• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Sensitive Topic Neurodiversity: Would I pursue a “Cure” if there were one?

Status
Not open for further replies.

AGXStarseed

Well-Known Member
(Not written by me).


It’s funny how proponents of “neurodiversity” seem to tolerate next to zero diversity in terms of any autistic person disagreeing with them.

diversityhands-300x283.png


Kind of like every other proponent of any other kind of “diversity” that screams for “tolerance” at the top of their lungs. The most bigoted, intolerant people that I have ever met in my life are the ones that preach “diversity” and “tolerance,” while screaming at me, who never claimed to be a tolerant woman. (I accept the sinner, but will never, ever approve of their sin, nor should they mine.)

If I am in a wheelchair, I have the right to demand a ramp to get in to a building. I do not, however, have the right to demand that other people stop using the stairs. Sometimes I see people in the “neurodiversity movement” acting as if stairs are an evil invention designed to thwart people. Or, more to the point, kudos to theaters that have “sensory-friendly” screenings, but I have zero right to demand that they make all of their screenings such. (That said, I find most movies to be horrifically immoral anyway and I wouldn’t patronize them on moral grounds, even if my neurology were perfect.)

As small of a percentage of the population as autistics are, we cannot reasonably make demands of everyone else changing how they live just to suit us; it’s not fair to them. Should I be forced to give up bacon just because Jews and Muslims can’t have it? No, of course not. (Nor would I eat bacon in the presence of either, by the way.) 21st century western society has apparently done so well on any “real” problems that we’re now trying to move Heaven and Earth to cater to the demands of <2% of the population, on many fronts.

Sorry, I’ll whine about autistic “discrimination” when we’re done killing babies in the womb because a pre-natal test showed that they might have Downs Syndrome, or because the father’s condom broke, the mother’s pills failed, and no one will dare whisper the word “adoption,” despite the existence of infertile women like myself. When we get rid of real problems and injustice, maybe I’ll start shouting about autism problems.

I do think it’s harder to be an aspie female; feminazis have very strict “sisterhood” codes that, even when I know of them, I reject, and they’re unforgiving to those who think differently from them.

I’ve hated every single Rudy Simone book I’ve ever read for this reason. She’s of them, she’s of their ilk, even aspie. She has no idea what life is like for those of us who are truly outside the norm, but she’s arrogant enough to try and “speak” for me! Her “Aspergirls” book is, in my honest opinion, a how-to manual to raise, be, or become a dysfunctional adult. She never takes responsibility for her own actions and relationship failures. I’m never allowed to pass off that responsibility!

The word “disease” to me should be limited tobacterial/viral infections and the ilk. “Syndrome” is a perfectly adequate word for me, as is “disorder.” For some, it is also a disability. If being unable to hear or speak is considered a disability, why isn’t being unable to speak? I think I also like the word “Syndrome” best because it doesn’t convey any particular level of functioning or non-functioning or high-functioning or whatever.


That said, would I pursue a “cure” if there were one?
  • It would depend on what it was, specifically. Like, is it a pill? A shot? Electrical stimulation of the brain? Is there a risk of death? What other risks are there? Cures can be worse than what they purport to treat! Also, speaking as an American, I’d want to see a permanent FDA ban on using it, whatever it is, in anyone under 25, maybe even 30. Your brain isn’t settled neurologically until your mid-to-late-20s, for one, and for two, I think too many parents would abuse it on their minor children. Someone has to test it, and I’d be willing to put myself on the line if it might benefit someone else. I also know aspie females aren’t always easy to come by, so I might well be able to fill a testing gap.
  • I’d love to not have to time myself in a mall before I become non-verbal or have a migraine; I’d love it if I didn’t have such tactile sensitivities that I can’t handle the teeniest amounts of pain. I sincerely don’t know how I’d handle childbirth, even if I could conceive and found a husband. I’d like to be able to eat things regardless of how they smell or taste in my mouth.
  • It’d be great to not spend years unemployed because I can’t manage a job interview, or to not alienate people within minutes of meeting them.
  • It’d be great if a Catholic gentleman my age would view me as a marriage prospect and potential mother, not as his little sister (since aspie females often come across as immature,) or, as one man put it, placing me in a “pseudo-female” category. Asperger’s has caused people to literally not take any notice of the fact that I have boobs, because I’m just that bad at “passing” for a 21st-century woman. Whatever “chameleon” skills most female aspies apparently have, I lack.
  • And that’s just things off of the top of my head. Asperger’s has, in many ways, prevented me from living the life I always wanted, and still want. I’ve had to dial back my desires in order to conform to the reality of autism. I don’t like that, and the first person, every person, to suggest that I’m “wrong” or “bad” or the equivalent of an anti-Semitic Jew for saying that can get slapped around with a weighted item.
  • I don’t want Asperger’s; I don’t want autism. “Celebrating” Asperger’s sounds as asinine to me as “celebrating” my severe Depression. There’s nothing to celebrate! It’s a shortcoming! Period! I don’t celebrate ADD, either, especially when zoning out in the car has, time and again, put only my Guardian Angel between me and a severe accident! I’d give up every aspie “plus,” (which, for me, pretty much means a barely-above-average IQ and nothing else; I don’t know where this idea of “creativity” comes from, because one of my problems at work is that I CAN’T think creatively or come up with “outside the box” solutions to programming problems!) not to have all of the downs, the problems. In a heartbeat, if I could snap my fingers and choose not to be autistic, I’d do it. Without hesitation. I’d do it as quickly as I would choose to not have ADD, to not be clinically depressed, to not have an under-active thyroid, bad eyes, PCOS, asthma, allergies, not to have mentally insane parents, be single…get the idea?
We’re all about “affirming” the experience of every other frakking demographic on this planet, no matter how obscure or flat-out immoral and depraved they may be, but the second the “autism gadfly” shares his experience? “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! He can’t say anything like that!”

If the Gadfly was saying his autism made him question his masculinity, we’d be all over supporting him, or if he said he hated being masculine, being born a man, whatever, society would approve of “curing” him by castration, pills, and worse. Why is it socially acceptable for him to, if he did, hate his 46th chromosomal pair and deny his biology with makeup and surgery, but he can’t wish to not be autistic? It’s zero short of hypocrisy and a sign of how schizophrenic and flat-out stupid our society has become!

Note, this does also vaguely touch on why I said what a cure was, its form, would matter. So yes, any “cure” for autism would have to pass my moral test, too. Scripture clearly states that God created male and female; autism and the ilk, mental “differences,” are never mentioned, ergo they are not sacrosanct the way that sex is. God created me as a woman; I have zero right to tell Him otherwise or to insist that He somehow made a “mistake.” Autism is a different matter, however, and if He placed before me an ethical cure, (if embryonic stem cells are involved, I’m out!) I’d take it, for the same reason I take Adderall to manage my ADD at work or would take an antibiotic if I was sick. Femaleness and fertility are my body working correctly; Asperger’s is my body working incorrectly. We’ve got this whole mess entirely backwards.

I overall, regardless of any of the above, find that being a strict Catholic ostracizes me, stigmatizes me, separates me more from the rest of humanity than does Asperger’s. Most people see the crucifix around my neck, the bumper stickers on my car, or they note that I’m not drinking even though I’m of age, wearing ashes, whatever it is, and they judge and avoid me based on that before they get to know me well enough to see that I have Asperger’s. And lest it sound like I’m whining, I’m well aware and grateful that ISIS isn’t trying to decapitate me; Christians of any neurology have it far worse in the Middle East, China, and North Korea than anything I’ll ever experience, for AS or my faith.

I don’t get why autism is considered so different from anything else that can be wrong or abnormal with the brain. I’ve read their arguments; I respectfully and humbly disagree.



About Jane Doe

Jane Doe is a strict catholic, 30-year-old woman who grew up in the American midwest. She was diagnosed around age 5 with ADD and is self diagnosed as an aspie now looking for a formal diagnosis. Her work is in computers and her hobby is gaming.

Opinions expressed by Autism Daily Newscast Contributors are their own.


SOURCE: Neurodiversity: Would I pursue a “Cure” if there were one? - Autism Daily Newscast
 
She wrote that without a shred of irony.

Meta-point: We know that people mainly feel the need to deny that they are, say, racist or homophobic, just when they are expressing racist or homophobic attitudes, but this is probably the first time I've read the equivalent of "I'm not a bigot, but…".
 
What a load of bovine fecal material! Asperger's is not something that is wrong with me, something that needs to be cured. Asperger's is a fundamental part of who I am, what is right about me. The problem isn't with Aspergians; it's with society's perceptions of Asperger's syndrome. We have much to offer society, if only society would stop undervaluing us as a group.
 
I think that underneath all of the far right rhetoric and borderline hate speech she actually does make a point I can agree with. In advocating for one's rights it is important not to trample the rights of others.

An example of this would be an article I read from a male feminist, which among other things suggested that men stop going shirtless in hot weather. The logic was that since women are typically not permitted to go topless in public that it would be an oppressive display of male privilege to exercise a right that women do not possess. While I do agree with that this is an unfair double standard in society I don't see how restricting men's freedom to be comfortable in warm weather makes life any better. (I realize there are different attitudes out there, but I am fairly ambivalent toward nudity)

Back to the issue at hand: if somebody wants a complete or partial cure to their autism, then all power to them. If somebody would rather stay the way they are then that is also their choice. The fact that Jane Doe does not see any upside to her self diagnosed aspergers is perfectly valid, but it is only her personal experience. While there are many people like her there are others for whom autism has lead to lives of extraordinary achievement, and many more who's experiences are somewhere in between.

Admittedly; my perspective on the world is much more Darwin than New Testament, so I don't expect my views will ever mesh with Jane's, but my perspective is that diversity is something to be preserved. It makes a population stronger. Even a seemingly detrimental phenotype, like cycle cell anemia, can be linked to genes that code for other more useful phenotypes; in this case immunity to malaria. Autism is far more complex than cycle cell anemia, but the principle is the same. The same genes which can cause debilitating symptoms also help to produce unique and brilliant minds capable of seeing things the rest of the population can not. I have herd it said that whoever first invented fire, or developed stone tools must have been on the spectrum. After all, who else would have the persistence and focus to derive technology from such an apparently fruitless labor.
 
In advocating for one's rights it is important not to trample the rights of others.

On what rights are Aspergians who simply want to be understood and accepted, not cured (since we aren't broken), attempting to trample?

Many people (not referring to anyone in particular) like to claim their "rights" are being violated simply because they are expected to respect the rights of others.

One such example is smokers who feel their "rights" are infringed when laws are passed to make public venues smoke free. There was never a right to poison the air in public spaces. There has always been a right to breathe smoke-free air. Laws were required to get many inconsiderate smokers to respect that right.

Many such examples exist.
 
On what rights are Aspergians who simply want to be understood and accepted, not cured (since we aren't broken), attempting to trample?

Many people (not referring to anyone in particular) like to claim their "rights" are being violated simply because they are expected to respect the rights of others.

One such example is smokers who feel their "rights" are infringed when laws are passed to make public venues smoke free. There was never a right to poison the air in public spaces. There has always been a right to breathe smoke-free air. Laws were required to get many inconsiderate smokers to respect that right.

Many such examples exist.

That's a good question. I suppose the one example she gave was the idea of sensory friendly movie theaters. It's great that they are being offered, but if other people demand a noisier experience that's also their prerogative. I am however new the neurodiversity movement, so I can't really speak to the current state of affairs as others do. Is anybody calling for aspie friendly environments on concessions that would impinge on the rights of neurotypicals? I really don't know because I don't have enough familiarity with the issues. I was merely agreeing with the principle.
 
As a moderator, I would like to ask everyone to be civil and respectful to respectful towards for other members when discussing this thread. Also, as always, let's bear in mind the Forum Rules and Guidelines.

This doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the replies so far. This reminder is only because of the extremely sensitive nature of this topic.
 
That's a good question. I suppose the one example she gave was the idea of sensory friendly movie theaters. It's great that they are being offered, but if other people demand a noisier experience that's also their prerogative. I am however new the neurodiversity movement, so I can't really speak to the current state of affairs as others do. Is anybody calling for aspie friendly environments on concessions that would impinge on the rights of neurotypicals? I really don't know because I don't have enough familiarity with the issues. I was merely agreeing with the principle.
I understand the concern, but it doesn't look like ASD affected folks are demanding anything. Based on this, it looks like a theater responded to a request, only to find potential for a profitable screening at an otherwise low demand time slot. (All such screenings are at 10:00 a.m.) It appears to be a win-win, but not a threat to the standard immersive audio-video viewing experience.

I think it's a fallacious argument on the part of Jane Doe.
 
I understand the concern, but it doesn't look like ASD affected folks are demanding anything. Based on this, it looks like a theater responded to a request, only to find potential for a profitable screening at an otherwise low demand time slot. (All such screenings are at 10:00 a.m.) It appears to be a win-win, but not a threat to the standard immersive audio-video viewing experience.
And what you showed seems to be only oriented towards young children.
 
To answer the question in the title: No.

It would feel like I've spent nearly thirty years in various circles of Hell learning to deal with all this for nothing. Moreover, I suspect that NT brains aren't super-easy to navigate either. It takes them many years to learn to use them properly, and afterward they excuse their past mistakes with "I was a child!", "I was so much younger then!", as if it wasn't really them making the mistake, just some kid whose memories got transferred into them.

Not enough to warrant its own thread, but I was reminded of this:

Possible spoiler:
I get the feeling that what they are "metaphorically" parodying is the obsessive concern certain media outlets, many parents of disabled kids, and an organisation I won't name have with the standardised milestones that we and others reach in our own time.
 
I think that she has a right to feel that way, even though I don't agree with some of her points.

People are affected by autism in different ways, at different levels of severity, and with different levels of support.
 
I think that she has a right to feel that way, even though I don't agree with some of her points.

People are affected by autism in different ways, at different levels of severity, and with different levels of support.
Yes. She doesn't say that everyone with autism should be forced to pursue a cure, she does say that she personally would seek one. I agree that she has a right to feel that way about her own life.

While she comes across as excessively whiny with regards to other people (Part of it is the way she worded things. Some of the things she says would seem better simply by being said differently. Like her, I oppose abortion, but I don't think the way she threw that reference in would convert anyone who doesn't already agree with her), I do understand and experience the same things she lists as painful results of AS. I would choose to have AS anyway, and simply accept those painful results; she would make the opposite choice.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Jaywalker 100% on this question. Being asked if I would accept a cure is like being told that you are broken and need to be fixed. I'm a Aspie, but I'm not broken or disabled in any way. There is nothing to cure. I like being a Aspie, it's my superpower. If someone offered me a cure, I would not only decline, I would be insulted.
 
Every other sentence in the OP is an enormous straw man. And I don't appreciate the reference to "Feminazis."

I don't see this discussion going anywhere, to be honest.
 
Yes. She doesn't say that everyone with autism should be forced to pursue a cure, she does say that she personally would seek one. I agree that she has a right to feel that way about her own life.

While she comes across as excessively whiny with regards to other people (Part of it is the way she worded things. Some of the things she says would seem better simply by being said differently. Like her, I oppose abortion, but I don't think the way she threw that reference in would convert anyone who doesn't already agree with her), I do understand and experience the same things she lists as painful results of AS. I would choose to have AS anyway, and simply accept those painful results; she would make the opposite choice.

I skimmed it twice. Some of it didn't appeal to me, but I understand where she is coming from. It's common for people to broadly (rather than personally) state things like, "autism isn't a disorder," or "people shouldn't even think about trying to find a cure for autism." These things can be very difficult to hear by those for whom it is a disorder. It invalidates their experiences. If I understand correctly, I think this is why she is angry.

I consider my condition to be a disorder, but I can respect that it is not a disorder for people who are "higher functioning" in some areas. If I were say 25, and were in school or working, and didn't have problems with isolation or finances, and maybe had a girlfriend or other friends, I might not consider it a disorder. When those things are missing, and one is getting older, there is no longer a shield against the worst aspects of the problems.

I consider my condition to be a disability in the same way that my hand injuries are. I've gained other abilities in compensation for my difficulties. People have often treated me like I'm slow or "retarded," but I'm cognitively faster than they are in some areas most of the time. I'm not less of a person because of any of my problems.

It's a complicated topic. I think the solution is for people to only speak for themselves when talking about autism, while trying to respect that other people may have different levels of severity and support available. We all have to find a balance somewhere. I got the impression from the article that this is what she was trying to communicate.
 
Kind of like every other proponent of any other kind of “diversity” that screams for “tolerance” at the top of their lungs. The most bigoted, intolerant people that I have ever met in my life are the ones that preach “diversity” and “tolerance,” while screaming at me, who never claimed to be a tolerant woman. (I accept the sinner, but will never, ever approve of their sin, nor should they mine.)
Quite true. The ones I find yelling "TOLERANCE!!" the loudest tend to be making up for the fact they're very intolerant. It's the quiet ones and those who talk about it casually that tend to have the most real tolerance and respect for other people.

If I am in a wheelchair, I have the right to demand a ramp to get in to a building. I do not, however, have the right to demand that other people stop using the stairs. Sometimes I see people in the “neurodiversity movement” acting as if stairs are an evil invention designed to thwart people. Or, more to the point, kudos to theaters that have “sensory-friendly” screenings, but I have zero right to demand that they make all of their screenings such. (That said, I find most movies to be horrifically immoral anyway and I wouldn’t patronize them on moral grounds, even if my neurology were perfect.)

As small of a percentage of the population as autistics are, we cannot reasonably make demands of everyone else changing how they live just to suit us; it’s not fair to them. Should I be forced to give up bacon just because Jews and Muslims can’t have it? No, of course not. (Nor would I eat bacon in the presence of either, by the way.) 21st century western society has apparently done so well on any “real” problems that we’re now trying to move Heaven and Earth to cater to the demands of <2% of the population, on many fronts.
True dat, I have noticed an odd trend in some cases where there is some normal person shaming. What's wrong with being normal? Being courteous is always nice, but it's not so good when we expect some to do without just because Timmy wants to be a dog in a manger.

Sorry, I’ll whine about autistic “discrimination” when we’re done killing babies in the womb because a pre-natal test showed that they might have Downs Syndrome, or because the father’s condom broke, the mother’s pills failed, and no one will dare whisper the word “adoption,” despite the existence of infertile women like myself. When we get rid of real problems and injustice, maybe I’ll start shouting about autism problems.
I still want to slap the ho that wanted me to do that dangerous test on my baby because she was running out of ways to badger me into killing him in the first place. My baby, I want him. She had no right to pressure me to that extent to kill him!

I’ve hated every single Rudy Simone book I’ve ever read for this reason. She’s of them, she’s of their ilk, even aspie. She has no idea what life is like for those of us who are truly outside the norm, but she’s arrogant enough to try and “speak” for me! Her “Aspergirls” book is, in my honest opinion, a how-to manual to raise, be, or become a dysfunctional adult. She never takes responsibility for her own actions and relationship failures. I’m never allowed to pass off that responsibility!
Haven't read Aspergirls. I can't get past the "empowering" thing. That's a bad word, I don't trust it.

The word “disease” to me should be limited tobacterial/viral infections and the ilk. “Syndrome” is a perfectly adequate word for me, as is “disorder.” For some, it is also a disability. If being unable to hear or speak is considered a disability, why isn’t being unable to speak? I think I also like the word “Syndrome” best because it doesn’t convey any particular level of functioning or non-functioning or high-functioning or whatever.
Amen, sistah! If I'm diseased, it'd better be because of a little critter that I can't stomp on directly.

That said, would I pursue a “cure” if there were one?
  • It would depend on what it was, specifically. Like, is it a pill? A shot? Electrical stimulation of the brain? Is there a risk of death? What other risks are there? Cures can be worse than what they purport to treat! Also, speaking as an American, I’d want to see a permanent FDA ban on using it, whatever it is, in anyone under 25, maybe even 30. Your brain isn’t settled neurologically until your mid-to-late-20s, for one, and for two, I think too many parents would abuse it on their minor children. Someone has to test it, and I’d be willing to put myself on the line if it might benefit someone else. I also know aspie females aren’t always easy to come by, so I might well be able to fill a testing gap.
Not a bad idea. I'd also like to nominate people stop piercing their babies' ears. That's just a bit creepy to me. And cue the anti-circumcision people to add their two cents.
  • I’d love to not have to time myself in a mall before I become non-verbal or have a migraine; I’d love it if I didn’t have such tactile sensitivities that I can’t handle the teeniest amounts of pain. I sincerely don’t know how I’d handle childbirth, even if I could conceive and found a husband. I’d like to be able to eat things regardless of how they smell or taste in my mouth.
  • I don’t want Asperger’s; I don’t want autism. “Celebrating” Asperger’s sounds as asinine to me as “celebrating” my severe Depression. There’s nothing to celebrate! It’s a shortcoming! Period! I don’t celebrate ADD, either, especially when zoning out in the car has, time and again, put only my Guardian Angel between me and a severe accident! I’d give up every aspie “plus,” (which, for me, pretty much means a barely-above-average IQ and nothing else; I don’t know where this idea of “creativity” comes from, because one of my problems at work is that I CAN’T think creatively or come up with “outside the box” solutions to programming problems!) not to have all of the downs, the problems. In a heartbeat, if I could snap my fingers and choose not to be autistic, I’d do it. Without hesitation. I’d do it as quickly as I would choose to not have ADD, to not be clinically depressed, to not have an under-active thyroid, bad eyes, PCOS, asthma, allergies, not to have mentally insane parents, be single…get the idea?
Annnnnd, ya lost me. I don't have enough self-loathing to hate my genetic makeup. It can get awkward and frustrating, yes, but I am what I am. Maybe a "cure" for those who want it, but I'd be afraid they'd make it near-mandatory like the Downs test. Besides, my oddities are great comedy entertainment, and I love to laugh! And I have ADOS, thank you. "Attention Defic-- Ooo, squirrel!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Threads

Top Bottom