is a mental disorder, but after reading the letter, maybe NT wil think AS as a mental retardness or whatever...
THink about it, why should they care anyway? People on the autistic spectrum are firstly diagnosed and accepted as 'different' by psichiatrist. Nt's will first start investigating this 'ASforFreedom' by gathering information by psychiatrist, who probably would say that it's an (uit de hand gelopen) hobby of some repetitive OCD patient, so it should be ignored?

And btw, there are mayor differences between declaring an ethnic community and declaring the existence of an autistic minority. It's really nonsence to make comparisons between countries like, in Indonesie (ambon, timor, atjeh...), Tibet, Sri lanka. The minorities living in the countries are indeed fighting for freedom of 'repression', but they are also trying to achieve indepedence. The majority, like Indonesie, should stay away from the minority group and their indigious LAND. Aspergia is a beautiful place...

I have a problem with declaring ourselves specifically a minority.  The way in which we are discriminated against parallels the way other disabled people are discriminated against (many autistic people have prejudices which don't seem to allow them to see that).  I think it is important to focus on that we all need this protection, not just one tiny subgroup of disabled people, but all disabled people.  (If people want to get snobbish about whether autism is "a disability" or not, all I can say is that in my country I'm currently dealing with life and death issues for all disabled people and that fighting specifically for autistic people's international-law rights at this point and leaving out other disability groups in the process seems incredibly short-sighted and narrow-minded.  I don't care what terminology any individuals use but autistic people had better be covered under disability law or there will be enormous problems.)

(This is a reply to both replies to my post)

There already is a disability rights movement, internationally.  It would be infinitely easier to get disabled people considered a valid minority (and then hash out the details of autism later if need be) than to get autistic people in particular considered a valid minority (and then one by one get everyone else's specific individual little special minority within a minority group hashed out).

Disabled people -- doesn't matter which category we're in -- in the USA are facing all kinds of cutbacks right now.  Ones that will likely kill a lot of us.  You guys may talk about PC and about not having time for stuff, but we don't have time to sit around and wait for each single group to be recognized under international law.  It's like saying "We'll work for people with athetoid cerebral palsy first, and then maybe the rest of you later."  I'm not talking PC anything, I'm talking about life and death in the here and now.  There are people right now who need the protection of international law (because our national law sure ain't going to do it) and there's no way on earth I'm going to sit around and argue for only a small portion of those people.

If I seem impatient or irritated, maybe it's because right now there's a crisis going on that may threaten my own life soon and I can't afford to be narrow about it.  I and others in my country don't have time to wait around for every possible little grouping of disabled (or seemingly disabled) people to be separately listened to internationally.  I am sure there are other countries around the world where people similarly don't have time to wait.  If you want to do at least the autistic people in my country a favor in terms of international law, push for a law that includes us and other disabled people as well, it's likely to pass faster and save more of us and autistics won't be left out as some special case (remember we are considered disabled most places).

Moreover, If you're thinking internationally you have to understand the scale of things and the cultural differences.

There is no international protection for, for instance, black people in particular (who are discriminated against in my country and some others).  There is protection for racial and ethnic minorities.

There is no international protection for Jewish people in particular (who are discriminated against in my country and some others).  There is protection against discrimination based on religion or creed (and also in that case ethnic minorities).

Do you see what I'm getting at?  If you want to have protection for autistic people, it has to be statable in more general terms, and that would be something like "discrimination based on actual, implied, or perceived mental, emotional, cognitive, or physical disability" or something like that.  That protects autistic people and also other disabled people (including people who are disabled in some cultures and not others).  Saying "I just want protection for autistic people and we can get to other people later" is not "un-PC" (the whole "PC" thing seems to be just a good way of writing off an opinion rather than actually refuting it), it's like asking specifically for protection of black people or Irish immigrants or Jewish people or Catholic people or something.  It doesn't fit the pattern of international human rights law.

Why would it take more time to say that as autistic people we are one among many groups who wants disability added to international human rights law?  It doesn't take researching anything outside the autistic community.  It is far more likely to work than pushing for one little narrow group, especially since there's already people working to get the UN to recognize disability and all you'd have to do is add your voice to theirs.  You can help shape how the disability-related law is worded so that it will be understood to be inclusive of things like autism if you want.  You can still stay within your narrow group that you have time for, while pushing for the inclusion of disability.  And it's way more likely to work.  

If you want to only work from autism, then you can still add the autistic community's voice to the disability community's voice from the point of view of the autistic community, rather than wanting some totally separate and special provision for us.  Just as I'm aware that racial minorities you may not have even heard of (because they don't exist as racial minorities in the UK or the US) have added their voice to a general international concern on racism and discrimination/genocide based on ethnic identity, while still speaking from their experience as whatever racial minority they happen to have come from.

Gwynfryn wrote

Anbuend seems to have disappeared from this forum all of a sudden. I wonder why? Did she go to the same place that the thread that followed on from this one when it was locked disapeared to?

I'm glad that this thread is now unlocked so that comments can be added. It just worries me that things and people seem to be going missing rather a lot lately, I thought this was a pretty good forum in which weird stuff like that didn't happen.

If you don't allow "argument" here, this won't be a discussion forum, it will be an infomercial for an interest group.

I agree with a lot of what Stella wrote, but if we ignore the issue of the etiology and nature of AS, how do we counter accusations that we are incapable of being adequate parents or making our own decisions or forming valid opinions because we are too intellectually disabled or mentally ill to do such things? These labels of "intellectually disabled" and "mentally ill" cannot be ignored.

And if we ignore the issue of defining what AS is the disruptive problem of people claiming to be AS accusing others claiming to be AS of not being "true aspies" or autistic at all comes up time and time again. Neglect of the issue of defining AS also allows NTs to be able to discredit what any aspie has to say about AS by saying that aspie is too intelligent or well adapted or articulate or popular or physically coordinated to be autistic or representative of most people with AS or autism.

Stella wrote

I have been in many an argument defending the idea of self-identification. I like the idea because I don't think I would get a diagnosis if I sought one and I don't believe I am mentally ill or *** so I refuse to submit to official labelling as a mentally ill or *** person, which is the official majority view of AS.

I agree with most of what you write, but I am concerned that you seem to regard autistic people (or people who only think they are?) who can "fend for themselves" as only identifying with the struggle but not struggling themselves. I think a person with AS can be fully capable of "fending for themselves", but still have a huge struggle to face, because their problem is more one of bullying and discrimination than their own lack of ability. You have probably read about my complaint that a past supervisor once criticised me for having a look on my face that he did not like, but he made no criticism of the standard of my work or my abilities. I see that as a plain case of discrimination rather than disability, analogous of a hypothetical situation in which an effeminate guy who can do the job well is told off by his boss because his boss does not like the guy's image.

This too might seem like hairsplitting detail, but people have to be made to realise that so called "disabilities" can simply disappear when the environment or expectations change in a minor trivial way.

another quote from Stella

On the internet you can claim to be anything that you like, but people who know you IRL might never know about it, so I don't think there is anything stopping some imposter from making mischief online. Whenever someone advocates the services of some pharmaceutical or health professional I become wary of possible commercial interests. I wouldn't be surprised if there were NTs out there who have a grudge against people on the spectrum because they were in a bad relationship with someone on the spectrum once, and maybe they might try to make mischief. A lot of the stuff written on web sites about NT/AS relationships has this kind of rancourous and defamatory tone about it.

Simply declaring ourselves as a separate group of people as NTs would educate many people who think we are just the same as they are deep down, but in need of re-education.

If you want rights you firstly have to ask for them, make a declaration, otherwise the assumption is that you are incapable or not disadvantaged.

Stella wrote

This is a very radical idea indeed. So many people have worked and argued hard to kill the idea of race or as a meaningful division between human groups, and now we come along and demand to be recognised as a different kind of human (is that what we are demanding?), and to put the icing on the cake we assert that our difference is a good thing. I love it!

I can think of at least one autistic writer who seems to want to be recognised by NTs "on the basis of shared human attributes", so I doubt that all autistics and aspies desire recognition as autistics.

I'd just like to say that Roderick's idea of defining ourselves as a neurological minority makes so much sense to me. It is a definition that has the best fit. It cuts to the central issue. It isn't a sloppy, baggy definition or one that leaves people out.

As you all probably know I think there are some values that tend to go along with the autistic way of thinking, and the idea of autism/AS being a culture fits with the idea of aspie values nicely, but I also believe aspies have the choice as individuals open to them to varying degrees to adopt the value system of the dominant culture, so that leaves you with two groups of aspies, one that fits the cultural definition and one that does not. It's the same kind of situation as an Aboriginal kid who has been adopted out to a white family and has the same culture and values as their adopted family. Is that kid still Aboriginal? Not by a cultural definition, I would assume.

Another thing that I'd like to say about the idea of neurological minority. Autistics aren't the only neurological minority by any means. I believe there are so many different rare neurological minorities that no one knows how many there really are. It's not like we'd have to invent some new way of thinking about difference. It's surely obvious that there are many ways that people are neurologically different to the norm.

M wrote

I agree with this point mostly. I've made pretty much the same point myself in the past. The only bit that I don't agree with is the distinction that you made between being self-defined and self-diagnosed. I have no plans to seek a formal diagnosis and I doubt that I would get one if I tried. I don't regard myself as disabled, just discriminated against.

Even though I don't regard it as a big issue if an aspie is not formally diagnosed, that doesn't mean I have a casual attitude about diagnosis and self-diagnosis. I don't see any reason why an intelligent person cannot do the many autism-related tests that are available, and objectively consider their own life experiences, and make their own valid decision about whether they are on the autistic spectrum. I've heard so many stories about professionals making misdagnoses, so I don't believe we have to always be beholden to their authority.

The idea that one should need any formal diagnosis to belong to any aspie community is absurd. Do gay or lesbian people need to show someone a letter of referral from a doctor or a psychiatrist to join their communities? I don't think so! If it looks like a duck and it acts like a duck, it's a duck!

Another quote

I believe that unpalatable truth is that being able to trust people is a big issue for aspies because NTs behave in particularly untrustworthy ways towards us specifically, because they generally do not find us very likeable. I believe it is a sad fact that it is the aspies who are the least in touch with people around them who are the most likely to alienate others, be the subject of prejudicial treatment, and are also the least likely to realise when people have a bad attitude towards them.

I deal with the issue of trust by minimising my dealings with the kind of people who I think are the least trustworthy or who I don't get along with. I judge people by their actions, and I regard almost all people as having the potential to be arseholes or backstabbers.

tenaciouscj@hotmail.com wrote

I'm glad that disclosing that you have AS has helped you in one respect at work. You have an official diagnosis?

The question about getting someone to make a diagnosis is not applicable to me as I have no intention of seeking any diagnosis, and to my knowledge none of the other aspies who I know in real life will even admit what we are to anyone outside of our circle, let alone seek a diagnosis. We are of the opinion that we would lose legal rights, be made more vulnerable to discrimination and generally lose credibility if we got a diagnosis. I personally think you'd be mad to disclose that you have AS if you were seeking medical treatment for infertility or were involved in a legal dispute.

Another quote

I've found that some doctors are not very reliable or trustworthy. I've never heard a good story about any therapist, but I've heard one horror story recently from a friend.

Your difficulties at work couldn't have been solved by being placed in a job that is appropriate for your abilities and psychological type? I just don't understand why a large govt department should insist that an employee do a particular job that they as an individual have great problems doing. It just seems like common sense to me to fit the employee to the job. If an employers refuse to make such a minor concession, to any employee, I believe they should be held accountable for their inflexibility.

I've worked in quite a few workplaces in my time, and I recall that in some workplaces, males were not expected to do the full range of duties that were expected of females in a identical position. Males were not expected to have to deal with job duties that involved dealing with children, I think because of a sexist assumption that males are no good with kids, or would feel silly doing such duties. This was a classic example of an employer thinking they are fitting the employee to the job, but based upon sexist assumptions. Does this mean that the male employees were thought by the employer to have some kind of empathy disability?

It's interesting to read about your experiences, Tenaciouscj. When I think about it it is quite striking how many of the aspies or aspie trait people who I know have at some time worked at some level of Australian government, myself included. All but one has left the public service following some bad experiences.