SedanChair posted:In terms of its diagnosis it is in many cases absolutely pretend. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTmQWqXdBzM
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
My understanding is that it mostly exists to prevent the spread and, particularly, advertisement of sex-selective abortion practices. For some immigrant populations, the sex of the child is sufficiently important culturally that there was a concern that the practice would become common. It still likely is common, but the theory is it can't operate openly for that purpose. This isn't necessarily due to a preference by either individual parent, but rather the perpetuation of sexist cultural beliefs. A good correlative source, if you need evidence that this sort of practice exists, would be to look at the relative male and female population of orphanages in various countries. That said, this set of discussions is all quite far afield from autism. What are some other entities that are like Autism Speaks, that we could compare with that group?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:37
|
|
How do you even enforce this?! Do you have a woman sign a declaration that she is aborting for a legitimate reason? This loving country.
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:
You discriminate against women from Indian or South-east Asian backgrounds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
What can I say? With my own ears, at a conference, I heard one of the country's foremost experts in designing curricula for autistic children say that it's OK that plenty of kids will be given diagnoses of autism despite not being autistic, because it's worth it to provide early intervention to those who do have it. Sorry if your kid has been diagnosed or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I agree completely. I also think that a society with less stingy availability of resources for parents and which is more tolerant of different levels of social engagement and difference in general would be one in which more autistic people would find a place and cease to be a burden. No argument here. It's a crime that our society makes having a special needs child an economic burden.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
The current DSM is problematic in a lot of ways, and although the recent revision has improved and narrowed the criteria for autism spectrum disorder, it's still likely to cause massive overdiagnosis. It's a big separate can of worms, but the diagnostic procedure for psychiatric conditions is difficult at the best of times. Autism is especially problematic because a)we don't have a clear etiology for the disorder, b) our dataset likely actually contains multiple conditions with similar symptom sets, and c)the behavioral criteria for these conditions, even within a population, aren't particularly well-structured(although, again, they've improved). Two examining authorities can easily use the same criterion set to come to differing conclusions about an autism diagnosis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:My understanding is that it mostly exists to prevent the spread and, particularly, advertisement of sex-selective abortion practices. For some immigrant populations, the sex of the child is sufficiently important culturally that there was a concern that the practice would become common. It still likely is common, but the theory is it can't operate openly for that purpose. This isn't necessarily due to a preference by either individual parent, but rather the perpetuation of sexist cultural beliefs. A good correlative source, if you need evidence that this sort of practice exists, would be to look at the relative male and female population of orphanages in various countries. That said, this set of discussions is all quite far afield from autism. Okay, I guess I wasn't making myself clear: how do you stop a woman aborting her fetus once she learns that it is of a sex she doesn't like? From what you're saying and what I read on the wikipedia page, I guess the laws may be targeting specific screening services, but, I mean, it's absolutely common to learn at some point what sex your fetus is, if you want to. Is the usual way always beyond the threshold of legal abortion in these States? rkajdi posted:You discriminate against women from Indian or South-east Asian backgrounds. Half of this is me just being flabbergasted at the idea of this, but another is because it's relevant as to whether preventing people from autism-selective abortion would even be enforceable, or what the consequences are of trying to fight it. SedanChair posted:What can I say? With my own ears, at a conference, I heard one of the country's foremost experts in designing curricula for autistic children say that it's OK that plenty of kids will be given diagnoses of autism despite not being autistic, because it's worth it to provide early intervention to those who do have it. Sorry if your kid has been diagnosed or something. That's just saying that this expert does not think that false positives are a problem here in light of the intervention proposed, that is, that it is not going to cause harm to non-autistic people falsely misdiagnosed to be such, not that it's "mostly made up". Are you familiar with prophylactics?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That's just saying that this expert does not think that false positives are a problem here in light of the intervention proposed, that is, that it is not going to cause harm to non-autistic people falsely misdiagnosed to be such, not that it's "mostly made up". Are you familiar with prophylactics? Of course, that's exactly how she explained it. But it does mean that there are lots of parents going around saying "my child is autistic" when it isn't true. That's what the words "made up" and "pretend" mean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Of course, that's exactly how she explained it. But it does mean that there are lots of parents going around saying "my child is autistic" when it isn't true. That's what the words "made up" and "pretend" mean.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:They, um, really aren't. The last place I heard from on this set of issues was from my University's fairly prominent women's studies department, a favorably received job talk from a female applicant who received the position. This is a difficult set of issues, and reducing them to a binary, with one side consisting entirely of "textbook misogynists" and "anti-choice zealots" doesn't actually remove that complexity- although it does frustrate the discourse. At least as far as the US is concerned, think again: http://jezebel.com/new-study-shows-that-sex-selective-abortion-bans-are-to-1585545601 This is some special intersectional bigotry. Also, LOL at the idea that this ban isn't being done as backdoor way to restrict basic rights, since most good (i.e. white) people won't care since it's restricting right to "those people" (i.e. Indians, Muslims, and East Asians) Taking anything coming out of the Anti-Choice Right at face value regarding abortion is a mistake. They are by far the most disengenuous and outright evil human beings I've had the misfortune of dealing with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Of course, that's exactly how she explained it. But it does mean that there are lots of parents going around saying "my child is autistic" when it isn't true. That's what the words "made up" and "pretend" mean. "Pretend" implies willfully believing, or at least acting as if you believe, something that you know for a fact is not actually true. So no. Parents don't "pretend" that their child is autistic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That doesn't mean that at all. They falsely believe that their child has a real problem. That doesn't mean it's a pretend problem, and nobody is making up anything, just using a tool that has many false positives because the damage from not treating someone who has a problem is larger than the damage from treating someone who doesn't have the problem. Doctors will prescribe antibiotics if a false positive comes up for a severe infection, there's no "pretend" involved, just precaution. Advocacy organizations propose that autism is a growing threat. That's made up, and overdiagnosis is why it's made up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Okay, I guess I wasn't making myself clear: how do you stop a woman aborting her fetus once she learns that it is of a sex she doesn't like? From what you're saying and what I read on the wikipedia page, I guess the laws may be targeting specific screening services, but, I mean, it's absolutely common to learn at some point what sex your fetus is, if you want to. Is the usual way always beyond the threshold of legal abortion in these States? Absurd Alhazred posted:How does it work? Is a doctor basically obligated to prove to a jury that the abortion they performed was for legitimate reasons? And then there's a chilling effect due to that, just like in States where the father is required to be informed? Absurd Alhazred posted:That's just saying that this expert does not think that false positives are a problem here in light of the intervention proposed, that is, that it is not going to cause harm to non-autistic people falsely misdiagnosed to be such, not that it's "mostly made up". Are you familiar with prophylactics? A false positive diagnosis of autism can be really harmful, in as much as it changes the entire curriculum and treatment of the child. It might be less of an issue for those diagnosed incorrectly later in life, but at the early age many children are being diagnosed at now, it raises the possibility of treating a child inappropriately, while simultaneously missing some other treatable condition. This is not a new phenomenon. rkajdi posted:At least as far as the US is concerned, think again: http://jezebel.com/new-study-shows-that-sex-selective-abortion-bans-are-to-1585545601 This is some special intersectional bigotry. Also, LOL at the idea that this ban isn't being done as backdoor way to restrict basic rights, since most good (i.e. white) people won't care since it's restricting right to "those people" (i.e. Indians, Muslims, and East Asians) Taking anything coming out of the Anti-Choice Right at face value regarding abortion is a mistake. They are by far the most disengenuous and outright evil human beings I've had the misfortune of dealing with. Please don't cite Jezebel (saying "think again" and following up with a Gawker network cite is really a warning sign). The policy report they're citing isn't any better than the site itself, and its assertions aren't apposite to my statements on the issue. I mean, look at the method section- it's a joke to think they're getting accurate data with that approach. I appreciate that the Right abuses regulation to shut down abortion clinics, it doesn't follow from this that sex selective abortion laws are categorically illegitimate or that the practice doesn't occur. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 04:00
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:How does it work? Is a doctor basically obligated to prove to a jury that the abortion they performed was for legitimate reasons? And then there's a chilling effect due to that, just like in States where the father is required to be informed? Ding ding ding. Got it in one. I expect we'd get idiots like Santorum trying to force women to carry autistic kids the same way he wanted to force women to carry kids with Downs or Edwards syndrome. restrict the test, create legal hurdles, and above all be a giant sweater-vested douchebag. rkajdi fucked around with this message at 04:14 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Advocacy organizations propose that autism is a growing threat. That's made up, and overdiagnosis is why it's made up. Discendo Vox posted:A false positive diagnosis of autism can be really harmful, in as much as it changes the entire curriculum and treatment of the child. It might be less of an issue for those diagnosed incorrectly later in life, but at the early age many children are being diagnosed at now, it raises the possibility of treating a child inappropriately, while simultaneously missing some other treatable condition. This is not a new phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's probably counterproductive to frame abortion as an absolute right which either exists or does not. There aren't any of those under the law, and there aren't very many philosophies that espouse absolute rights, either, particularly ones that could be used to construct an absolute right to abortion. No, it's not in fact counterproductive, at least in the US, because people are having to fight tooth and nail to hold on to basic reproductive health services in this country. rkajdi posted:At least as far as the US is concerned, think again: http://jezebel.com/new-study-shows-that-sex-selective-abortion-bans-are-to-1585545601 This is some special intersectional bigotry. Also, LOL at the idea that this ban isn't being done as backdoor way to restrict basic rights, since most good (i.e. white) people won't care since it's restricting right to "those people" (i.e. Indians, Muslims, and East Asians) Taking anything coming out of the Anti-Choice Right at face value regarding abortion is a mistake. They are by far the most disengenuous and outright evil human beings I've had the misfortune of dealing with. This is all true, of course. Any reason to restrict abortion access is going to be grabbed and run with by the anti-choice crowd, and if you care about access to reproductive health and abortion in this country, you absolutely are going to fight tooth and nail for abortion as an absolute right, because with the situation as it stands you can't afford to give an inch.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
This discussion is pretty interesting. I think the issue is difficult because both aggressively seeking a cure for autism (if such a thing is even possible) and not doing so are both problematic. I would argue that not seeking a cure is far more problematic than the alternative, but both definitely present problems. Even though I believe that we should absolutely seek a cure, I can understand why some of the more high-functioning autistic people may be bothered/offended (and I don't mean this lightly) by the fact that many people are putting so much effort towards not being like them. Regarding the "should mothers be able to choose whether their child is male/female/gay/whatever" question (which is somewhat relevant, though not directly comparable) - I think that I would rather the mother have the choice. It's difficult to argue since "what if this wipes out homosexuals" and "what if it disrupts the male/female ratio" are reasonable concerns, but the idea of either not allowing available prenatal testing or denying a woman's right to an abortion bothers me more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I appreciate that the Right abuses regulation to shut down abortion clinics, it doesn't follow from this that sex selective abortion laws are categorically illegitimate or that the practice doesn't occur. Why are you assuming good faith from literal devils? Next thing I know you're going to assume that literacy tests are about reading. Just like we passed survillence laws and programs under the old wink and nod pre-text they be used against Muslims (and then used them against everyone), this is the same thing against the dirty othered women from Asia. No chance it'll be used against honest white people-- that's just crazy talk. And seriously, why is it a big deal in the first place? We're not talking infanticide. Fetuses are not people. Keep saying it in your head until you actually comprehend it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The current DSM is problematic in a lot of ways, and although the recent revision has improved and narrowed the criteria for autism spectrum disorder, it's still likely to cause massive overdiagnosis. It's a big separate can of worms, but the diagnostic procedure for psychiatric conditions is difficult at the best of times. Autism is especially problematic because a)we don't have a clear etiology for the disorder, b) our dataset likely actually contains multiple conditions with similar symptom sets, and c)the behavioral criteria for these conditions, even within a population, aren't particularly well-structured(although, again, they've improved). Two examining authorities can easily use the same criterion set to come to differing conclusions about an autism diagnosis. Your critiques are valid. However, restricting the criteria further due to the limitations you state might decrease over-diagnosis but lead to under-diagnosis, a potentially worse problem. I'm in no way saying you are in favor of doing this, I just know its a hotly debated topic between the advocates and dissenters of the DSM. This is especially true with regard to autism and ADHD. What makes it worse is, psychologists cannot just say "more evidence is needed before we can make accurate judgments" as the need for guidelines is pressing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Even if allowing sex selective abortion were 100% sure to cause egregious social problems or even complete societal collapse I think it still needs to be allowed because any violation of a woman's right to choose is unacceptable under any and all circumstances.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 04:17
|
|
|
I'm just going to ignore the abortion debate since it's a derail that's gone well off the deep end at this point.Cranappleberry posted:Your critiques are valid. However, restricting the criteria further due to the limitations you state might decrease over-diagnosis but lead to under-diagnosis, a potentially worse problem. I'd actually favor an underdiagnosis scenario at present- the negative outcomes of the overdiagnosis of ADHD, which led to the proliferation of a new set of drugs of abuse, is a good example of the exact sort of consequence that worries me at this point. Additionally, I suspect that most overdiagnosis is diagnosis by examiners insufficiently familiar with the criteria and tests in effect. My concern is that ongoing overdiagnosis, with the self-identification and advocacy that accompanies it, can actually impede research in the area. That's been a pretty big trend over the past 15 or so years. Since the success of Act Up, there's been a lot of imitation of that model, which has caused problems when the model isn't appropriate to the situation, or when there's industry capture of the advocacy group, which is sadly frequently the case nowadays.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:So you have good evidence that this is the case? As in, you have good methodological debunking of claims such as Autism Speak's about there being a rise that is not just a matter of improved diagnosis? I don't need good evidence, they don't use it. What you call "improved diagnosis" is diagnosis designed to cast as wide a net as possible. It's impossible to draw conclusions about increased incidence -- it's like setting a new record for the Pike's Peak hillclimb after you've paved it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:This is all true, of course. Any reason to restrict abortion access is going to be grabbed and run with by the anti-choice crowd, and if you care about access to reproductive health and abortion in this country, you absolutely are going to fight tooth and nail for abortion as an absolute right, because with the situation as it stands you can't afford to give an inch. Seriously, this post is golden. Ever inch given is more broken people, more dead women in alleys, more ruined lives. You don't give one because doing so is the literal death of actual breathing people. Sorry I'm so dogmatic on this, but I've had to help out a few people in my life get abortions. Nothing annoys me more than the idiot pearl-clutchers who aren't brave enough to actually do something to help someone in need instead of just being a silent coward with "values".
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't need good evidence, they don't use it. What you call "improved diagnosis" is diagnosis designed to cast as wide a net as possible. It's impossible to draw conclusions about increased incidence -- it's like setting a new record for the Pike's Peak hillclimb after you've paved it. This isn't me calling anything by any term. I am trying to trace back the claims that you are arguing against here: SedanChair posted:Advocacy organizations propose that autism is a growing threat. That's made up, and overdiagnosis is why it's made up. I should have been explicit that I was quoting Atheism Speaks: quote:How Common Is Autism? The CDC, which apparently provides some of the numbers that AS cites, is less conclusive: quote:More people than ever before are being diagnosed with ASD. It is unclear how much of this increase is due to a broader definition of ASD and better efforts in diagnosis. However, a true increase in the number of people with an ASD cannot be ruled out. The increase in ASD diagnosis is likely due to a combination of these factors. I am not going to obligate you to prove a negative, but does anyone else know where AS are getting their certitude?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Yes, they are making it up. The difference between the CDC's data (and their carefully qualified way of presenting it) and AS' claim should make that clear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
All this incredibly stupid bullshit aside, it's kinda hosed up that an autism advocacy group doesn't have any autistic people on its board. They should call themselves an Autistic Parents or Autistic Caretakers advocacy group if they're going to be like that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:In terms of its diagnosis it is in many cases absolutely pretend. If you mean misdiagnosis, then you are wrong. If you mean self-diagnosis then that is both a misuse of the term diagnosis and wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 10:46
|
|
|
I think aborting a fetus with non-lethal developmental disorders is fine, just as aborting an unwanted healthy fetus is fine. Bringing another human being into the world is morally fraught enough without knowing that person is likely to experience extraordinary suffering.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I think aborting a fetus with non-lethal developmental disorders is fine, just as aborting an unwanted healthy fetus is fine. Bringing another human being into the world is morally fraught enough without knowing that person is likely to experience extraordinary suffering. The question devolves into where we draw the line on 'extraordinary suffering' and 'quality of life' as the result of a 'genetic defect'. Something like Tay-Sachs that has a 100% mortality rate within ten years of horrific pain is an easy choice, but where does autism fall? Its a spectrum disorder, not binary, so there are many different degrees. Those falling on the moderate to high functioning end can lead self-sufficient, fulfilling lives and contribute much to the happiness of others and the advancement of society; conversely those on the low-functioning end are often sadly long-suffering. I, personally, am a high-functioning autist and though sometimes I get a bit depressed like anyone else I do not think my life has been negative on the whole.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Speaking as a high-functioning autist with a pretty severely autistic little brother, I don't see why a theoretical cure for autism would be problematic. Autism changes how you process information and the visible damage it causes is a consequence of lacking or faulty learning of how people work. Society teaches social skills by throwing kids in the same room and assuming they learn by osmosis, which is a system that fails autistic kids. Severely autistic children take wrong lessons and neglect important details during the time normal children develop the fastest, misunderstand how the world works and can't wrap their heads around it. Autism is a lot like being born blind or deaf, you lack a sense that others take for granted and view the world differently as a result. I'm not knowledgeable on the subject, but I bet their brains are "wired differently" as well as a result. How an autistic kid turns out is very dependent on their education as well as their parents' education. I imagine the horror stories about low-functioning autists exist in large part because of countries that don't have affordable special education and therapy services. My little brother was diagnosed soon after birth and has been in special schools since he was 5. Even with all that, he took until 12 or so to grasp language on a level with a normal young schoolchild. With that hurdle cleared, though, the age of unexplainable tantrums was soon over and he started catching up. By 16 he knew enough of both our native tongue and English to start teaching himself stuff he's interested about, and it won't take long before he's indistinguishable from a high-functioning autist who didn't do well in regular education. But without all that intensive help, he wouldn't have made it, not even close. Thing is, curing autism would be like giving sight to a blind person who only knows of the visual world in a theoretical sense. It wouldn't change them, it'd alter their future development. A young child's personality is so malleable that you can't say it's wrong to set their life on a course that might help them have a normal childhood by curing their autism. An adult autist already has the damage done, they've already formed their worldview based on their lacking information and no cure is going to flip the worldview over or conjure social skills out of nowhere. They'd be themselves, except with a bit more potential for recovery through therapy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:I, personally, am a high-functioning autist and though sometimes I get a bit depressed like anyone else I do not think my life has been negative on the whole. On the other hand I am an officially diagnosed autist and I can barely function in public without an overwhelming sense of panic and overstimulation and have been depressed for as long as I can remember and often wished I was aborted so opinions on this subject are not the same.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Edit: Sorry, guess this was more E/N than I meant it to be. All I was trying to say is "Not every autistic person would reject a cure."
Mind over Matter fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
mods please consider moving thread to E/N
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:The question devolves into where we draw the line on 'extraordinary suffering' and 'quality of life' as the result of a 'genetic defect'. Something like Tay-Sachs that has a 100% mortality rate within ten years of horrific pain is an easy choice, but where does autism fall? Its a spectrum disorder, not binary, so there are many different degrees. Those falling on the moderate to high functioning end can lead self-sufficient, fulfilling lives and contribute much to the happiness of others and the advancement of society; conversely those on the low-functioning end are often sadly long-suffering. None of this matters when discussing abortion, like the poster your quoting was.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:How so? My personal view is that a woman should be able to abort for any reason at all. But I still think exploring the possible social and ethical issues of enabling people to choose what their child will be like ahead of time is a pretty interesting line of discussion. Additionally if someone wants to get an abortion over it, they're not likely to be the kind of person who'd be good to raise the child. Ytlaya posted:This discussion is pretty interesting. I think the issue is difficult because both aggressively seeking a cure for autism (if such a thing is even possible) and not doing so are both problematic. I don't see what's problematic about aggressively seeking a cure. Small Frozen Thing posted:All this incredibly stupid bullshit aside, it's kinda hosed up that an autism advocacy group doesn't have any autistic people on its board. They should call themselves an Autistic Parents or Autistic Caretakers advocacy group if they're going to be like that. It's an advocacy group for severe autism, and people with that are generally incapable of meaningful function on a governing board. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 00:53 on Jul 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:The question devolves into where we draw the line on 'extraordinary suffering' and 'quality of life' as the result of a 'genetic defect'. Something like Tay-Sachs that has a 100% mortality rate within ten years of horrific pain is an easy choice, but where does autism fall? Its a spectrum disorder, not binary, so there are many different degrees. Those falling on the moderate to high functioning end can lead self-sufficient, fulfilling lives and contribute much to the happiness of others and the advancement of society; conversely those on the low-functioning end are often sadly long-suffering. You have the luxury of hindsight. A pregnant woman doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 14:27
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You have the luxury of hindsight. A pregnant woman doesn't. I support a woman's right to choose 100%, but that doesn't mean I always have the warm fuzzies about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I don't see what's problematic about aggressively seeking a cure. Oh, I absolutely support seeking a cure and think it's a good thing. I'm just saying that I can understand why someone who is autistic and happy about it (for whatever reason) might be bothered by a bunch of people thinking that some aspect of their personality should be fixed/removed. Even if I think a cure should be researched regardless, I'm not going to tell people they shouldn't be bothered by it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
I have a bugbear with organisations like the one in the OP. Both my children are Autistic, one higher functioning asphergers and one is a worst case scenario coupled with learning difficulties. I find a lot of people in the media, and often worryingly in a position of some sort of power be it working for someone like disability services or on the board of a group like this can't seem to grasp that the learning difficulties is a completely separate thing to the Autism, although it often goes hand in hand with it, as do other disabilities like blindness or hormone issues. It's radically different no matter what level the autism is at if you add in learning difficulties as it's infinitely easier to teach coping strategies to someone of normal abilities no matter the level of autism. My son is disabled, not because of the autism but because it is unlikely that he will ever progress beyond a mental age of 7. This is Autism 101 stuff and people who don't know this and don't understand the difference between higher and lower functioning autism and the fact that many many people with autism are capable of making their own informed decisions have no right working in disability or to form groups speaking for people who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves. Also we really need to start again with the autism names, aspergers is the only one with one and this seems sill. I know it's a spectrum but it would make it a hell of a lot easier if the most common types were given names. My son has "classic" sound sensitive Autism which is mostly to do with senses and fear of change, but fear of change on it's own is a thing and just as autistic. It makes actual real common sense to have the sensory ones as sound autism, touch autism, and so on because it clearly identifies triggers and even someone who knows nothing about the condition would know that "he has touch autism" means don't try and pick him up. As for some of the arguments in this thread, believe me, the only people who know what's really going on inside an autistic person's head is the autistic person themselves and then it probably is only anywhere near the same was of thinking as someone in the exact same place on the spectrum, or not, we just don't know. I have 12 years 24/7 of being on the outside looking in and although I can talk about coping strategies all day I wouldn't have a frigging clue how to begin describing what goes on in my kid's heads and I don't think my daughter could describe it either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
I've been clinically placed on the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum and, frankly, the idea of a cure really creeps me out? I'm fine with curing the low-functioning end of the spectrum but it's all such a slippery slope. My autism largely manifests as my being stubborn (my dad always told me that my autism was visible whenever I disagreed with him) and intense (I just really enjoy life too much? I've never been stoned but from what I'm aware of the experience I basically feel like I'm stoned 24/7, it's awesome) and I hate the idea of society trying to dull me. Furthermore, I'm worried that the more prevalent an optional cure for my condition becomes, the more social pressure I'll experience to take that option. So, gently caress Autism Speaks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 02:24
|
|