Aspies For Freedom

The author seems to argue that being less sociable gives us an advantage. While this may be true in some creative fields, it seems like more of a disadvantage in just regular, daily life to me.

I'm sorry, but just reading this post maked me want to crack a really bad joke, about how Aspergerus sounds like Asperagus. Woka Woka!

It is german/dutch for asparagus.

I had posted it before, but it's wise to post it again, I don't think many read it, and it's a really funny article  :grin:

Here it was, somewhere at the end:
http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/phpBB2/v...php?t=3638



bytheway - I need to seriously work again on my thesis at the moment so I'm sorry to anounce I will have to drastically limit my posting in here, but don't write me off, this little black marten will be back!!  

I thought the article was excellent. Thank you for letting us know about it, Futurilla and Crna_kuna. Ages ago we had a topic on this forum about which article would you recommend to a family member to read to educate them about AS, and I would be happy to recommend this article to NTs to inform them about my experience of AS. Even though I am not a huge fan of science fiction, like Gary Westfahl, there were quite a few important opinions and experiences in that article that I could strongly identify with, and Westfahl wrote it with skill and good humour.

Homo aspergerus: Evolution Stumbles Forward by Gary Westfahl

I've never liked the talk of "next step" evolution.  Calling aspergers a new species seems to say it is not human, and there are many who would interpret that as meaning "not deserving of human rights."  

For years they have wanted to take autistics and put them behind the walls of institutions, they've shut us away in special education, dumped us in group homes, all so that there can be as much separation between us and them.  In fact, it is only recently that individuals have NOT done this and society at large still supports it.  This even happen to asperger's autistics, it is not limited to Kanner syndrome in the least.  I've been called aspergian since a short time after I was Dx'd "Autistic disorder with speech" and my middle school psychologist told my mother that a time was coming when the only people who could control my behavior would be trained professionals in a group home.  I'm very lucky that advise was never taken.  

They say we are like animals, that we aren't fully human.  There is even a man in Canada whose forced institutionalisation was justified exactly that way--"He's like an animal, he isn't human, isn't homo sapiens.  We should lock him away."  

I don't know about you, but I do not want to become the poster boy for PETA.  I am not going to say "Animals are people so too" so that I can be treated with respect.  With less respect than a human.  I do not want to be painted as a radical when I say I have the same rights a normal human does.  

Furthermore, I find the label "Homo Aspergus" or variations thereupon to be insulting.  There are autistics who cannot and never will be called aspergian.  There are people called aspergians for the sole reason of their spoken language skills--otherwise, they meet the criterai for Kanner syndrome.  It's certainly nice that you have enough confidence in yourself to say "we're okay because we're homo aspergerus" but what about people whose speech and social disturbance is so great it disqualifies them?  Just too autistic for you?  Maybe Kannerites need to be cured to be more like aspergian subjects?  

You seem to be saying "we're okay, because we aren't like these other autistics."  I am unreservedly opposed to that sentiment.

Not only that, but there will be responses to those unjust things.  This idea is multiply very bad, and dangerous to our community

Sorry here, I can only reply "shortly", so I hope it'll come across understandable (don't wanna write an entire book online, but the matter is pretty complex :wink

I believe all sentient beings have rights according to their own nature and needs. That homo sapiens believes only humans have rights and other beings don't is not of my philosophical concern, I simply disagree with this idea (but I do understand your practical concerns!). The latter part: "according to their own nature and needs" is why the idea does attract me, also for autie-rights. Because if we are considered like all other human beings, they will not allow us to have rights like 'more clarity' or 'less social contacts at work' or 'less stress' etc. because of anything in our nature, they will always refer to it as a disability, because 'most (normal) human beings' (aka NTs) are supposed to be able to function without too much clarity and solitude etc. So I don't believe unless we clearly state our difference from them, on another basis than 'being a human with certain disabilities' we will have any rights on any other basis than our 'disabilities'. Whereas I believe, because I feel it like that, that I really have some needs necessary for my survival/health/happiness which other people don't have. And because of this, the fulfilment of those needs does NOT fall under human laws and never will. Simply because "humans aren't supposed to have those needs". But if we would be able to say "autistics have these needs so if you keep them from having these needs fulfilled, you are abusing the person" than we would have special rights for autistic people, but the rights would be better suited for us, than the "general human rights" which we can now ask for (those human rights often include things we don't need and exclude things we do need!)

The same counts for animals. Also in this way: fish have the right on water, birds have the right on sky, mammals have the right on land (~1). Living in the wrong environment is the same as living in a cage, the fulfilment of your natural needs is being limited. Like being trapped in a society which isn't meant for you to live in. I believe we are living in cages. Hence I feel the 'freedom' in AFF, is perfect for the feeling I have concerning how my life is now. It's like they have build this cage around me. They say I should be happy with things they have and do, but I am not, and I am not allowed to fulfill the needs I do have (and those needs btw do not include hurting or murdering others, so I am not asking for shockingly unlawful things!) - this is what is making me sick, not the autism or genetical difference itself - and the only reason I can find, is that I really am not the same animal as they are!! This is just how I feel it. But it's a personal feeling. You don't need to have the same feeling. We're all unique.

As for saying 'aspies are more evolutionary advanced' - I don't believe this, because I do not even believe homo sapiens is  evolutionary more advanced than any other species on planet earth. Another species is *different* and therefore *incomparable* and plus, superiority is based on values and values do not objectivily exist. So evolution doesn't work in making beings 'more advanced' at all! I know people like to think this way, but it isn't true. Dinosaurs were cool too, but they died out, not because they weren't advanced enough, but because the environment and external circumstances changed and then they couldn't cope with these changes so they died out. It doesn't mean they were too weak, it doesn't mean they were less advanced, it just means they ran out of luck. IMHO

Whenever you see a bird you see a being which has evolved from a dinosaur (because one dinosaur developed feathers and so on..). Are birds therefore more advanced than - or superior to - dinosaurs????

(~1) Note - this is a huge oversimplification, both in needs as well as in categories.

It's still pretty amusing, how when you put "us" at the end of Hans Asperger's last name, you get asperagus. It also does bring about the humourus idea that if Hans Asperger were represented in a cartoon, he could be called Dr. Asperagus and be a stalk of asperagus.

an alternative would be Homo Aspergianus (from Aspergia/Aspergian)

In Dutch asparagus = asperge (but you pronounce the vegetable asperge with a fricative 'g' as in French, eg the 'j' in jour) Here you go, the lovable vegetable asparagus (it has its own promotion site!): http://www.asperge.nl/

Then I have seen these spelling mistakes/options of asperger as well: Asburger and Asberger (as a person from/living in Asberg is called an Asberger, we might call our future community-town Asburg or Asberg, although Asberg already exists in both Germany and Austria. German Berg = mountain and Burg = castle)

Well, yeah I'd love to live in something like this Nürnberger Burg or Burg Eltz!  :wink:

As time goes by I'm getting more and more fed up with the terms "Asperger syndrome" and "Aspergers", for a number of reasons.

Firstly it makes a distinction between those autistics who fall under the category and those who may fit PDD-NOS or AD diagnostic categories instead, and such distinctions are often dubious or are made for dubious reasons. I don't even have any formal diagnosis, so what label should I wear?

Secondly, Aspergers is a disease name and is also someone else's surname. I don't feel that such terms are appropriate as a way to label myself. I have my own surname, and I'm not a disease, thank you very much! I have no qualms about being diagnosed with some syndrome name for any physical disease that I may have (in fact I've been medically diagnosed with some physical syndromes), but I heartily object to my mind and personality being given a disease label. That stinks. I wonder how people with Down's syndrome feel about the disease characterization that goes with their label?

Thirdly, no one seems to know how to pronounce "Aspergers" properly, and the name has silly associations like "asparagus" and "ass". NTs often whisper the word "Aspergers" like it is some shameful secret or a polite euphemism for something ugly, or something that one needs to be very sensitive about. It's just plain creepy.

I personally prefer to use the short and more dignified term "AS", or the broader term "autistic", which sounds a little more like a reference to characteristics than a disease name (compare it with the term "psychic"). The term "aspie" I can live with out of necessity.

I think the name of the article shouldn't be taken too seriously, as I don't think it was meant to be taken too seriously. I still think it was a great article.

actually, very true what you say! If anything, I have my own unique place somewhere on the spectrum. I usually think of myself as being autistic, sometimes I use the term aspie or autie, but I never say "I am asperger" because it sounds crappy and "I have aspergers" isn't about who I am, but about what I got, so it's just not right!

but I would still like to have an excuse to live in a Burg though.... :roll:

Maybe we should one day change the name of Aspies For Freedom into Auties For Freedom..?? it is only about changing two letters SP > UT which would be politically more correct and also logically more consistent, because it would then cover all individuals on the spectrum.

actually, maybe this is a good question for a poll....

Crna_kuna, you seem to have good intentions yourself, but the author of the article clearly does not think very highly of non-asperger autistics.  He says that aspergers syndrome is "labelled a form of autism" and usually the term "labelled" implies at least slight discomfort.  It doesn't have to, of course, but right after that he makes the statement that autism is a "Severe detachment from the world" which is untrue and unfair.

Calling it a subspecies, which is just another word for race, should have a lot fewer issues, but naming it after asperger syndrome just leaves too many people out.  There's atypical autism, MSDD, other forms of PDD-NOS as well as Autistic Disorder (Kanner syndrome, as I mentioned it earlier).  Some of these are less pronounced, some of them are exactly as pronounced (But with a few symptoms having nothing to do with how autistic they are, such as speech or cognitive delay) and some of them are much more pronounced.  But they are all arrays of autistic traits, and are all capable of worthwhile lives.  Not all are as able as Gary westfahl, certainly, but it should be noted that not all aspergians are as able as Gary Westfahl either.

The quote I was focusing on was "labelled as a form of autism, or severe detachment from the world."  Detachment, in the psycho-medicala context, implies lack of perception or interest, or lack of involvement, lack of ability to be involved, etc.  Not lack of obsession.  The implication, at least when most people make the statement, is that we are unreachable.  Maybe you and the author are both understanding it differently from me.   But it doesn't seem to make sense in the context you described, and I don't get why the word "severe" would be attached to it either.  

It's a difficult question--how do we really differ from normals?  Many autistics report forms of body language and socialization that are invisible to normal people, so even the greek root autos may turn out to be inadequate.  I don't think novus is good either, I believe that autistics have been around for millions of years, developing alongside regular humans, and there is good support for that assertion.  Even being less than a percent of a population the size of the US would take a while, if it were a mutation in one individual.  And by all accounts it's all over the world.  

Perhaps a combination of roots describing lack of mirroring, which does seem to be a defining characteristic (persistence of echolalia notwithstanding--echolalia is just one feature of a stage of language development, don't think it's related to mirror neuron functioning, and even if it is, the function of mirror neurons is much milder than in full blown neurotypical syndrome).  

I don't know enough latin, however, nor any greek, so I can't come up with a suitable term.  

Edit: Perhaps eccentricus would be an appropriate label?  It certainly covers reducement or lack of mirror neuron functioning.  [/edit]

I should stress, however, that we must retain the species name sapiens, to stress that we are the same species, and deserve the same condition of personhood.  As an (obviously crappy) example, I give Homo Sapiens Autistus for us, and Homo Sapiens Alius for NT's.  But instead of autistus, substitute whatever is more appropriate.  

We also need a term to distinguish autistic disorder from asperger syndrome without using the word disorder, nor the broad-spectrum word autistic.  That would clear up a lot of confusion when it's said that such and such a number of people is autistic, but still make the point that we are ALL autistic, whatever other stripes we might wear.  

I meant worthwhile to the person experiencing them.  Considering how we're treated, society can take a hike.

Yeah, I would go with the idea that we are a variant within the human species rather than a separate species.