Gwyn, concerning a medical library for research on autism, Cambridge Universtiy used to offer a service where they would look ofr specific topics relating to autism and send them to you, it was free if it was 3 or less.
You could try and contact them in case they still do this. Its possible that it is now charged for or the info has been put on the web, with a fee to access it.

I personally dont see the need to separate into sub groups, I dont think it would benefit our cause as a whole at this point in time.
I think its better to be inclusive of all those on the autism spectrum.

I am still sure that the word autism is acceptable, and do not favour using the word aspergian, its not just a few complainers, it is a large section of the autism community that feels excluded by asperger terms, though we could include a section for preferences of names, and those which we want to be discontinued, such as retard and so on.

I am male - should i be classed as a certain subgroup of male?
I am hetrosexual - should i be classed as a certain subgroup of hetrosexual?
I am autistic - finish this sentence

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.

Have you noticed the "professionals" are moving away from the word autistic and now using the term DD - delayed development  or something similar. And  using that term they are including mental retardation which is non autistic!!


In other words They refuse to believe they are on a spectrum too. Just not our spectrum.  Their low functioning members are the mentally retardants. Nopw the high functioning retards as like to call NTs, are subtly trying to undermine our unity.

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?

This is the guy apparently, but these books are all used copies (and beyond my pocket).

060875: ROSANOFF, AARON J[OSHUA] (1878-1943) - Free Association Test (Kent-Rosanoff)
041043: ROSANOFF, A[ARON] J[OSHUA] (1878-1943), ET AL - Higher Scale of Mental Measurement and Its Application to Cases of Insanity. Psychological Monographs No. 109
065531: ROSANOFF, AARON J[OSHUA] (1878-1943) - Manual of Psychiatry
040784: ROSANOFF, AARON J. (1878-1943) - Manual of Psychiatry and Mental Hygiene

And here's an amazingly apt and timely remark from Kevin Chandler (which makes it twice now he's e-mailed something astonishly relevant on the same day I needed it {well, actually, the night before, relatively speaking}; spooky!!!)

Your comments about the great scientists is spot on.Most seem to be
high As
-   strong self belief,feelings of difference,imagination,creative
mind,visual,stubborn but introspective,and I could go on.
The problem is the disconnect with others such as shyness ,personal
sensitivity,aloofness,being things rather than people focussed.

(I'll forgive him the "stubborn"; I'm sure he meant "when sure of the facts, unwilling to be swayed by invalid argument, even from a superior")

The point is we need precise words for a legal document to declare ourselves a minority.

Take a look at this then:

Chronology of Psychology: Addenda
... The clinic was planned by Aaron J. Rosanoff while he was ... 24 Mar 1964 Bernard Rimland's book Infantile Autism: The Syndrome and Its Implications for a Neural ...
http://www.cwu.edu/~warren/addenda.html - 101k - 13 Nov 2004 - Cached - Similar pages

Haven't spotted Rosanoff here yet , but this looks interesting?

14 Sep 1919 William H. Angoff was born. Angoff was a leading expert on psychometric theory and practice. His book chapter "Scales, Norms, and Equivalent Scores" (1971) became a definitive treatment of test scaling and equating. Angoff was one of the first psychologists hired by the Educational Testing Service, where he worked for 43 years.

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.

Our situation is more complex than for some. If a religious group wanted to make a declaration, they would describe the religion and why they needed to be declared a minority group (persecution for example) and describe their differences.
For a minority race, they would describe their homeland, for instance, and language, but for our cause we are essentailly describing a diagnosis. Therefore someone could prove they were part of the minority group by showing a diagnosis, but this is flawed as so many of us havent got/cant get/dont want a diagnosis.
How would these people still be covered by the minority group position?
In that sense if we use some psychological definitions it may help, and if we could include people who strongly feel, act, and identify with autism/asperger's.
Its not easy to encompass all of that, and may be technically impossible ultimately, but I think we can at least try initially, and see what response we get.
I dont think it would help to focus on the fact that "everyone is autistic somehow", I hear NTs say that, but I dont agree with it at all. I say to them "Is everyone a bit down's", autism is clearly defined, and the average person isnt autistic, in the same way that if someone can speak french, it doesnt make them french. Is everyone a bit french?

Perhaps for Aspies with mother tongues that is not english. We could agree on using Esperanto to communicate. It is easyto learn and belongs to no ethnic group whatsoever

I dont think thats necessary as some ethnic minorities live in different countries and dont share a common language, but are still a minority group, it could be a case of "Our differences join us together".

Amy How can we unite if we cant communicate?

TheASMan, remember that some people with autism are non-verbal and semi-verbal, also some would struggle to learn a whole new language, I know I would myself.

It is possible to translate text on the internet now, its not perfect, but it can help to breakdown some language barriers.

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.