Aspies For Freedom

Great idea, Amy, and I agree with attention-tunnel that the word "cure" should not appear in the document, except in the context of an explanation that a "cure" would be equivalent to genocide.

As for the wording, we should be able to find legal precedent in the recognition of other dispersed minority groups such as, for example, the Roma (gypsies) who have been accorded legal protection by various European governments.

We should research how they made their case, what sort of evidence they presented, and what language was used in their declarations.

A few more thoughts:

We'll have to document and footnote all assertions of fact made in the declaration.  Also, we're going to need expert testimony in support of the claim that AS/autism is an inherited genetic difference, not a disease.  (Maybe Baron-Cohen or Attwood could be persuaded to give a statement?)

It may be preferable to use the term "Aspergian" to describe our population, for the same reason Edan chose it: because it sounds like an ethnic minority, whereas "autism" sounds like a medical condition.  (We definitely don't need the X-Men mutant nonsense, though.)  If we go this route, we'll have to add a definitional paragraph explaining that the Aspergian population includes all people perceived as being on the autistic spectrum, not just those with Asperger's syndrome.

I wouldn't use the word "spectrum" anywhere else in the declaration because of its medical connotations.  Racial minorities don't describe themselves as being on a spectrum, after all.

They keep changing the definitions constantly.  The asperger's diagnosis may vanish entirely, who knows?  My main point is that we have to define ourselves, rather than letting the psychologists do it.  I don't want to exclude anyone, but I think it's possible to use "Aspergian" while making it clear that we mean to include all autistics.

No matter what we do with the word "autism," it's going to be like gays trying to attach positive meanings to "queer."  Too much negativity, too many stereotypes.

I don't disagree that clarity and communication are important, but as long as autism is defined as a mental disorder, that's the image people will get when we use the word.

It's a psychological term -- "autism spectrum disorder."  By using their language, it looks as if we're conceding that we are disordered.

Some people have tried to use it positively.  There's one group called "Queer Nation," and of course there's the famous slogan, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

But I agree with you that it didn't work well, and that's my point.  Most people think "***" when they hear "autism."  Yes, that's an ignorant stereotype, but it's very difficult to reclaim a word with so many negative images attached to it.

Hmm... As an Autie of color dealing with ethnic and cultural issues/identity, the idea of Autistics as a minority group makes my head spin even more! Now I'm a *double* minority?  
   So if autistics *were* a minority, would we be a racial, social (like gays), cultural/paradigmal (like Jews), disabled (like Deaf people) or some other type of minority group altogether?
   I have HFA rather than AS, so I feel that Autistic is a more appropriate word than 'Aspergian'. Besides, what's wrong with being ***? I've been described as 'borderline ***' since my IQ generally oscillates between 80 and 90 on the Binet exam, which skews higher. My IQ would be around 75-85 on another test. '***' is an insult to those of us who are lacking in what the NTs term 'intelligence'.
    Many African-Americans have reclaimed the 'N Word' to remove much of it's harshness. The N word is currently used in hip-hop music as a colloquialism for friend or fellow man.
    Autistic doesn't have HALF as many negative connotations as the N word does. Besides, we ARE autistic. Aspies ARE autistic. It comes from the Greek word 'autos', which means self. Rejecting the word Autistic means rejecting yourSELF. We're autistic and we are sure as hell not ashamed of it!!!!

Racial, I'd say, because of the genetic difference.  (Of course, the same could be said of hereditary deafness, but autism isn't necessarily disabling.)

It's another category that society uses to justify throwing away people who are different.      I wouldn't use the word "***" to describe anyone because I don't believe a person can be reduced to a number on a test.

Many people didn't want to reject the word Negro in favor of Black or African-American because they looked at the issue that way.

As I see it, there isn't any shame or self-rejection involved in dumping that ugly old historical baggage.  Rather, it's a positive assertion of the right to define oneself.

Exactly.  We can define it any way we want.

I'd like to see Autistic and Aspergian used interchangeably, in much the same way that Black and African-American describe the same population.  Those who prefer the term African-American aren't trying to exclude people of color whose ancestors may have come primarily from places other than Africa; rather, they want to place society's focus on the cultural identity of their people, rather than the amount of pigment in their skin.

Similarly, I would prefer to use a new term that is perceived as referring to an ethnic minority with its own distinct culture, rather than a psychological diagnostic term that has been used for several decades as a wastebasket category.  I agree with Amy that we have to describe ourselves as Autistic for clarity because Aspergian is not commonly used at the present time, but there's no reason why both terms can't be used together.

Gwynfryn, I don't believe Amy was referring to psychological definitions, but to the importance of using consistent terminology (correct me if I'm wrong, Amy).

Racial minorities are legally defined in terms of cultural self-identification and, for the purpose of anti-discrimination laws, social perceptions.  All those apartheid-type laws that forced people into categories on the basis of their appearance or genealogy are past history, thankfully.

I think it's far too dangerous to use psychological terminology of any sort to define our population.  Although we're going to need psychological experts who are willing to testify that we're not diseased, we shouldn't adopt their descriptions as an official definition; by so doing, we would surrender the ability to define ourselves.

I think we need to focus strongly on the persecution aspect, with a long list of documented examples of discrimination and mistreatment from various countries.

No, our identity is not the diagnosis.  Our people existed for thousands of years, all over the world, before anyone got the idea of labeling us as "disordered."  The existence of the diagnosis, with the ugly stereotyping that results from it, is the reason why we need protection as a minority group, but it is not who we are.

It's possible to describe the Autistic/Aspergian population without using the "official" diagnostic criteria.  Edan did it on Aspergia.  Baron-Cohen and Attwood have also written articles in which they set forth "alternative" descriptions of Aspies:

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/713...bility.htm
http://www.thegraycenter.org/discovery_of.htm

I would also suggest describing some of our common traits in terms of family priorities, rather than individual behavior; this will give the impression of a multigenerational cultural difference.  For example, instead of saying that an autistic person is likely to prefer academic activities to social activities, we could say something like, "Our families historically have placed a strong emphasis on encouraging our children's academic interests."

I agree.  Gwynfryn mentioned that many traits of the autistic population are present in the general population to a lesser degree, but although that's technically true, it's not relevant to the civil rights issue.  That's like saying that everyone is a bit black because we all have pigment in our skin.

The current hodgepodge of diagnostic criteria isn't what I'd call precise either, and it's full of unnecessarily negative language.

Amy, we seem to be looking at this issue from diametrically opposed viewpoints.  I haven't been diagnosed, nor have I had "trouble being diagnosed."  I don't want to be diagnosed.  I consider myself very fortunate that my parents never allowed anyone to officially diagnose me.

As I see it, the autism diagnosis is just another form of apartheid dressed up in scientific terminology; it causes autistic children to be placed in segregated classrooms or institutions and to be told that they are incapable of succeeding in life, it causes autistic parents to lose custody in divorce cases or to have their children taken away by social service agencies--and if we don't fight it now, in every way we can, it's going to cause autistic babies to be routinely aborted.

To put it another way, the diagnosis is the equivalent of sewing yellow stars on our clothing.

Yes, bullying is a problem that needs to be addressed, but bullies have existed throughout history, they can often be avoided by changing jobs or schools, and we're not their only targets.  We need to separate these issues and get our priorities straight.  Official discrimination, such as the cases we've discussed recently of autistic children being sterilized or given electric shocks with the approval of the court system, is far more dangerous.

The psychological establishment has already classified us in general terms and gotten us "recognized" as mentally impaired.  

We need to be creative and put together a description of our population and culture that's comparable to descriptions of other minority groups.

I'll give it some thought over the next few days and post a sample description to illustrate what I have in mind.

As for the legal considerations, there's only a small number of lawyers with any experience in the area of international human rights law; it's a very specialized field.

Perhaps someone at the UN will be able to provide advice or to recommend qualified counsel.

I don't think that lady sounds like a troll; she's probably another lonely naive aspie who didn't understand the dangers of getting involved in relationships with abusive NTs.  

I agree with Stella that self-identification, as with other minorities, is the most reasonable way to go.

Yes, I've seen that, NT woman breaks up with AS guy and decides to start harassing people on aspie boards.

I don't think it happens very often, though, and usually trolls like that will lose interest pretty quickly.

Well they wont be so blunt. ( are bigots ever?) but theymight hate you for stimming/subvocalization lack of fine motor control etc