Advocacy and those with severe difficulties
Advocacy and those with severe difficulties
Content Warning: This is a post detailing arguing with a friend about ND rights. It's probably going to cover topics of discrimination, eugenics, conversion therapy/ABA and other serious topics.
Hey. So I have this friend, let's call him Woof, who I'm close to. Like, close in an almost-dating-but-its-complicated way. I find it difficult to find new friends, so basically he was the only real person I could lean on and confide in as a friend.
Due to various things, I've kinda gotten emotionally invested in the whole neurodivergence movement thing recently. The idea that things like autism should be treated as diversity rather than disability.
Woof... Doesn't see the same way. He works as an ambulance driver and as such has seen a lot of people who have all sorts of difficulties... My understanding is that he thinks the whole ND movement thing is a bit naive and ignores some people who really need help and support.
It's something we've butted heads about before, but it's gotten really bad the past two weeks. I just... Think there's something we're miscommunicating and misunderstanding. What he's saying sounds logically sound, but feels uncomfortable to me...
I know I probably shouldn't rant about this stuff to the internet, but I could really use some comments by a neutral party. Especially since it feels like I'm strawmanning him super hard and projecting some of my own uncertainties onto him. Or maybe I'm avoiding uncomfortable truths? Or maybe I'm overlooking something and will make a fool of myself (which happens every time I talk about politics...). Again, just looking for extra views and thoughts.
The crux of his thoughts are that some people really suffer. There are autistic people that have severe problems, like intense hypersensitivity, weak cognitive ability, inability to communicate. Those kinds of things.
Outwardly at least, I personally don't have much issues. I have a job (for the time being - my quality of work has been slipping due to mental health), I can travel around unaided and I can communicate to people decently well. I have a lot of mental fuckery and problems, but that doesn't stop me getting the coveted title of "high functioning".
So I can't really say that I have experienced the hardships faced by everyone. There are a number of people that will never be able to adapt and fit into society. Or those that are constantly overwhelmed by the world and have severe trouble coping. They have my sympathies, but I'm not them.
Given that, am I forcing my views on people where I shouldn't? Am I assuming people are generally like me, and so I ignore the voices of those who have greater difficulties?
Are we all like that here? Most people here are adults who can articulate their thoughts and desires clearly enough and can function "okay" enough in society.
Can we truly advocate for people with more severe versions of the same symptoms? I think so; it's similar to how bi people can advocate for gay rights despite being able to have "normal" relationships. Woof doesn't think the same way for ND though. Different severities of conditions might require different allowances and support, which can get overlooked by people fighting just for themselves.
I was going to go into specific cases about specific events, but that's probably not going to be useful. We've argued about a lot of the main controversial autism things, so I'll try to give a summary.
My stance is usually on the "pro-ND" side. I think regardless of neurotype, everyone should get the support and not feel the need to change who they are. That even those with severe difficulties deserve to live their lives as best they can and be who they are.
Woof's stance seems to be usually on the "pro-change" side. That if there was a way to remove people's neurodivergence without causing harm, it should be offered to them. And that for those that are truly suffering, it should be the choice that is encouraged.
... I guess his stance also reacts with my anxiety beast in a bad way... I would consider myself as someone who has suffered my entire life. Would it be better if I were someone else? Would Woof prefer me if I were someone else? Do I have a moral obligation to prevent people like me from existing? Do I deserve to live? Blegh.
But yeah, sorry for rambling. It's all been stuck in my head and I'd appreciate some different viewpoints. Even if it's just to tell me that I'm wrong. If you've made it this far, I appreciate you reading it.
That if there was a way to remove people’s neurodivergence without causing harm, it should be offered to them. And that for those that are truly suffering, it should be the choice that is encouraged.
It sounds superficialy benign, but keep in mind that "removing" behavior basically always ends up with shaming and manipulating people into masking, causing "hidden" harm.
Also, which suffering is intrinsic and which is caused by intolerance and ignorance of others is - empirically - impossible for others to know.
So, I find this way of thinking really scary.
It sounds superficialy benign, but keep in mind that "removing" behavior basically always ends up with shaming and manipulating people into masking, causing "hidden" harm.
It depends on whether someone is talking about the tools available right now, like ABA. Or, if they are talking about some magical hypothetical thought experiment "cure" that could reduce certain negative behaviours harmlessly.
Yeah I get that. But I also have seen "harmless cures" for homophilia. They work according to the people pushing them. And have no ill effects according to the same people. And they probably believe it. In reality it's social control, shaming, manipulation and repression techniques.
I do not trust the people deciding whether an autism cure is working and harmless.
I think that's my main issue... It sounds good on paper, but in practice it kind of falls apart.
Woof doesn't seem to have the "historical context" for most of this. Which is fair, he's not neurodivergent and lives in a country with kinda backwards views on mental health.
We spent ages arguing about a "cure" for autism, but it turns out that he considers therapy, social support, counselling, allowances and so on as to mean a "cure". He just... Doesn't seem to have context behind why I feel the way I do.
I honestly don't know if he's, intentionally or otherwise, going to make a bad call if he finds himself in a situation where he has to decide treatment for someone. Or if the only reason he'd make a good call is because he's friends with me.
But "hidden harm" is a good way of putting it, thanks.
I'd say your friend's viewpoint is fine, as long as he isn't advocating for forcing any specific treatment on people. Like maybe you don't agree with him but it's fine for friends to respectfully disagree about something. It sounds like he's just saying it should be an option for people who feel that they are really suffering, and I don't think that's a particularly awful position.
It would be different if he said something like "every ND person should be forced have their ND-ness removed if there's a medical way of doing so"
I think you make an important point that some of your differences of opinion are due to different experience--the fact that your friend has more contact with people who are suffering and more dependent and have less ability to express themselves. The important thing is to keep an open mind, as it sounds like you are doing, so that as you meet people in different circumstances you don't ignore the possibility that what's right for you is not right for them. You don't have enough information (maybe no one does) to come to a final universal conclusion about this, so it's ok to disagree. If you want to gain understanding, maybe find a way to have more contact with people more severely impacted than yourself.
I feel like the saying that autism is a difference and a disability applies here. Some autistic people are more affected by differences being mistaken for disabilities, and feel disability language undercuts them. Some autistic people are more affected by disabilities being mistaken for differences and feel difference language undercuts them. My thought is that both sides need to acknowledge both sides.
not exactly a neutral party, here, but i'm someone who deals with frequent imposter syndrome around autism because i'm "not autistic enough." i am certainly seen as capable and high functioning despite being disabled.
so, people tend to think in terms of good or bad and really struggle to deal with the fact that something can be both things. so a lot of people are confused about how a disability could be something to accept or even celebrate.
and i think that is a huge part of the problem. people go through hardships. that is life. it is regularly acknowledged as part of what makes life beautiful. and the hardships people face are different, and affect them in different ways.
neurological differences are one of many unique experiences that can cause immense hardship and also bring immense joy.
everyone deserves support through their hardships. everyone. but for autism in particular and neurodivergence in general, it's like— it's not an isolated thing. it's not, "if you could walk again, would you chose to? if you could see again, would you get the surgery?" it's like you said, being a different person. effectively ceasing to exist.
"but so many people suffer!" yes! they do! and they deserve to be supported through that as they are, for who they are— not coercively "fixed" according to someone else's idea of normal. being regularly told i was malformed from the day i was conceived isn't going to alleviate any of my suffering, dipshit.
it's also ignorant to look at a DIVERSITY movement such as NEURODIVERSITY and then be pissy that it's not one size fits all? OF COURSE IT'S NOT.
someone like your friend suggesting that the things some autists want and need are wrong because other autists need something else is so astonishingly missing the point it's difficult not to get pissed about it. like, duh! fucking DUH. that's the whole fucking movement, that there are people who have different life experiences and needs and contributions and that we should stop trying to make everyone conform to a narrow idea of what "normal" is.
how the fuck does that translate to ignoring people's support needs and suffering.
as an aside, one reason i reject the concept of autism as a disability: i'm autistic and adhd. i can speak (usually). there are autists who cannot speak and are nonverbal. but there are also many autists like me who can speak.
... so while being nonverbal is often associated with autism, it's not a defining feature. to be autistic is not to be nonverbal, and to be nonverbal is not to be autistic.
this is why i personally feel like autism is a type of person. a neurotype. autists have a lot in common with each other and we also have a shit ton of differences among us, like any other group. there are disorders and disabilities that are more common for autists than allists, but that does not make autism equivalent to those disabilities.
and either way, conflating the celebration of autism with dismissing the needs of our most disabled neurokin is ridiculous, ignorant, and disrespectful to all autists.
like, what, i'm not allowed to be proud of my creativity and curiosity because many autists are miserable? like, what the fuck?
Divide it into dimensions:
Separate them.
Autism ( I'm saying this from experience ) is fundamentally a kind of braindamage that removes a person's social-processing circuitry, to greater or lesser extent, while making us woodenheaded.
It can be outright lifecrippling.
It can require DECADES to fight-off, enough, that one can function approximately as a civilization-citizen.
It can be too strong to fight-off.
I wouldn't trade-in my autism for anything, and many neurotypicals don't want that to be seen/known/valid, in any way.
Fine.
They want conforming, I want them to stop abusing our-kind's abilities, out of their "only our kind is allowed" undercurrent.
I've been on a construction-job where I was given MY kind of work: me & things taskwork, and was later removed from being allowed to continue testing those tunnel-walls & marking the failing-areas, because neurotypicals wouldn't want to do that work, therefore they wouldn't permit me to do it.
It was required work that wasn't done, because neurotypicals wouldn't like doing it, and there are safety-consequences of that.
It is more-likely that someone is going to die due to a tunnel-collapse, as a result of that work being not-done.
That's offensive to me.
I don't function well in social-process: it is abuse.
There is such a fundamental "that isn't possible, therefore that isn't allowed" current underlying human .. politicking, for lack of a better word, .. that there is no point in pretending that optimal-lives-for-each-of-is can be permitted by the politicking-motivation.
Anyways, both the neurodiversity side & the true-disability-side have valid pieces of understanding, but the objectivity required to come to the truth isn't what political-motivation tolerates.
I think your 1st-responder friend isn't seeing the high-functioning autistics, AND I think you aren't seeing the cripples of our kind.
Just my idiotic 2 cents, is all.
_ /\ _
Yes, at least he isn't labeling you with stereotypes.
He does unfortunately use the "high" and "low" functioning labels a lot, and the "level" system that the US does.
I've tried to explain the problems with that too him, but he still thinks that they're useful in the abstract to determine roughly how to allocate resources.
You don't need to be with people, who don't respect you. You can try finding new friends and cutting him off, but that's easier said than done.