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 guess it could turn out that defining genetic differences between NT and autistic will be a complicated matter that will undermine the idea of neat categories. But isn't it already true that informed people do not believe in a neat, clean line of demarcation between autistic and NT, hence the idea of the broader autistic phenotype? I myself believe being an aspie is a matter of what one identifies onself as, in addition to having the autisitc neurotype. I know people who are SO aspie in abilties and neurology, but who are totally NT in their aspirations and values. Of course, they have problems with depression and low self-esteem, but who's fault is that?

I think it could also turn out that the gentic differences between NT and autistic could be surprisingly simple. Just consider the gentic switch that sets human foetuses on the path to becoming either male or female in body plan. Just one little gene (SRY), on one very undersized chromosome (the Y chromosome) triggers huge and complex differences in body form in members of the same biological species, and it does this very reliably (hermaphrodites are rare, and a result of chromosomal duplication rather than a genetic glitch). Sexual dimporphism is a marvel, when you think about it. And as autism is probably biologically similar to a sex difference (the extreme male brain etc), it seems quite possible to me that autism could be the result of a number of different versions of one simple genetic switch.

We'll have to check in 20 years from now and see what the research has revealed.  Two possibilities have been suggested in the posts above: A) that there won't be definitive genetic differences that clearly sort people into autistic and non-autistic groups; B) there will be discovered relatively defined genetic switches that send the brain along the autistic developmental path or not (in the case of neurotypicals).  There is another possibility: C) that the term "autism" will be considered overly vague, and that, as more genetic info is acquired, there will be stratifications into different types of autism, each with a set of genetic markers ascribable to that autistic subtype, and each stratum or type of autism might have degrees of severity.

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 read one article that said that the genes controlling skin color were fewer in number than the genes controlling hight, and from this decided that two white guys of different height were more disparate in genetics than a white man and a black man of the same height.  

What that statement ignores, however, is that there are genes coding for many things other than height and skin color, as well as a large number of genes that have no apparent function at all.  Given that populations living in isolation accumulate a number of mutations over time, the longer they went without mixing, the greater one can expect the the divide to be.  the number of genes coding for obvious physical differences is irrelevant.

The whole premise here seems to be that "we're all not so different afterall, so we should be treated equally."  I believe that the second part is absolutely true, but the first is simply rediculous.  We are NOT all the same, and to give sameness as a reason for equality will only ensure it's further denial.  

It is better by far to state that all humans should be accorded the same basic respect regardless of their ancestry or genetics.  We will make no headway exclaiming that we are "just like everybody else" when obviously we are not.  Instead, we must stand up and say "We are human, we deserve basic human rights, and we are not going to shut up about it."  Genetics should be left by the wayside.

ConLang wrote

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

Those of you who deny those on the spectrum have ever been opressed by the majority, think back to your days in school. I feel that you will soon see where the OP  is coming from, if you do that.

And if not at school, what about after you left school?

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.

We are above those insignificant humanoids who discriminate us. They should bow down to the superiority of the Aspie/ASD. I am fooled by none of eugenecism and am wise to all their cheap publicity stunts, which they use to cover it up. As long as we resist their malicious propaganda, they will never wipe us out. We are all in our own race and providing there is unity, there will be no genocide against us. Keep batlling against the fascist dictatorship!

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

Troll, indeed -- but thanks, Fraggle-Troll for reviving a great thread. We need to look at the clarity and strength of AFF's original purpose.

Amy, your initial post here was inspired. Beautiful!

And as tp this statement:

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

fraggle does not seem trollish according to the profile...

I already believed we are a minority group.

However, I don't want as this following...

1. Equal respect - I want equal and not under-deserved unless I committed a crime otherwise.

2. Wrong Pride - I am a normal being but I don't want lack of self-esteem. My only pride is my own good intelligence and knowledge.

3. Conservative funding - I don't want under budget and not over spending for education and job for us.

4. Wrong Law - We don't need another law, we need the Bill of Right OUR law. By following Bill of Right, we don't need specific minority group protection law. We are human as the rest. Any help will be needed will and should be provided via Federal Disability Act.