Amy your link doesnt work!!!

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.

no, it's like gays trying to get positive meanings to the word gay

queer is the homosexual equivalent of "retard"

let's remove the word disorder then

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 "retard" 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.

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 "retarded" 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.

What are u talking about?

and who are DSM ASPIE who is not autistic? tell me who are u talking about?

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.

That's my exact point!!! Autism has nothing to do with retardation. Most of the brightest and most able people are highly autistic. So why are you guys trying to insist it's the same thing. I'm not trying to undermine unity, I'm just trying to promote clarity.

I'm fully aware of how most, even within the medical profession, are misusing this word, but why must we do the same?

Gareth, to say you are autistic is essentially meaningless, every one has autism as a component of their innate personality. How much it manifests is a question of how dominant (or not) it is. Autism is not caused by brain damage. A lot of the problems now considered "autistic" clearly are caused by such, due to oxygen deprivation or physical trauma (or maybe even mercury poisoning etc?). They have nothing to do with the classic understanding of autism.

This distinction isn't difficult to grasp so what is the big problem?

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/7138/lobby/disability.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.

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.

I do agree on that, people are more likely accept all disabilities (including those on the Autism Spectrum) as a valid minority than one smaller group and if there is already a movement towards it, why not go with something that is already established, it decreases the footwork first and foremost and the whole thing doesn't fall on an 'individual's back. Once the building blocks are there, than add the individual smaller groups, because then you'll have an established acceptance in place as far as laws and such to place autism as well as any other disability group that would so chose to do later. This is from just a simple common sense point of view, once a generalized standard is in place, it makes it easier to add more specific standards in place than work from nothing to get to that point. This is just simple sense that works for any case situation out there, as someone once used as a quote. "Rome wasn't built in a day." Neither is a disability movement towards being a minority or an autistic/aspie minority. In order to be truly a minority, you need to reach more than those that you can online to get a truly reflective agreement on the desire to be a minority.

I have to agree on that and many other points anbuend has made as it al is simple common sense.

I think being a minority is opposite to being disabled. The point about being recognized as a minority is to say that autism spectrum is a different people than neurotypicals. It is not a definition of being sick, disabled, disordered or anything alike. It's about diversity of people, its about human evolution, and its about diversity of minds. Autism simply does not compare to disabilites. On the other hand, I could image other 'mental illness' or 'mental disorders'' to be wrongly labeled so and also qualify for evolution theory based explenations. The point here is to maximise accomodation and support to benefit from the different dispositions people have, to give them a chance to contribute to society on their own terms, and let peopel exits the way they are in peace. Let them live the ways the want without such an urge to social leveling. If there are problems, we have to organise and come up with our won solutions to the challanges we face, and being recognised as a minory groupd can help that process.

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.

Well end of the line for me, I think; I couldn't quite follow your post Stella, but I'll read it again, so hello! And if the ASman thinks you make sense, then  I suspect I will to (but with reservations of course; us Aspies are such independant types!).

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.

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 retarded so I refuse to submit to official labelling as a mentally ill or retarded 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.

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.

Yes, it's entirely realistic.  As Amy mentioned, in one of her e-mail conversations with Simon Baron-Cohen, he disagreed with the idea of calling autistics a minority race... of course, he wouldn't get any funding to do amniocentesis studies on a minority race...

i disagree - it's about equality of opportunity, and THAT is where huge strides can be made in making the world more "aspie-friendly".  and it starts with education, as do most such things.

as an example, look at people with epilepsy.  they used to be incarcarated in lunatic asylums, until people realised they weren't "mad", and treatment became available for them.  as a teacher, i am well aware of what to do in the case of a child having an epileptic seizure ("fit"), as are most teachers - education about epilepsy has worked.

and, contrary to people here and on other boards, i really don't believe that NTs have any particular agenda against aspies specifically - most don't even know what ASD is all about, but then they don't know about what it's like to have CP, HI, depression, infertility, etc., etc., either.  anyone who doesn't fit into people's nice, comfortable little scheme of how people should be causes fear and a feeling of threat, the threat of the unknown.

education is the key.

we live in a world set up for NTs.  people with VI and HI and physical disabilities live in a world predominantly set up for the able-bodied.  concessions have been made to provide disability access, through education and then legislation.  but consider this - disability access might mean installing very bright lighting in, for example, shopping centres, for people with VI.  this would be torture for some aspies, myself included.  what does one choose to do in this instance?  who comes first - the person with VI or the person with ASD?  decsions are made for the majority (or, most likely, for the majority with the most political clout as voters ).

the three-step process is one which tends to work - problem, solution, strategy.  in this case, it would be:

1.  this is what it's like to have ASD, and these are the diffiiculties we face.
2.  this is what we'd like to be different.
3.  this is how it could be done.

and THEN, the negotiations, start...

just thought i'd chuck in my considered thoughts, based on my experiences in fighting "political" and social causes , incidentally (several decades worth).

yes it is

I believe I answered many of questions.  What other questions DO you have?

It  IS a questions of rights! look at ABA where children are given aversives and treated like the prisoners at ABU Ghraib. They called that a human rights abuse and issue. So why doesnt the same logic apply to ABA?

that is truly the fundamental Question.

perhaps someone could take the points one by one for me.  thank you.

Stella

I read your posts and I get all misty in the eyes.

So true stella.

i still disagree.  every child and adult has a RIGHT to an education.  however, certainly in this country (the UK) and, from what i hear on this and other forums, in many other countries, children and adults with ASD do not have equality of access (i.e. opportunity) to this education.  in other words, the system is geared towards NTs, and what support there is for people with ASD is difficult to come by, and exhausting for those who have to fight for it.

another point is that other minority groups may be "tolerated" (ghastly word), or even "understood" or celebrated - i'm thinking again of how multiculturalism can work and be a marvellous educational tool in schools etc. - but when push comes to shove, the cultural customs, or whatever else you want to call them, of ethnic/cultural minorities have to work within the framework of the country in which they exist, and the laws of that country, their environment, in other words.  i'm not saying that aspies should just sit back and take whatever *** is dumped on them, btw, just trying to be pragmatic, and look at how present systems actually operate, at this time.  maybe that's where the focus should be.  i utterly disagree with the edcuation system in the UK, which is why i work within it - change from within.

sorry to harp on about education only - i could cite other examples, but don't want  this to be a very, very long post.

AND i want to say that i am not against the whole idea of aspies as a formal minority group - just trying to iron out the wrinkles in my own mind, about the pragmatics of the modus operandi.

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.

It is, though, you know.  Unless your definition of 'blindness' is so narrow as not to include anyone who can, say, perceive light from dark, then colourblindness is on the spectrum and people who have it are partly blind--they can't perceive certain colors that 'normal' people can.

Think about this

Do people who are deaf, blind , or stutter have a different neurology? are their brains structured differently  than the norm as ours is? Do they have different way of relating socially? DO they lack theory of mind?

What does that have to do with the issue?  

And some do have a different neurology, yes (in the case of the blind, I believe recent evidence is that most do).  And all have a different way of relating socially, yes.  

'Lack theory of mind'?  What does that mean in this context?

So what?  What makes that more important for taxonomy than something else?

Worth noting too that the DSM is only one definition of AS, and bears little relation to Wings description (and even less to what Asperger himself described) so when arguing such issues, it would be well to clarify which brand of AS we are using?

Some will say I don't qualify as my "disorders" are subclinical? Yet it's clear I and my kind don't think as NT's do, and that I have the core issues Asperger described, so what am I? If Wing can broaden her definition (and resolutely downmarket, as far as intelligence and morbidities are concerned, so why isn't it called Wing's syndrome?) beyond what Asperger observed, then what's wrong with opening the definition out in the other direction, to include us NeuroAtypical, but generally competent and self reliant types?

We all suffer from discrimination and prejudice, the distaste the movers and shakers have for anyone different, and in some ways this is more true for us "invisible" Aspies. To be different is bad enough in their eyes, but to be different and smarter/more capable is also a threat!

This has crossed my mind before... the stubbornness with which Schafer perseveres against high-functioning autistics, and refuses to even acknowledge any evidence that highlights his at times gross mistakes and illogicity of his arguments, could well be seen as a very "typical" trait. (i.e. "ability to pursue personal theory or perspective despite conflicting evidence" as Attwood and Gray put it)

A lot of what he writes sounds more like someone with a grudge at not getting a diagnosis - and hence starting a "cruisade" against those who have, or are confident in their self-diagnosis - than like someone interested or knowledgeable in the area of autism  :roll:

  This theory appears on Aspie sites too (and many have a touching faith in the value of diagnoses, but many of us have spent a lifetime seeing through the majority of experts, and would prefer to make our own diagnosis; who's better qualified, the NT who's covered the subject on his college course, or the person who's walked the walk, who has been forced by experience to acknowledge his/her difference and consequently, having first heard of AS, then studied the subject at multiple levels and opinions, and observed by direct comparison what applies to him or her?).

Happily, classical "autism", understood as an aspect of human temperament, can be tested directly and objectively; such a test is at least as relevant as any grab bag definition the DSM can come up with.

Believe me, I empathise with the pain and the lack of self-confidence that results!  However, I think if we try to use a Social Model for disability then just about EVERYONE is disabled under that definition!!  It gets to be so complicated, with so many fine distinctions, that it seems to me we'd be mired down forever debating semantics.

I prefer the cultural distinction because (a) it "works" for me; and (b) developed nations (and even developing nations) recognise cultural majorities and minorities.  In the States, and in many developed nations, it is easier to fight discrimination on the basis of culture, creed and race than on differing levels of ability.  

Using the cultural model, one can assert one's rights and protections using the framework of an existing societal paradigm rather than trying to force an NT world to acquire a paradigm that is most likely isn't capable of acquiring, and then expecting it to use that paradigm and move within it proficiently.

Just thoughts...

Roderick,

In my personal experience the NT world is incapable of accepting the idea that there are neurological minorities as a function of their neurotypicality; by definition, their neurotypicality prevents their understanding of the neurological minorities that are patently obvious to us.  

In the NT mind, neurological differences = neurological deficiencies.  To an NT, those with neurological differences are DISabled, rather than DIFFERENTLYabled; DEficient rather than PROficient.  

If you are a native English speaker in China, you're not disabled.  You're just at a cultural and socio-linguistic disadvantage.  The same is true of Aspies/Auties in an NT world.  

I personally don't want to be labeled as disabled; however, I don't want to be discriminated against because of my neuro-differences.  I want equal rights under the law as a minority group without judgement being passed on my "ability".

You mentioned the hetero/homosexual divide and the acceptance of sexual minorities by the sexual majority.  Homosexuals may have been the target of discrimination (and still are, I know); however, nobody ever viewed them as mentally deficient because of their sexual orientation. No one ever doubted or discounted the potential for intellectual or social contributions of homosexuals, even when they were discriminated against because of moral/societal judgements.

Yes, it is absolutely our neurology that makes us different.  However, to my view we live on a planet that is not *yet* capable of recognising the equality of neurodifferences.  It's a bit like landing with a human spouse and procreative mate on a planet where reproduction occurs via the touching together of earlobes...they just wouldn't be able to grasp that our method of reproduction is right, let along the zing we get from it  :wink:

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

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.

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.

Are you being forced to take medication when they think you are psychotic? Do you have the legal right to not take these drugs? If you have been misdiagnosed as psychotic, I think you really need to try to get that misdiagnosis changed, because that diagnosis has important implications.

Have you seen this web site before?
Autistic People Against Neuroleptic Abuse (APANA)
http://www.dinahm.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Excuse me if you have disclosed this before, but have you been officially diagnosed as autistic, or are your doctors just vague and indecisive about this diagnosis? It sounds like you are in the care of people who have inadequate knowledge of autism/AS, which is inexcusable when you consider that New Zealand is an affluent and developed country.

Take care, Becca.

I have no doubt that there are heaps of jobs in which aspies would be competitive or superior workers. But how do you actually win any job if you not capable of giving the interviewers a warm and fuzzy feeling during a job interview? You have got to do that to get the job, it doesn't matter how qualified you are.

And how do you keep the job and avoid being resented and treated strangely or bullied by others at work if you can't or won't play all the social games that go on in workplaces, and don't want to befriend your work colleagues or supervisors? I once had to leave a job after things went pear-shaped after I failed to respond to attempts to start a friendship by a female supervisor. Just because "Being the bosses' friend" and "Being friendly with colleagues during breaks and after-work social functions" are not items written in duty statements, that still doesn't mean these are not essential requirements of most jobs.

Pardon me for being skeptical.  Projecting ahead a couple of decades, I'm imagining there will be many sets of Venn diagrams to illustrate differences in gene expression levels between autistics and non-autistics and/or different sequence variations in some genes between autistics and non-autistics and/or different epigenetic modifications of genes between autistics and non-autistics and that there will be no Venn diagrams that clearly and unequivocally separate autistics from non-autistics. That's my prediction.  It's also possible that there could be reconceptions about what being an autistic person means.

I like possibility C.  I suspect I belong to some as-yet-undefined subtype myself.  

An interesting point that a television programme would presume to 'explain' anything much about such a controversial area of discussion as 'race'. It sounds very much like a propaganda piece that is parroting the orthodox pieties of the moment rather than explaining anything terribly much.

How far back did the History Lesson go? Did it concentrate on one very narrow slice of history, or did it discuss many thousands of years, in order to showcase the underlying realities of exclusionary practice in human nature and history? Did the programme attempt to go beyond the cosy binary divide of Black Vs White, or did it also explore the equally vicious and reprehensible exclusionary practices within both Black and White groups of people?

It is tempting to stifle debate by asserting that "The Differences Within 'The Races' Are At Least Equal To Or Probably Exceed The Differences Between 'The Races' Therefore Demarcation Along Arbitrary Socially Constructed Conceptions Of Race Based On Wholly Superficial Criteria Is Meaningless", but that is a Creedal Shibboleth that is sometimes challenged by people working in the field of Evolutonary Biology and allied fields, who are perhaps better qualified to make pronouncements on the subject than half-educated hacks working in the mainstream media. Of course, those scientists who do challenge the cosy certainties of the Creedal Shibboleths are likely to find themselves discredited, disgraced and driven forth from the Academy.

It would seem that the "Long march through the Institutions" is almost complete. On the other hand, there is always work to be done, because dissidents and dissenters can be found wherever one cares to look for them.

I fully agree! (but your spelling isn't perfect).

This seems to make sense, as it doese fit the description of what a cultureal minority is, Amy.  wiht luck, and auld father time, we may be victorious someday.

*sniff sniff*
Do i detect a whiff of Troll Sweat®?

...I must say, as a member of the of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning and Queer Community, I totally agree.

Respect as every majority people should get not minority. This to clearify what I meant.

i think someone has forgotten that we are not all in the states...

I know some of you guy live in UK and other countries. However, my viewpoint is very universal beside the Bill of Right which is for US only.

True, it's more correct to say "not always disabling". There's certainly a lot we can gain from looking at the disability movement - like dealing with prejudice, and avoiding "pity" images.

You forgot Intersexed.

  Im with the no's on this one....It's hard enough to live on this alien world without bringing more attention to ourselves...
seriously....that would make us seem like we feel sorry for ourselves and I know the majority of us feel the opposite.

You prefer that it be legal to discriminate against autistics? Or you just think that it should be legal to discriminate only against the non-disabled ones?

The same, except not everyone on the spectrum is disabled - therefore such laws offer no protection.

Prove it - we in fact are already are a minority, having legal recognition of that fact will not change anything in this sense.

Except there are no current laws which protect autistics.

I agree with you on that. The best way to gain acceptance is to show the world what we are capable of doing things without having trying to declare ourselves as a minority group. The definination of a minority group is a group that does not receive much power due to both legal and societial restrictions. Changing the law and getting accessible places is one thing, but changing attutudes is a whole different story.

The way that I working on autism acceptance is taking a page of the LGBT movement, have allies. The ally can say "I know this person and this person is autistic, but I accept him/her as he/she is." I consider my friend Jimmy an autism ally and I am pretty sure that he consider me an LGBT ally because I stick up for him when someone calls him the degratory terms dealing with the LGBT community.

No, it wasn't. Please do not make false accusations.

When was the last time someone legally refused to hire someone on the basis of their sexual orientation?
Answer that question, then answer this one: "why?"

If you do that, you'll understand why minority group status is a good idea.

Hey Zach
I live in Phila PA
I was fired from a job because my co-workers thought I was geeky and didn't socialize with them during lulls in work.

I am a hospital employee and I do very well with the patients, but that is a learned response.
I took this to EEOC and got nowhere.

Sue

I can figure British English out.....  Although I would not have known that British billion means one million million (or American trillion) unless I had read it (American billion is British one thousand million)

Nor would I have understood the differential meanings of "table" a motion during a meeting of WWII Allies if I had not heard Churchill's anecdote

* * * *

The thought of natural allies had long since occurred to me too.

Well did you go any higher - there are higher places than the EEOC?  Did you declare you had a disability and request accommodations regarding the social things at break?

If not - its your fault.

In order to get rights, one must fight for rights, not to declare oneself as a member of a minority group. Declaring oneself as a minority group promotes discrimation. I believe that autistics should have rights, but the way that is approached here is the wrong way to do it.

In the United States, there are several civil rights movements going on (racial, gender, LGBT, disability) throughout its history and all these groups fought to have equal rights because they are not receiving their rights.

For the document, I believe that the approate title should be "Declaration of Rights of Persons with Autism" instead of "Declaration of People with Autism as a Minority Group."

Here is the 2006 Declaration of People with Disabilites document from the UN.

http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/documents/tccconve.pdf

I can understand British English, but my usage is American English.

How did you occurred the thought of allies?

Simply changing the discrimination on the basis of disability to discrimination on basis if a medical condition would be just as as effective and without all the whiny crap and hoopla that you seem to wanna push Gareth.

The Zack, I agree with you. From studying American history, I know that declaring oneself as a minority group does not work. The only way to get our civil rights is to fight for those rights. One must say to oneself, "I am a/an (name of nationality) and I believe that because of (reason of discrimation) that my civil rights are being denied, so I must fight for those civil rights."

The main reason that autistics are being discriminated against is not because having a disability, but because autism is MISUNDERSTOOD. Many parents with autistic kids have not heard of autism until their kids was dx.

Educating the public about autism is the best way to get rid of the igorance and discrimiation against autistics.

Gareth, let me ask you a question. Have you actually studied United States history, especially the women suffrage, racial civil rights, women rights, disability rights, and the LGBT rights movements? All these movements, the groups fought for their civil rights as Americans WITHOUT DECLARING THEMSELVES AS A MINORITY GROUP.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/human_rights_quarterly/v021/21.1oestreich.html

Do you really think mere education is enough to eliminate discrimination and that laws to prevent it would not be beneficial at all?
You're also falling into the fallacy of thinking that we can't do both when in fact we can and should.

I am saying that education is a start for better understanding among the people and with the people being educated, the better chance of a "Declaration of Rights of People with Autism" will be ratified by the governments. As for the UN, it is more complex because the UN could pass treaties in the General Assembly with the member governments ratify those treaties and even if the government does ratify that treaty, it may not actually enforce it.

Let's take the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the country of Iran for example. UNCRC focus on children's rights and in Article 37(A), it says, "No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offenses committed by persons below eighteen years of age." Iran had executions of minors before ratifying the treaty and once they ratified it, one may believe that the executions of minors have stop, but guess what, they didn't.

Getting a treaty ratified is one thing, enforcing it is another thing. Iran signed and ratified the UNCRC, but it is not enforcing it.





Here is the UN site UN Enable, which focus on people with disabilities. http://www.un.org/disabilities/

I forgot the UNCRC link. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

Gareth, you seem to forget a couple of things....

Instead of going and declaring ourselves a minority, why don't you advocate for reform in the current laws on discrimination on the basis of disability and have the wording changed to something like discrimination on the basis of a diagnosed condition?  I really think it would be just as effective - if not more effective than declaring us a minority group.  

And as far as the effectivness against minority groups, the KKK is very active and just had a huge protest in my home town just two years ago (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrunLBeHMk0) - minority status would only encourage further opposition.

Have you forgot about my example about how the UN actually works? This is how it works. The UN General Assembly ratifies a treaty for the member governments to ratify. The member goverments pay lip service to the treaty and ratifies it, but they actually DO NOT ENFORCE IT. I used the treaty of children's rights (which is the largest minority group in the world) and Iran as an example of my point.

Another point to make. Let's say that the UN passes a human rights treaty and China ratifies it. Guess what really happens, China only paid lip service to the treaty and still violates human rights. (As many people know, China has the worst human rights record.) When the International Olympic Commission picked Beijing as 2008 Summer Olympics host in the hope of improving human rights, but the human rights were not improved. Protests were restricted, censorship still exist, and before the structures were being built, the government made the people who lived there to move so that they could tear down the homes and build the structures.

Reform of the current laws would be a better idea, rather than trying to get the UN to ratify a treaty declaring autistics as a minority group, because in reality, the treaty DOES NOT GET ENFORCED. For the reforms, the United States (my country) have been making some efforts, especially on the area of providing services. Illinois (my home state) recently passed a bill stating that insurance companies should help pay for autism services and it becomes law if Blagojevich sign it or it automatically becomes law in 60 business days. President-elect Barack Obama have a plan for autism and his plan is community based. Here is a link of the Obama autism plan. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/AutismSpectrumDisorders.pdf

I think this points out an important fact about AFF and Gareth.  AFF is not Aspies For Freedom, its Gareth For Freedom.  Whatever Gareth says, goes - and he is held accountable to no one, even though he acts like he speaks for the majority.

Call me a troll for pointing this out, even delete this post like you did a few of mine earlier this week if it makes you feel better Gareth, but I'm really getting sick and tired of you acting like you speak for the majority but when people disagree with you you just keep stating the same things over and over again without addressing what they say.

I want to point out I agree with some of your viewpoints, but when you act like you speak for the majority (which is even pointed out with the name of this forum - Aspies For Freedom) you need to be listening to those your speaking for - otherwise you are no better than Autism Speaks

After having Asperger.... No one asks for Asperger any more than they ask to be gay-- except the Aspies do not suffer the same backlash the homosexuals do

I am getting sick of you lieing and making provably false accusations.
None of your posts have been deleted, I have the logs to prove this fact:

I am not going to argue with Gareth about this anymore because I don't believe that his method is going to work. If one wants to make a change in society, start small (in one's city/town/villiage and state/province) before hitting it big (nation/UN/international organizations). Even the largest corporations started out small.

For the allies, I am recruiting a friend that is gay into the non-profit organization. Of course, there are gay Apies, like there are gay NTs, and Daniel Tammett is one of them.

I researched the UN website and the only way that they will consider an official minority group is based on ethnicity and language that is in a small part of the world. Let's take the Navajo and the Hispanic American populations as an example. Both groups are considered minority groups in the United States and they felt that they were being mistreated in the United States. The Navajo popuation believed that the US is interfering with their culture and language while the Hispanic population believed that the US is forcing them to learn English, so they decided to apply for minority group status at the UN. Guess which application would be approved and which one would be rejected? The Najavo application would be the one most likely to be accepted because the Navajo population is based in southwestern United States and the Navajo language is rare outside the Navajo population. The Hispanic American application would be rejected because the Hispanic population consists of people from a Spanish and/or Portuguese speaking national backgrounds, which consists of Spain, Portugual, Latin America, Dominican Republic, and other Spanish and Portuguese speaking nations and the Spanish language is the third largest spoken language in the world.

Here are the demographic stats from the 2000 US Census. http://censtats.census.gov/data/US/01000.pdf

Yes thanks for researching that. our native american tribes here have for the most part always been treated poorly. The hispanics are here by choice not by birth or because their culture is native here. I can see the difference there. Anything we can do to help the native american is productive.

The sad thing is, there not unwarranted.

I do agree here. I cannot consider myself disabled unless the natural inability in social and new situations could be considered as such. My aspies is "cured" daily when I get to do my own thing so it can't be a disability as such, but rather a problem with relating to others who see things from a very different way. How much of that is aspies I will never know.

I do believe a lot of the discrimination is because of the inability in social and other new situations even though I am certainly as functional as the next person. And can contribute hugely. This inability may come across to others as an inability to perform and in my case that is as far from the "truth" as one can get but I could certainly "see" where an employer may get that view.

Like, for instance, I need time to settle in and adjust to new people, learn the unwritten rules and how to approach things. I do this via intellect as I have no other way to do so like an NT may have access to.

But I am not disabled. I think differently. Very differently. My brain is wired differently. I approach things differently. This is valued by the university I am researching at as I see (yes aspies is very visual) things differently. I am very much a part of a minority that society refuses to recognize and sometimes practises discrimination against. Roll on minority group.

Constantly claiming that your posts are being deleted is an unwarranted attack and is a blatant lie.

I put the same stock in you telling the truth as I would John Best Gareth.

I like the name of this thread. It is a very important issue.  I am happy to read everyone's views.  I have been following the thread because I personally am not 100% sure whether or not being declared a minority in the US would help.  I have started to write a few posts but keep changing my mind over whether in the US being a minority "officially" does anything other than allow people to be arrested for hate crimes. Although how could it hurt?

TheZach, just because Gareth writes his opinion does not mean you can't have yours.  How about we continue on with explaining reasons why we each have the opinions we have...

Gareth, how do you think it would help autistics in the UK?

Simple: It's perfectly legal to discriminate against autistics so long as they are not disabled. This needs changing.

Which it could mean a lawsuit. As for lawsuits, I would not recommend a lawsuit if an employer won't give you an interview/offer you a job due to discrimnation because would anyone would work for someone that will not hire them? As for losing a job due to a discrimatory issue (racial, gender, medical history, disability, etc), since one lost their job and livilihood, it would be approate to file a lawsuit for lost wages, damages, etc.

With forentic science, that is getting really difficult. People tried many different ways (wearing gloves, cleaning up, destroying evidence and/or body, etc.) but always get caught. Gloves can leave prints and that is why law enforcement and forentic scientists wear latex gloves (learned this on NCIS), bodily fluids can be detected with a fluresant light (common knowledge), evidence and/or body can be pieced together, and it is is possible to charge someone with murder without a body, just need to find a way to prove that they are dead (most common example is large pool of blood or possible demembered head/torso)

Then again.. I know life is not purely positive- like the many,many Nt's with exactly the same scenario...

Nothing is purely positive.

Benefits of minority status are:
1.       ?

1. Minority advocates will fight for your rights on your behalf; sometimes for the sheer thrill of the fight.

2.  Some status is better than no status (being invisible) l

Do you all think that a minority has protection to just be?
Or does this mean like an endangered species way of being allowed to just be? (I don't know how one can have moral protection)

I like #5

'Minority status' rather than 'minority', and #5 and #6 are listed with #4's "*".  So, I think that 'minority status' allows for some added protection to just be.  #6 is along the idea of acceptance, and just one brick in a larger foundation of paradigm change.

Just a couple of reason-issues to try explaining further: take a look at how children try to become like others through modeling behavior and the hard things they can suffer if they do not do this.  Why is "social cloning" so important in our society...?  Also take a look at the tendency of adults/children to stare at a person screaming, etc.  People idly standing and staring when someone is hurting...?  Are they "shocked"...or...?

I think moral protection that comes with 'minority status', is something to consider.

I hate more bureaucracy, more groups on federal we-have-to-treat-these-people-better-lists, but it seems there's no other way. Amerikans just won't be decent and respectful and make allowances unless the big daddy government tells them they have to. I know what I went through in my family growing up, with a mild case and no diagnosis. I didn't suffer horribly in school, though, the way so many have. And how else can we help schoolkid aspies get better treatment from teachers and other kids unless we make ourselves an official minority, which we are, not only in this country, but in the world.

Ooo, advancing "divergence" too, great!!  Yes, where could we start?
Please give us more ideas, and I will share some of mine too:

Calling rude, rude.  
One thing I have done is say (in a neutral tone to be heard), "well, if someone were a little different because they did not have a leg you would not say anything (such as this or that, almost parroting whatever off-comment was said.)"

Influencing society paradigm change.  
Just say right out about how one might be different, and within the attitude of, "so what?!" as in, "it's completely normal."

Personal actions and decisions.  
Luckily, I think we all have some advantage (thinking, creativity, etc.), and we can share these advantages only with those who are kind.  The rest can wait in the dust and wish, lol.

Organizing for the good.  
Something I think could be really helpful is to organize somehow in person, but I think the lines are too difficult to define among people who are divergent in one way or another.  So then it seems since there are so many divergent people in-person organization becomes a mute fact; yet also then, recognition of any "group" goes by the wayside.  (hmm, I hope someone understands what I'm trying express as an issue here.)

What else?  Clarification of these ideas would help me too, thanks!

i agree with you 100%
oddly for some strange reason i have always compared our comunity to the gay (Glbt) comunity.....
very odd

I'm pleased to see you agree. It's real tough to get oppressed groups -- and maybe you'll find that too strong a word, but I don't -- to get loud and obnoxious enough for society to hear. It's a shame that it has to come to that, but it seems that there's never been any other way.

Well, I have my own perspective on that issue. There are different types of oppression, and many are subtle. I think blacks and gays would have an idea of the many different types of oppression that can exist when human psyches are at work.

JDBentz: Just found a link to your post in my email. Sometimes I'm slow getting the email account into a decent state. I agree with the things you have said, and also I can attest from only my own experience to subtle forms of oppression I've experienced from "friends", boyfriends, landlords, neighbors.

I agree, and if a medical doctor or clinic encourages Autistic children to be aborted based solely on their Autism, then we are beyond "oppressed". If you told the press a child was aborted because it was Black or had Jewish parents (etc, etc) then there would be a firestorm of controversy. There would be no controversy "out there" if doctors told a parent "we can abort this (Autistic embryo) and you can try again for a (typical) child."

If you think parents wouldn't fall for this, and accept it, then remember that tests for Down's Syndrome are commonplace in nearly every pre-natal clinic in the free world. I refused to have these tests, but most parents do have them, and many children with a chromosome difference are aborted. If scientists are working hard, night and day, to find a way to dx us in the womb, so they can provide "information" to parents, that would allow parents to make (at least in the US) a legal choice to terminate based on Autistic tendencies, then isn't that legal genocide?

Another example: I have a close friend with high functioning Autism. She and her husband have been married for thirty-four years, have a business and a home, but they do not have children because her mother took her to a doctor and had her steralized when she was a child because she was labeled "re-d" and her mother had an "obligation" according to the doctors, to prevent more "re-d" children from coming into the world. They would be wonderful parents, but they aren't, and it breaks my heart.

If we were NOT oppressed, there would not be people making money off the enslavement of parents to the idea that we need to be "fixed" or even "terminated"?

People out there, please DO NOT get on your self-righteous soapbox and make this into a right to life, get rid of abortion thread and waste the point of what I am saying. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do NOT do that. This is a not the place for that. (Start your own thread for that, so I can ignore it easier )


The point...

The oppression comes, not in the abortion clinic or hospital, but in the minds of doctors and therapists that promote the idea that we are not worthy of life... or that our lives as they are do not matter.

becomes

Etc.

We have a tendency to focus on a single subject, to the exclusion of others. While this can lead to problems, our exclusive focus on a single interest often results in the development of the person into an expert in their interest.

Furthermore, we often seek a stable routine, and can get rather distressed if this is disrupted.

Often, our development of language is delayed. Due to our natures, we find it difficult to understand non-verbal, vocal cues whilest listening, requiring the speaker to state the what they mean exactly, so that there is no confusion.

Our people are a very verbal people, and find non-verbal cues (body language) difficult to understand, as it does not come naturally to us.

Etc etc. It's a start...

Do we? Really? As for comprehension... not really. My friend is rather impulsive and will do things without any clear reasoning behind them, and he's an Aspie, while my Entie friends are generally more reasonable. As for intermarrying... is this actually the case? Could we crowdsource some information on this?

Reading this made me absolutely furious! Not only should this sort of thing be banned, but she should be able to sue her stupid mother and the doctors for violating her human rights. (I would put an angry face here but I can't work out how to do it, so I'll post a sad one istead)

I'm guessing that the friend mentioned in the quote may be a victim of this appalling episode in Americas history. I don't know how accurate it is or if the information is still relevant. But the fact that none of the victims have been able to claim back compensation is very disturbing. I guess the states that are the target of any compensation claim are just hoping that the victims will just die off and lose the will to fight them in court. This is a clear and frightening example of minority group oppression.

Errr, have you been paying attention to history over the past few centuries?

Even today, being black carries much greater risk of:
* Poverty
* Unemployment
* Jail
* Being a Gangsta Rapper

And even if I can prove that being black is a struggle... that doesn't justify terminating black foetuses on that basis.