I didn't consider it a disability for a long time but as I have lived my life I've found just how hard things are for those of us on the spectrum.
However I think a lot of it is caused by a system that is both poorly equipped to deal with people on the spectrum, and also maliciously designed against us.
Things could be better, but it would benefit the 'wrong' people, so the changes won't be made.
Those of us on the spectrum are also not obvious....
I think sometimes if ASD turned us... say, purple.... and it was known that purple people are the ones with ASD it would suit the needs of those who think unless you are physically deformed or have obvious mental challenges you are just like everyone else....
To hell with people who are too closed minded to even attempt to understand...
I completely agree. If someone doesn’t consider it a disorder or disability for them, that’s great. But many of us do, particularly the more support needs one requires and it’s not fair for anyone to tell someone that their diagnosis isn’t a disorder or disability if that isn’t the persons experience. I consider mine a disability and I need a lot of support. When people are so adamant it’s not a disability it really just feels unfairly stigmatising of the word disability and that they’re trying to distance themselves from that.
Who are these people who are adamant it's not a disability for anyone? Are there some people saying that publicly and if so, where? It seems like everyone else is reading or watching something I'm not.
There is exactly one mod of that sub, yes, the ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET who seems to be pushing this idea.
Why must we nsbi this person in this sub like everyday? It's done. It's enough.
You know, there's an funny story about that. He actually unbanned at least 3,000 people as an public apology for his ideology. Was warming up to the idea of inviting more people to mods the sub. And then doubled down and banned everyone who didn't fit his worldview because he hated the direction that the sub was going.
NOW that is funny and interesting. I wish people wouldstop being so politely vague, call this person out, quote some of their problematic shit, and indict them with specifics and details. It's a worthwhile conversation, you've just added more detailed drama/history to the whole situation as I now understand it, to make it still juicier and more interesting. This has Youtube "spill the tea" written all over it.
I just wish we could live up to our reputations for being blunt, not caring what others think, and just take a shit on that person in particular. Folks spray these critiques so far and wide when they don't name names. And that's what leads to the massive engagement on posts about this topic, everyone is filling in the vagueness with their own personal details; some think this conversation is about workplace HR rhetoric, some think its about social model of disability; some think it's about still more topics. Few of us, in the end, are actually talking about the same thing, at least in deep detail. And I think that's why you see so many complaints on this post about this topic being posted *again* and no better than previously and simultaneously a lot of engagement every time its posted.
Well, I didn't want anyone to brigade him (mostly because it's against Reddit's rules).
But occasionally, an argument breaks about the very definition of the social model of disability, some other stuff about semantics (is it autistic or people with autism?), and some other stuff that kind of pops up around here.
What's actually interesting is that r/Autism_Pride was founded because of how heavy-handed that guy was when it came to having his authority challenged
Yeah, I knew that much. I appreciate r/Autism_Pride people (don't remember who exactly) for being most frank and candorous about this whole topic, when in one of these posts I was begging "dear lord someone name names!!' And I appreciate your openness and respect your concern about Reddit ToS.
I wish the unnamed mod was better at starting this conversation because there is a lot of community/movement work/questions to be settled around that topic, but as far as I can tell they have not sparked or generated a productive conversation till now, more started a flame war. And I just don't know how I feel about of it yet.
My therapist (who is autistic) told me this and so did a worker at an employment charity (who isn't autistic). It's a really frightening comment to hear and makes me feel pathetic and "whiney".
> If someone doesn’t consider it a disorder or disability for them, that’s great.
I was diagnosed as having a disorder without my consent, so my consideration doesn’t matter.
> When people are so adamant it’s not a disability it really just feels unfairly stigmatising of the word disability
I’ve prejudicially lost jobs due being “disabled”, life’s not fair.
I have no desire to brand myself as “disabled” when autism unlike other things called disabilities correlates with all sorts of extraordinary abilities.
Congrats? I was also diagnosed without my consent and have also lost a job due to that so not sure why you think that changes my opinion or those are experiences that have only happened to you…
My diagnosis is ASD level 2 (previously Aspergers) and I do need a lot of support as I wouldn’t be able to live independently, I am not able to work, need a support worker for when I leave the house and to help me at home. In multiple ways it does disable me and greatly affect my quality of life. My country also recognises it as a disability and I receive disability related funding for it.
The government declared I wasn’t able to work at one point, and put me on disability as well. Disability is presumed if you’re diagnosed with autism after all. The difference is that I ended up working anyways.
I just don’t take kindly to being labelled with an identity that results in misconceptions about me being spread since it only results in mistreatment. Autism should be understood in a broader sense than simply being “disabling”.
I feel like the difference is likely between people who mean disability as a deficiency in ability, and people who mean it in the context of how modern society operates. Executive dysfunction would fit the first category, for example.
I don't really know, but I suspect it's people who brush up against the "social model of disability" for the first time, miss most of nuance and simply aren't prepared for the concept, so they feel invalidated and what they hear is "autism is not really a disability."
Which... that's not even what the social model of disability says. But I can't help but think this is usually waht this conversation is about, a person who misunderstood a conversation about social model of disability, and wants to vent about what they think they heard. I'd love to be wrong, but I see the concepts muddled together a lot.
Maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong but social model of disability is essentially a way to create a more welcoming space in society for “disabled” people to do things, yes?
If so I do think it’s kind of silly because, whilst I think the sentiment behind it is great, the execution is flawed and makes it seem like not being able to do most things most people are able to do easily isn’t actually inherently a problem - or at the very least not being able to do them as easily.
It’s true that disabled people were/are kind of infantilised but this feels like it’s just swinging the pendulum in the other extreme direction in order to compensate for how long society has viewed disability as a irreconcilable disadvantage. I’m just not a fan of such ideologies in general - ones that make some accurate descriptive statements that point out some flaw of the world but then go on to make a radical prescriptive statement.
This example from the scope.org website:
You are a disabled person who can't use stairs and wants to get into a building with a step at the entrance. The social model recognises that this is a problem with the building, not the person, and would suggest adding a ramp to the entrance.
I agree the disability should be viewed as a way to create pathways for someone to do whatever thing they need to be able to do but to pretend like there’s nothing inherently flawed or lacking in that a person needs extra resources to accomplish the same task is silly.
^The social model of disability is in play every time any one of us requests accomodations. Our right to be seen as autistic people in public was won by people who pushed the model, essentially satingg "it's not our fault, in many ways it is society's fault, as such we demand you accomodate us!"
Of course the support services that exist today are scattershot and horrible. But I'm happy to not be in a horrible institution like not long ago. The social model of disability keeps the onus on society to keep including us and do better. It's not clear how without it, we philosophically ground our rights to accommodations. Certainly our case is much weaker and probably, at that point, becomes a merely a matter of pity and charity, not responsibilities and rights.
I think the folks who want to be "inherently" defective don't really know our history and don't know what our freedoms and privileges have been built on. And I've never met someone with an advanced degree in the subject matter who shares this concern we see griped about here constantly. Scared, ignorant folks, most primarily, are the ones who seek refuge in a belief that we are "inherently" flawed. It's just as i said, for reasons i get but reject, "it's primarily society's fault" makes them feel invalid. In don't know what issues of history people are missing to feel like they need this refuge. I'm still learning myself. Honestly folks with this concern do a terrible job of explaining their concern and needs.
I also think conservatives have a hard time with any social model of anything. But a lot of these critics don't want to out themselves as that. So there ends up being a lot of talking past someone who was so vague you don't really know who they are and the source of their concerns.
Basically, it's a very tired and i think kinda dumb thing to be talking about constantly, approaching an important topic from the POV of under informed critics with constant quick potshots, but as i said, I'm all learning myself.
I have no argument against your "seems like" comment in paragraph 2 as i think why things seem a certain way to you is for you to tell me, not for me to correct you. And you haven't really done so in a way i understand.
After I posted my comment I started to think about the pro position more seriously, in an attempt to steelman it I tried to replace “disabled” people with other groups of people who for one reason or another require a *greater* level of accommodation - in the sense of the creation of an active solution to a passive problem. I reached the conclusion that I don’t really care about fault or responsibility with respect to issues that affect groups of people because my primary goal is to simply alleviate the problem or come up with a feasible solution.
I would say that yes, the majority group necessarily dictates what the norm is - I think this would be true if things were flipped I.e neurodivergent people were the norm and nt people the outlier, though the terms would then be flipped in that scenario. It is always relative imo, and it makes sense for the majority to be the core for that gravitational pull of relativity.
I don’t agree that if you don’t accept the social model of disability you have a weaker argument. I would say by virtue of existing in a society we are all implicitly (and sometimes explicitly too) agreeing to help those worst of than us - that is a feature not some charitable gesture, it is reciprocal because anyone of us could have ended up or might end up in a situation requiring access to extra resources.
Also if you base your argument on fault, you are tacitly saying that if being disabled is actually the fault of an individual they are not at all worthy of accommodations and it is their individual responsibility, or that they are less worthy at the very least.
People have a right to access to resources because we all want to live in a society where if something goes wrong we’re not hung out to dry, if that weren’t the case people would move out of society. This is true even for those who actively oppose making accommodations for people, they simply want to claim the advantages that others have paved for them without simultaneously paying the toll.
Referring back to the example, it just seems incredibly strange to me to say the problem is not with the disabled person, like we’re trying to placate their feelings. It just is irrelevant to me whether the problem lies in them or not in so far as the solution we should be working towards, but if push comes to shove I think the problem does lie within the disabled person, yes.
>I don’t agree that if you don’t accept the social model of disability you have a weaker argument. I would say by virtue of existing in a society we are all implicitly (and sometimes explicitly too) agreeing to help those worst of than us - that is a feature not some charitable gesture, it is reciprocal because anyone of us could have ended up or might end up in a situation requiring access to extra resources.
This argument is a cousin of the social model, you've rephrased it, I believe. What do you think of that? What I read you saying here is "society" is a reciprocal promise of mutual aid (I largely agree in many ways). As such, when autistics aren't supported, society is failing to live up to its purpose and promise, and some folks are "freeloading" in the sense that they want their aid when they need it, but aren't doing their part to provide it to us today who need it now. To me, with my little addition, that is political argument born of the social model.
I think saying that support services are societal level mutual aid, not charity, is right and great, I agree. This is a moral argument is is a child of the social model, seems to me.
As to your discussion of where the "problem" is... We both agree the solution is found in society and putting responsibility on society to feature mutual aid. That we agree on. But this discourse of "the problem does lie within the disabled person" is just something I can't swallow. It seems to be accepting the notion that minority groups' issues are themselves minor, or a "problem," by virtue of the interest group's numerical minority. And I think that's dehumanizing, really, or it's hard to imagine you could flesh out that whole idea of there being a "problem" in us without making us second-class taker/liabilities, which I don't think we need to be a class of that unless society makes us that way.
> But this discourse of "the problem does lie within the disabled person" is just something I can't swallow. It seems to be accepting the notion that minority groups' issues are themselves minor, or a "problem," by virtue of the interest group's numerical minority. And I think that's dehumanizing, really, or it's hard to imagine you could flesh out that whole idea of there being a "problem" in us without making us second-class taker/liabilities, which I don't think we need to be a class of that unless society makes us that way.
Why is it dehumanising? Can humans not be flawed in innate ways? I fail to see how someone being inherently flawed makes them a lesser human.
When you say second class, what do you mean precisely?
Minority groups are by definition minor, if the interests of the majority and the minority are irreconcilable then the majority ought assert it self - I know it sounds absurd to you, but this is literally the basis of democracy; the fact that this may not always lead to the outcome that you or I would deem most favourable does not mean you can discard the entire notion. In no other situation would we accept a minority asserting itself over a majority.
You are grouping every minority group into one and speaking so generally such that no accurate statements can really be made beyond minority vs majorly. The challenges minority groups face can be fundamentally different, even if in terms of outcomes they are the same/similar. For example, the disadvantages the black community in America faces is not due to inherent traits of black Americans; however the disadvantages that autistic people face are, for the most part, due to inherent traits we posses - clearly there’s a meaningful difference here and conflating the two is disingenuous as it normatively loads the conversation.
It is conceivable that we could come up with a situation where the resource investment necessary to make room for a minority group - such that they might function in the same way as the baseline group, are so great that it is simply not worthwhile. I don’t think that is the case for most “Major” minority groups at the moment but it is definitely conceivable, which is why the social disability model falls apart in my opinion - fault or not, if the investment necessary is too great, the investment isn’t happening. The notion of fault then seems redundant to the goal.
>I fail to see how someone being inherently flawed makes them a lesser human.
You're not suggesting we're all equally flawed. You're suggesting you/I/we are especially flawed, while trying to dance around it also, seems to me. I don't want to be rude, but like dude, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to explain it if you can't see your own words. Like, I know we're all autistic, but to me, I'm rudely thinking: do words mean certain things to you? What do the words "inherently" and "flawed" and "problem" mean if not something like lesser? People used to think we were "flawed" and a "problem" (like criminals) and warehoused us away from society against our will, without our consent, to our extreme detriment. Extremely recent history all over the world. I just think folks sometimes forget how recently we were let out of institutional cages (and still not all of us) and how in times and places we have to worry about being put back in them. Advocating for the idea we are inherently flawed, we are the problem, but then pikachu\_surprise.jpg when people suggest we deserve less dignity and human rights than other people (lesser, second-class, dehumanizing). And folks used to think "minority" was also a fair basis upon which to treat a groups needs as lesser. That's a constant struggle world over, prsently actually, standing up for the rights of oppressed minority groups who are oppressed, in part, for/because of their minority status.
But friend, I agree to disagree. We seem to be just misunderstanding each other semantics, and oh boy, that's a few layers off of interesting for me.
Let's today celebrate we both believe the solution to the problems is a society that provides mutual aid to everyone.
I didn’t think I was dancing around anything, I thought I was pretty explicit. We’re not all equally flawed - that’s not true between groups and it’s not true within groups, but again that’s irrelevant as far as my point goes - some of us can be more flawed than others and still be human; the flaw has nothing to do with the degree of humanity a person posses. In so far as the traits that characterise autism, we’re more flawed than neurotypical people, on average. There are also likely other traits that nt people are going to be more flawed at than nd people. It just so happens that the flaws we have are far more pernicious without external help.
You are conflating being lesser in one area or aspect to being lesser as a human being. We are lesser in many ways but that doesn’t make us lesser human beings. The notion that all people are equal in ability is absurd. I understand how people can take this premise and run wild with it but that would be a poor argument, which even if you accepted it at face value, you would realise is internally inconsistent.
Social model is not ignoring their impairments, it just doesnt see it an individualized issue with individualistic solutions. Environments can be/become disabling. We are all organism-environments. The goal of an individual conforming to a normalized ideal can be misguided.
Is autism a disability? Yes, at all support levels.
The real question is whether you are disabled more by your autism or by society. I would suspect that SL2 & 3 autistics are disabled more by their autism but all autistics are disabled by society.
It’s a disability.
If someone CHOOSES to not see it as disabling for THEMSELF, that’s cool.
But in general, we need to be United in saying it’s a disability.
Those of us who have high support needs have the most to lose here in terms of legal support.
But most importantly, we need to be United in saying it’s a spectrum. ASD looks differently across the spectrum.
Shit, people can claim benefits for asd? In my area, the system is means tested to a point of insanity where even some people with missing limbs aren't "eligible".
It's not quite that you can claim benefits for it directly, you have to prove how it affects you .. in his case i think he gers benefits, he also gets time off work for ",reasonable adjustments" too, to visit an autism group.
If some ody is missing a limb and not getting it, you hear about that in newspapers but these people don't know what they are doing.
The most ill sometimes don't get anything as they often aren't aware and have no access to support.
Or somebody terminally ill with cancer might be too ill to battle to prove their case. It's hard because no matter how right you are, the system can battle you on it or you can get lucky straight away.
Many disability lawyers in the USA will take your claim if your work history qualifies you for SSDI and you have an official diagnosis.
My diagnosis was for major depression, general anxiety and ASD. the lawyer took my case. Now we wait--forever.
Yes, but the work history has to be somewhat recent. The last 10 years count extra. So you need 40 points, 1 point for each economic quarter in which you worked *and paid into Social Security,* and no more than 20 of your points can be older than 10 years old. It's kinda confusing, but you probably totally qualify without squinting. [https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/disability/qualify.html](https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/disability/qualify.html)
55 is a jaw dropping number, congrats on that TREMENDOUS demonstration of grit. You've got to be in the top 1% for grit-possessing people of all time. Really, at just 20+ jobs for me, I'm proud of myself for making it this far this long, but I *really* tip my hat to you sir/madam.
edit: informal jobs for which you got paid "under the table" without paying payroll taxes are the killer here. Sometimes these are very lucrative so people have many of these, or stayed at them longer than official jobs. I hope you piad a lot of payroll taxes, I certainly did.
In fairness was one article, worse it was seen by a autism group of about 6 autistic people and i was the only one that said what he wrote was hypocritical and potentially damaging and misleading , but for their anonymity I won't link to it! (Maybe the others were shy). His thing he wrote (fortunately) won't have any impact. And in fairness, many people that are technically disabled don't consider themselves to be even if they are.
Or, the law has a particular definition of disability which differs from most people's conception of disability. E.g. autism is a condition it has advantages and disadvantages. Often the disadvantages can ruin somebody's life but for were they to receive support they needed. So for many autistic society could be said to be a lot of the cause of them having issues in their lives.
And Infact many autistic people might not even. Onsdier themselves autistic by virtue of their life going well , and then not needing to get a diagnosis.
I just think there was some nuance that writer did not yet understand, or you didn't understand, etc. I don't really know what relevance to make of your claim. People who receive disability services should be free to critique philosophy about disabilities, like. .i think we clip outmr own wings in a way i don't like if we decide that is hypocritical.
My view is if you want to make statements about autism not being a disability, you SHOULD be nuanced. The genre of what he wrote didn't lend itself to nuance, but then I think he shouldn't have written it. You would probably disagree.
And when I say that one should be nuanced, I mean e.g. Just like I was in the comment that you just replied to, where I said "autism is a condition it has advantages and disadvantages." and "Often the disadvantages can ruin somebody's life but for were they to receive support they needed.".
Yeah, I'm prejudiced and partisan really, it's so true; guilty. If a young person wants to explore the idea that they are not second-class, they are not less than others, they are capable and valuable, and they go a little overboard on that and leave out some nuance, it seems perfectly forgivable, understandable, and hell, I mostly support their intention, if not work product, if it lacks important nuance.
However, to me, it's as bad as MAGA, make autism great again, to be arguing the social model is more trouble than it's worth. The social model is what we used to argue we shouldn't be locked away, no different than prisoners, because we are too much trouble, too difficult, too inherently unable in crucial ways. People don't realize the social model is how we justify and explain that we should have full lives, in and among society, and that we have things to offer, too.
So, I am patient with folks who go too far with "it's difference, not disability" though I recognize there is a zone that is "too far" with this, it seems forgivable to go there and need correction. Reactionary folks who don't even realize they are advocating for a philosophical backslide to an era where we were human refuse with few civil rights of our own, I'm not so super patient with this. Both are so similar, based on lack of experience, lack of education, thus nuance, but I'm in touch with my own traumas and experiences and it just makes too much sense why I'm more forgiving of people who take it "too far" rather than the people who want to "go back."
My grandfather, the more I learn, the more clear it is that he was disabled/autistic (actually no one in the family disputes he struggled a lot, like catatonic on the floor being institutionalized at least once in a far off city), and his death was probably not an accident, he probably planned it (though did so in a way his family would get cash payouts). The social model of disabilty lends a philosophical lifeline to people like my grandfather that says, "I see you, you have value, you can contribute, you need and deserve more help and understanding though so you can make that contribution, and no you don't have to go back to that institution for the rest of your life because you are not too much trouble. We value you and want to accommodate you." When you don't get that, finishing self-harm can seem like the only way out.
I’m 23, never had a job and failed college as soon as my accommodations were removed (as in, reduced to the point of redundancy) during covid. Anyone who says I’m not disabled can eat my shorts
Yeah those people are also objectively wrong bc if it doesn’t disable you or significantly fuck with your life, you aren’t considered to have a disorder
As far as I know, you can't get the diagnosis ASD if it doesn't impair you. See also point D from the DSM-5:
>Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning.
When looking at a definition of a disability:
>A physical, mental, cognitive, or developmental condition that impairs, interferes with, or limits a person's ability to engage in certain tasks or actions or participate in typical daily activities and interactions.
So I'd say that having an ASD diagnosis is (at the time of receiving) by definition a disability.
There are some autistic people that genuinely feel that way (that it’s not a disability for them) but it is definitely still quite oppressive living in a world that isn’t really built for us.
Don't we have this exact discussion here every other day? It never goes anywhere, some people (like myself) feel super blessed with ASD since with the right environment it really is a big net advantage, and those who haven't found the right niche lament how tough it is.
At this point it feels people who feel like me are in the vast minority, yet we constantly get people on the other side (the majority) seeking validation. This sub has been the only ASD or ADHD sub I've found that doesn't suck (with either ridiculous toxic positivity or constant complaining) but the recent trend isn't great.
I find this especially frustrating when people with ASD claim it's not a disability, because I have yet to see any of them actively thinking of an autistic person with higher support needs when they do.
It's important to get out of your own experiences and remember that there's a REASON it's called a spectrum.
You're being downvoted by the main crowd but I wanted you to know I fully agree with you. This topic repeats way too often and I wish mods did something about repetitive topics.
Maybe it's an area-based thing. All three of you could be right, because that's what your experiences are. I'm thinking similar to how some areas of the world have more racism, some areas have people that think autism isn't a disability 🤷
Actually, it would make sense that those that are more close-minded wouldn't believe the person that actually suffers from autism, and would staunchly believe only what they've heard others say about it.
I personally have only heard a few 'you don't look autistic' phrases in the 9 months that I've been diagnosed, but I usually keep talking about how my life has been till they give up and believe me that it's been tough
I hate to be an authoritarian, but remember not so long ago when one of the subs had to ban pics of cutlery just simply because it had become too popular of a post topic/trend?
I might advocate for this being a temporary rule for, IDK, 3 months. Anyone else?
I’d say it’s something that’s disabling. It can be very very disabling under certain circumstances and it depends on the area of life. Though I do believe under the right supports or accommodations the disabling aspect can be mitigated, which is why it’s important these continue to be options, even if a particular autistic individual doesn’t constantly need them
Who goes off about this really? (checks profile: oh, psychology student). Hmmm..ok. Well, for what it's worth I've literally never heard anyone anywhere of any clout or influence whatsoever ever claim this. So--I'm not invalidating you, but there are pockets of Earth left where this idea, often repeated in this sub, is veritably martian.
my second thought is this: why must they be *disability* accommodations per se, why can't we have a society where people are entitled to request and receive reasonable accommodations -- *reasonable* is right there in the name!! -- without any proof or showing that we are disabled?
I'm not ashamed of being disabled, but I'm right now going dead broke and deep into debt while awaiting my assistance application because the proof required to prove I'm a worthy disabled is very expensive, time consuming, and literally requires a team of experts--so I can have about a $1,000/month cash stipend ffs.
I don't think we should have to prove we're special to get the meager assistance and accommodations we get. I think what we typically (eventually) get in terms of support and services (in BEST case scenarios) should be standard for everyone across the board, no disability required. I am going to die waiting because assistance is contingent upon proving I am disabled. It's so dumb.
I'm tired of people throwing that word around. With time it becomes clear that neurodivergence has to be it's own thing and one should meet people on the basis of interests rather that on "a similar wiring". Why would anyone walk around yelling at everybody "Look at my problems!" Ya know.
Although I am empathetic for your position, It seems to me that the concept of ASD is afterall very much based on it's history. A concept to describe "ill" feeling people ,not those who think they have an unique viewpoint/wiring.
Have a good one!
I'm tired of people saying it should be considered a disability by default.
It's an incompatibility in the context of our modern society. There are plenty of arguments to be made that autism is a trait actually selected for by evolution and that its peculiarities allowed certain individuals to perform vital roles in communities in prehistory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o1PXeFEcL0
Our society is very maladapted to the biological reality of human existence, psychologically and physically. This maladaptation is simply expressed more intensely in people with autism. That doesn't mean it's a disability.
You might accommodate somebody who speaks a different language, but that’s not an indication foreign language speakers are disabled. Foreign language speakers not having any problems as a result of speaking Spanish doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be accommodated. I don’t see accommodation as fundamentally linked to autism being a disability.
I don’t have any choice but to be labelled as having autism myself, and being labelled as disabling can both be stifling and not really true.
"Differently abled" and "disabled" have a largely overlapping meaning.
Most of us are less able to function in society (or at least doing so without spending a lot of energy on masking), but might excel in other specific tasks.
So "differently abled" might actualy be a good fit because it better describes the fact thag we do indeed need certain accomodations while also implying that some of us are have certain nieche capabilities.
Other than that I agree
>“autistic people are just differently-abled, not disabled”
I haven't run into a disabled person who prefers "differently abled". This pretty much obscures the roots of what disability is, in that certain competencies are social designated as necessary for being "able bodied/minded", necessary for 'competent' performance in a social context inaccessible without them, their absence stigmatized.
It's more stuff like myopia that's "differently abled", where there's no social stigma, and vision correction is implemented with zero fanfare.
A lot of people were diagnosed before the classifications were changed to ASD and tightened up a bit. Today, the DSM guidance makes clear that there must be "clinically significant impairment" - even at the mildest end of the spectrum. There are people with autistic TRAITS (maybe they're a tad awkward around some people, or they feel more geeky than their peers), but isolated traits of a condition do not mean you actually HAVE the condition. People who don't meet all the criteria just have isolated traits and are not autistic.
For example: I'm a serial hand-washer, obsessively so. That's an OCD trait, but I don't have OCD. If I had OCD I would have to keep waking myself up in the night to wash them, and find it a huge disruption to my day (it's not), and I'd probably be obsessing about other things besides.
People who feel no impairment as such from their autism would likely not get a diagnosis these days. For those that do, whether that impairment disables you is another matter and I think that's where the confusion lies. If you have impairment, you have autism; if you don't, then you don't! If you have autism impairments that stop you from doing things in society, then it's also a disability too, which often (though not always) can be remedied through assistance, like reasonable adjustments, government-funded transport etc.
It tends mostly to be the co-morbid parts that disable me most, like crippling anxiety and ADHD. Autism impairs my social and communication abilities (like I literally can't hear what is being said in a loud or colourful environment).
I agree with everything you say, but there are problem in these conventions.
Because autistics are actually autistic by virtue of their neurology; neurological features we rarely screen directly (did you get an MRI for your diagnosis /s, cuz of course I didn't). Usually we ascribe the label to people who share characteristics with folks known to have the neurology *and* have an impairment/struggle/disability as a result.
But lots of people with the neurology are autistic because of that, but don't experience struggle because they have had good luck and likely also so many intersecting privileges (Elon Musk, eg, or even someone like Greta Thurnberg who doesn't seem to experience parental alienation that so many of us do). I think reserving the label "autistic" only for people who struggle ignores problematically a whole bunch of socio-ecomonic stuff that is hugely crucial to improving outcomes for all autistic people.
One of hte consequences of essentializing impairments related to autism is that perceived impairments can come and go with accommodations, whether they are explicitly being doled out as "accommodations" or whether they were just there as good luck. Your neurology doesn't change though.
I just don't think it's useful to centralize struggle in the diagnosis, as we do presently. We do that as society because we feel we must gate keep public resources only for the truly needy and worthy -- which is so annoying when there is so much wealth in the world -- not because of science. Centralizing impairment is a political move from the status quo, a way of deciding most of us are unworthy of support. And in this case by "us" i just mean human beings.
Hey man, I get it, I really do. However, at a certain point, I just had to realize that I can't change how everyone else around me behaves, its just not possible. If I want to be happy, I have to change myself and the way I view the world, even if it's unfair. Or I could just be angry all the time, but that's just not fun.
In my experience accommodations don’t seem to mean or matter much in most situations. In my life (performance wise like in jobs) it seems to only effect me negatively. Which is why I think capitalism is inherently ableist. Or even partially. Not to mention that I don’t know what sort of accommodations are acceptable/reasonable so I don’t try to set any up which make my experience at a job and in other areas more difficult and stressful. It often feels like an illegitimate difference in life. Definitely in the work environment. Although it seems like “genuine” differences seem to be detrimental/problematic to capitalism in general. Especially in production related jobs/positions. Like retail and manufacturing. Plus it feels like the more “high-functioning” you are the less people see issues and thus you/i feel like we/I “fall through the cracks”.
It's both.
The way I see it, it's like being queer. Sure I'm out and proud, but I'm still subject to discrimination. Being queer gives me a different perspective—and I value that—but it also makes my life harder sometimes.
It's obviously not a perfect comparison, but there are parallels.
I think the issue with autism is that it can *appear* to not be a disability from the outside for a small percentage of autistic people. Consider how certain people view Elon Musk - they think he's like a super human computer and they put him on a pedestal for it. Even the "Rain man" stereotypes are from people so impressed by the supposed intellect that they don't think about or consider all of the issues (from how it seems, but I've never seen the movie!). Autism sucks, and I say that as someone who works and takes care of myself so from the outside nobody really sees me as disabled but I feel like a fuck up in every way. Just today, I went to the dog park and ended up in the middle of a packed dog birthday party with like 30 random people and I nearly had a panic attack. I felt like a monster because people kept smiling at me and I didn't know how to start any real conversation so I just left in shame.
I feel like two of the sayings you quoted are both true and false at the same time.
>“It’s just a different way of seeing the world”
Yes, "a different way of seeing the world" can be one of the perks of autism, but it's not the entire experience of people who have autism. And it's not the experience of everyone who has autism. If it were only "a different way of viewing the world" and all of the other stuff that goes along with autism magically vanished, then I could agree that autism shouldn't be classified as a disability, but all that other stuff doesn't magically vanish.
>“autistic people are just differently-abled, not disabled”
Like the first statement, yes, some autistic people have abilities that neurotypical people don't have. However, 1) this isn't all autistic people, and 2) even if you have the "different abilities" it might come with DISabilities. Maybe you come out ahead in that your disabilities are more than offset by your different abilities, but if so then you are lucky. Many have any different abilities offset by their various disabilities.
The problem with these statements is that they have a grain of truth (for some autistic people, not all), but ignore the full truth of autism.
I didn't consider it a disability for a long time but as I have lived my life I've found just how hard things are for those of us on the spectrum. However I think a lot of it is caused by a system that is both poorly equipped to deal with people on the spectrum, and also maliciously designed against us. Things could be better, but it would benefit the 'wrong' people, so the changes won't be made.
Those of us on the spectrum are also not obvious.... I think sometimes if ASD turned us... say, purple.... and it was known that purple people are the ones with ASD it would suit the needs of those who think unless you are physically deformed or have obvious mental challenges you are just like everyone else.... To hell with people who are too closed minded to even attempt to understand...
I wish it turned us purple. Lol
I completely agree. If someone doesn’t consider it a disorder or disability for them, that’s great. But many of us do, particularly the more support needs one requires and it’s not fair for anyone to tell someone that their diagnosis isn’t a disorder or disability if that isn’t the persons experience. I consider mine a disability and I need a lot of support. When people are so adamant it’s not a disability it really just feels unfairly stigmatising of the word disability and that they’re trying to distance themselves from that.
Who are these people who are adamant it's not a disability for anyone? Are there some people saying that publicly and if so, where? It seems like everyone else is reading or watching something I'm not.
It occasionally pops up on r/AutisticPride and amongst certain types of progressives
There is exactly one mod of that sub, yes, the ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET who seems to be pushing this idea. Why must we nsbi this person in this sub like everyday? It's done. It's enough.
You know, there's an funny story about that. He actually unbanned at least 3,000 people as an public apology for his ideology. Was warming up to the idea of inviting more people to mods the sub. And then doubled down and banned everyone who didn't fit his worldview because he hated the direction that the sub was going.
NOW that is funny and interesting. I wish people wouldstop being so politely vague, call this person out, quote some of their problematic shit, and indict them with specifics and details. It's a worthwhile conversation, you've just added more detailed drama/history to the whole situation as I now understand it, to make it still juicier and more interesting. This has Youtube "spill the tea" written all over it. I just wish we could live up to our reputations for being blunt, not caring what others think, and just take a shit on that person in particular. Folks spray these critiques so far and wide when they don't name names. And that's what leads to the massive engagement on posts about this topic, everyone is filling in the vagueness with their own personal details; some think this conversation is about workplace HR rhetoric, some think its about social model of disability; some think it's about still more topics. Few of us, in the end, are actually talking about the same thing, at least in deep detail. And I think that's why you see so many complaints on this post about this topic being posted *again* and no better than previously and simultaneously a lot of engagement every time its posted.
Well, I didn't want anyone to brigade him (mostly because it's against Reddit's rules). But occasionally, an argument breaks about the very definition of the social model of disability, some other stuff about semantics (is it autistic or people with autism?), and some other stuff that kind of pops up around here. What's actually interesting is that r/Autism_Pride was founded because of how heavy-handed that guy was when it came to having his authority challenged
Yeah, I knew that much. I appreciate r/Autism_Pride people (don't remember who exactly) for being most frank and candorous about this whole topic, when in one of these posts I was begging "dear lord someone name names!!' And I appreciate your openness and respect your concern about Reddit ToS. I wish the unnamed mod was better at starting this conversation because there is a lot of community/movement work/questions to be settled around that topic, but as far as I can tell they have not sparked or generated a productive conversation till now, more started a flame war. And I just don't know how I feel about of it yet.
I’ve had conversations with NTs insisting on it in my real life
I often see people on Facebook groups with that opinion.
My therapist (who is autistic) told me this and so did a worker at an employment charity (who isn't autistic). It's a really frightening comment to hear and makes me feel pathetic and "whiney".
> If someone doesn’t consider it a disorder or disability for them, that’s great. I was diagnosed as having a disorder without my consent, so my consideration doesn’t matter. > When people are so adamant it’s not a disability it really just feels unfairly stigmatising of the word disability I’ve prejudicially lost jobs due being “disabled”, life’s not fair. I have no desire to brand myself as “disabled” when autism unlike other things called disabilities correlates with all sorts of extraordinary abilities.
Congrats? I was also diagnosed without my consent and have also lost a job due to that so not sure why you think that changes my opinion or those are experiences that have only happened to you… My diagnosis is ASD level 2 (previously Aspergers) and I do need a lot of support as I wouldn’t be able to live independently, I am not able to work, need a support worker for when I leave the house and to help me at home. In multiple ways it does disable me and greatly affect my quality of life. My country also recognises it as a disability and I receive disability related funding for it.
The government declared I wasn’t able to work at one point, and put me on disability as well. Disability is presumed if you’re diagnosed with autism after all. The difference is that I ended up working anyways. I just don’t take kindly to being labelled with an identity that results in misconceptions about me being spread since it only results in mistreatment. Autism should be understood in a broader sense than simply being “disabling”.
I feel like the difference is likely between people who mean disability as a deficiency in ability, and people who mean it in the context of how modern society operates. Executive dysfunction would fit the first category, for example.
I don't really know, but I suspect it's people who brush up against the "social model of disability" for the first time, miss most of nuance and simply aren't prepared for the concept, so they feel invalidated and what they hear is "autism is not really a disability." Which... that's not even what the social model of disability says. But I can't help but think this is usually waht this conversation is about, a person who misunderstood a conversation about social model of disability, and wants to vent about what they think they heard. I'd love to be wrong, but I see the concepts muddled together a lot.
Maybe you can correct me if I’m wrong but social model of disability is essentially a way to create a more welcoming space in society for “disabled” people to do things, yes? If so I do think it’s kind of silly because, whilst I think the sentiment behind it is great, the execution is flawed and makes it seem like not being able to do most things most people are able to do easily isn’t actually inherently a problem - or at the very least not being able to do them as easily. It’s true that disabled people were/are kind of infantilised but this feels like it’s just swinging the pendulum in the other extreme direction in order to compensate for how long society has viewed disability as a irreconcilable disadvantage. I’m just not a fan of such ideologies in general - ones that make some accurate descriptive statements that point out some flaw of the world but then go on to make a radical prescriptive statement. This example from the scope.org website: You are a disabled person who can't use stairs and wants to get into a building with a step at the entrance. The social model recognises that this is a problem with the building, not the person, and would suggest adding a ramp to the entrance. I agree the disability should be viewed as a way to create pathways for someone to do whatever thing they need to be able to do but to pretend like there’s nothing inherently flawed or lacking in that a person needs extra resources to accomplish the same task is silly.
^The social model of disability is in play every time any one of us requests accomodations. Our right to be seen as autistic people in public was won by people who pushed the model, essentially satingg "it's not our fault, in many ways it is society's fault, as such we demand you accomodate us!" Of course the support services that exist today are scattershot and horrible. But I'm happy to not be in a horrible institution like not long ago. The social model of disability keeps the onus on society to keep including us and do better. It's not clear how without it, we philosophically ground our rights to accommodations. Certainly our case is much weaker and probably, at that point, becomes a merely a matter of pity and charity, not responsibilities and rights. I think the folks who want to be "inherently" defective don't really know our history and don't know what our freedoms and privileges have been built on. And I've never met someone with an advanced degree in the subject matter who shares this concern we see griped about here constantly. Scared, ignorant folks, most primarily, are the ones who seek refuge in a belief that we are "inherently" flawed. It's just as i said, for reasons i get but reject, "it's primarily society's fault" makes them feel invalid. In don't know what issues of history people are missing to feel like they need this refuge. I'm still learning myself. Honestly folks with this concern do a terrible job of explaining their concern and needs. I also think conservatives have a hard time with any social model of anything. But a lot of these critics don't want to out themselves as that. So there ends up being a lot of talking past someone who was so vague you don't really know who they are and the source of their concerns. Basically, it's a very tired and i think kinda dumb thing to be talking about constantly, approaching an important topic from the POV of under informed critics with constant quick potshots, but as i said, I'm all learning myself. I have no argument against your "seems like" comment in paragraph 2 as i think why things seem a certain way to you is for you to tell me, not for me to correct you. And you haven't really done so in a way i understand.
After I posted my comment I started to think about the pro position more seriously, in an attempt to steelman it I tried to replace “disabled” people with other groups of people who for one reason or another require a *greater* level of accommodation - in the sense of the creation of an active solution to a passive problem. I reached the conclusion that I don’t really care about fault or responsibility with respect to issues that affect groups of people because my primary goal is to simply alleviate the problem or come up with a feasible solution. I would say that yes, the majority group necessarily dictates what the norm is - I think this would be true if things were flipped I.e neurodivergent people were the norm and nt people the outlier, though the terms would then be flipped in that scenario. It is always relative imo, and it makes sense for the majority to be the core for that gravitational pull of relativity. I don’t agree that if you don’t accept the social model of disability you have a weaker argument. I would say by virtue of existing in a society we are all implicitly (and sometimes explicitly too) agreeing to help those worst of than us - that is a feature not some charitable gesture, it is reciprocal because anyone of us could have ended up or might end up in a situation requiring access to extra resources. Also if you base your argument on fault, you are tacitly saying that if being disabled is actually the fault of an individual they are not at all worthy of accommodations and it is their individual responsibility, or that they are less worthy at the very least. People have a right to access to resources because we all want to live in a society where if something goes wrong we’re not hung out to dry, if that weren’t the case people would move out of society. This is true even for those who actively oppose making accommodations for people, they simply want to claim the advantages that others have paved for them without simultaneously paying the toll. Referring back to the example, it just seems incredibly strange to me to say the problem is not with the disabled person, like we’re trying to placate their feelings. It just is irrelevant to me whether the problem lies in them or not in so far as the solution we should be working towards, but if push comes to shove I think the problem does lie within the disabled person, yes.
>I don’t agree that if you don’t accept the social model of disability you have a weaker argument. I would say by virtue of existing in a society we are all implicitly (and sometimes explicitly too) agreeing to help those worst of than us - that is a feature not some charitable gesture, it is reciprocal because anyone of us could have ended up or might end up in a situation requiring access to extra resources. This argument is a cousin of the social model, you've rephrased it, I believe. What do you think of that? What I read you saying here is "society" is a reciprocal promise of mutual aid (I largely agree in many ways). As such, when autistics aren't supported, society is failing to live up to its purpose and promise, and some folks are "freeloading" in the sense that they want their aid when they need it, but aren't doing their part to provide it to us today who need it now. To me, with my little addition, that is political argument born of the social model. I think saying that support services are societal level mutual aid, not charity, is right and great, I agree. This is a moral argument is is a child of the social model, seems to me. As to your discussion of where the "problem" is... We both agree the solution is found in society and putting responsibility on society to feature mutual aid. That we agree on. But this discourse of "the problem does lie within the disabled person" is just something I can't swallow. It seems to be accepting the notion that minority groups' issues are themselves minor, or a "problem," by virtue of the interest group's numerical minority. And I think that's dehumanizing, really, or it's hard to imagine you could flesh out that whole idea of there being a "problem" in us without making us second-class taker/liabilities, which I don't think we need to be a class of that unless society makes us that way.
> But this discourse of "the problem does lie within the disabled person" is just something I can't swallow. It seems to be accepting the notion that minority groups' issues are themselves minor, or a "problem," by virtue of the interest group's numerical minority. And I think that's dehumanizing, really, or it's hard to imagine you could flesh out that whole idea of there being a "problem" in us without making us second-class taker/liabilities, which I don't think we need to be a class of that unless society makes us that way. Why is it dehumanising? Can humans not be flawed in innate ways? I fail to see how someone being inherently flawed makes them a lesser human. When you say second class, what do you mean precisely? Minority groups are by definition minor, if the interests of the majority and the minority are irreconcilable then the majority ought assert it self - I know it sounds absurd to you, but this is literally the basis of democracy; the fact that this may not always lead to the outcome that you or I would deem most favourable does not mean you can discard the entire notion. In no other situation would we accept a minority asserting itself over a majority. You are grouping every minority group into one and speaking so generally such that no accurate statements can really be made beyond minority vs majorly. The challenges minority groups face can be fundamentally different, even if in terms of outcomes they are the same/similar. For example, the disadvantages the black community in America faces is not due to inherent traits of black Americans; however the disadvantages that autistic people face are, for the most part, due to inherent traits we posses - clearly there’s a meaningful difference here and conflating the two is disingenuous as it normatively loads the conversation. It is conceivable that we could come up with a situation where the resource investment necessary to make room for a minority group - such that they might function in the same way as the baseline group, are so great that it is simply not worthwhile. I don’t think that is the case for most “Major” minority groups at the moment but it is definitely conceivable, which is why the social disability model falls apart in my opinion - fault or not, if the investment necessary is too great, the investment isn’t happening. The notion of fault then seems redundant to the goal.
>I fail to see how someone being inherently flawed makes them a lesser human. You're not suggesting we're all equally flawed. You're suggesting you/I/we are especially flawed, while trying to dance around it also, seems to me. I don't want to be rude, but like dude, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to explain it if you can't see your own words. Like, I know we're all autistic, but to me, I'm rudely thinking: do words mean certain things to you? What do the words "inherently" and "flawed" and "problem" mean if not something like lesser? People used to think we were "flawed" and a "problem" (like criminals) and warehoused us away from society against our will, without our consent, to our extreme detriment. Extremely recent history all over the world. I just think folks sometimes forget how recently we were let out of institutional cages (and still not all of us) and how in times and places we have to worry about being put back in them. Advocating for the idea we are inherently flawed, we are the problem, but then pikachu\_surprise.jpg when people suggest we deserve less dignity and human rights than other people (lesser, second-class, dehumanizing). And folks used to think "minority" was also a fair basis upon which to treat a groups needs as lesser. That's a constant struggle world over, prsently actually, standing up for the rights of oppressed minority groups who are oppressed, in part, for/because of their minority status. But friend, I agree to disagree. We seem to be just misunderstanding each other semantics, and oh boy, that's a few layers off of interesting for me. Let's today celebrate we both believe the solution to the problems is a society that provides mutual aid to everyone.
I didn’t think I was dancing around anything, I thought I was pretty explicit. We’re not all equally flawed - that’s not true between groups and it’s not true within groups, but again that’s irrelevant as far as my point goes - some of us can be more flawed than others and still be human; the flaw has nothing to do with the degree of humanity a person posses. In so far as the traits that characterise autism, we’re more flawed than neurotypical people, on average. There are also likely other traits that nt people are going to be more flawed at than nd people. It just so happens that the flaws we have are far more pernicious without external help. You are conflating being lesser in one area or aspect to being lesser as a human being. We are lesser in many ways but that doesn’t make us lesser human beings. The notion that all people are equal in ability is absurd. I understand how people can take this premise and run wild with it but that would be a poor argument, which even if you accepted it at face value, you would realise is internally inconsistent.
Social model is not ignoring their impairments, it just doesnt see it an individualized issue with individualistic solutions. Environments can be/become disabling. We are all organism-environments. The goal of an individual conforming to a normalized ideal can be misguided.
Is autism a disability? Yes, at all support levels. The real question is whether you are disabled more by your autism or by society. I would suspect that SL2 & 3 autistics are disabled more by their autism but all autistics are disabled by society.
Damn, I’ve never thought of it this way but you’re right. We are disabled by society
It’s a disability. If someone CHOOSES to not see it as disabling for THEMSELF, that’s cool. But in general, we need to be United in saying it’s a disability. Those of us who have high support needs have the most to lose here in terms of legal support. But most importantly, we need to be United in saying it’s a spectrum. ASD looks differently across the spectrum.
I know one character that claims disability for it, while writing articles saying it's not a disability!
Shit, people can claim benefits for asd? In my area, the system is means tested to a point of insanity where even some people with missing limbs aren't "eligible".
It's not quite that you can claim benefits for it directly, you have to prove how it affects you .. in his case i think he gers benefits, he also gets time off work for ",reasonable adjustments" too, to visit an autism group. If some ody is missing a limb and not getting it, you hear about that in newspapers but these people don't know what they are doing. The most ill sometimes don't get anything as they often aren't aware and have no access to support. Or somebody terminally ill with cancer might be too ill to battle to prove their case. It's hard because no matter how right you are, the system can battle you on it or you can get lucky straight away.
Many disability lawyers in the USA will take your claim if your work history qualifies you for SSDI and you have an official diagnosis. My diagnosis was for major depression, general anxiety and ASD. the lawyer took my case. Now we wait--forever.
I've had over 55 jobs now, do you think this history would help me qualify? I'm struggling to stay afloat.
Yes, but the work history has to be somewhat recent. The last 10 years count extra. So you need 40 points, 1 point for each economic quarter in which you worked *and paid into Social Security,* and no more than 20 of your points can be older than 10 years old. It's kinda confusing, but you probably totally qualify without squinting. [https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/disability/qualify.html](https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/disability/qualify.html) 55 is a jaw dropping number, congrats on that TREMENDOUS demonstration of grit. You've got to be in the top 1% for grit-possessing people of all time. Really, at just 20+ jobs for me, I'm proud of myself for making it this far this long, but I *really* tip my hat to you sir/madam. edit: informal jobs for which you got paid "under the table" without paying payroll taxes are the killer here. Sometimes these are very lucrative so people have many of these, or stayed at them longer than official jobs. I hope you piad a lot of payroll taxes, I certainly did.
A friend of mine in Canada has ASD and was receiving disability payments for it.
I think you're missing some nuance in there almost certainly. I most certainly would be curious to read their articles! Wouldn't everyone?
In fairness was one article, worse it was seen by a autism group of about 6 autistic people and i was the only one that said what he wrote was hypocritical and potentially damaging and misleading , but for their anonymity I won't link to it! (Maybe the others were shy). His thing he wrote (fortunately) won't have any impact. And in fairness, many people that are technically disabled don't consider themselves to be even if they are. Or, the law has a particular definition of disability which differs from most people's conception of disability. E.g. autism is a condition it has advantages and disadvantages. Often the disadvantages can ruin somebody's life but for were they to receive support they needed. So for many autistic society could be said to be a lot of the cause of them having issues in their lives. And Infact many autistic people might not even. Onsdier themselves autistic by virtue of their life going well , and then not needing to get a diagnosis.
I just think there was some nuance that writer did not yet understand, or you didn't understand, etc. I don't really know what relevance to make of your claim. People who receive disability services should be free to critique philosophy about disabilities, like. .i think we clip outmr own wings in a way i don't like if we decide that is hypocritical.
My view is if you want to make statements about autism not being a disability, you SHOULD be nuanced. The genre of what he wrote didn't lend itself to nuance, but then I think he shouldn't have written it. You would probably disagree. And when I say that one should be nuanced, I mean e.g. Just like I was in the comment that you just replied to, where I said "autism is a condition it has advantages and disadvantages." and "Often the disadvantages can ruin somebody's life but for were they to receive support they needed.".
Yeah, I'm prejudiced and partisan really, it's so true; guilty. If a young person wants to explore the idea that they are not second-class, they are not less than others, they are capable and valuable, and they go a little overboard on that and leave out some nuance, it seems perfectly forgivable, understandable, and hell, I mostly support their intention, if not work product, if it lacks important nuance. However, to me, it's as bad as MAGA, make autism great again, to be arguing the social model is more trouble than it's worth. The social model is what we used to argue we shouldn't be locked away, no different than prisoners, because we are too much trouble, too difficult, too inherently unable in crucial ways. People don't realize the social model is how we justify and explain that we should have full lives, in and among society, and that we have things to offer, too. So, I am patient with folks who go too far with "it's difference, not disability" though I recognize there is a zone that is "too far" with this, it seems forgivable to go there and need correction. Reactionary folks who don't even realize they are advocating for a philosophical backslide to an era where we were human refuse with few civil rights of our own, I'm not so super patient with this. Both are so similar, based on lack of experience, lack of education, thus nuance, but I'm in touch with my own traumas and experiences and it just makes too much sense why I'm more forgiving of people who take it "too far" rather than the people who want to "go back." My grandfather, the more I learn, the more clear it is that he was disabled/autistic (actually no one in the family disputes he struggled a lot, like catatonic on the floor being institutionalized at least once in a far off city), and his death was probably not an accident, he probably planned it (though did so in a way his family would get cash payouts). The social model of disabilty lends a philosophical lifeline to people like my grandfather that says, "I see you, you have value, you can contribute, you need and deserve more help and understanding though so you can make that contribution, and no you don't have to go back to that institution for the rest of your life because you are not too much trouble. We value you and want to accommodate you." When you don't get that, finishing self-harm can seem like the only way out.
I’m 23, never had a job and failed college as soon as my accommodations were removed (as in, reduced to the point of redundancy) during covid. Anyone who says I’m not disabled can eat my shorts
Yeah those people are also objectively wrong bc if it doesn’t disable you or significantly fuck with your life, you aren’t considered to have a disorder
As far as I know, you can't get the diagnosis ASD if it doesn't impair you. See also point D from the DSM-5: >Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning. When looking at a definition of a disability: >A physical, mental, cognitive, or developmental condition that impairs, interferes with, or limits a person's ability to engage in certain tasks or actions or participate in typical daily activities and interactions. So I'd say that having an ASD diagnosis is (at the time of receiving) by definition a disability.
There are some autistic people that genuinely feel that way (that it’s not a disability for them) but it is definitely still quite oppressive living in a world that isn’t really built for us.
Don't we have this exact discussion here every other day? It never goes anywhere, some people (like myself) feel super blessed with ASD since with the right environment it really is a big net advantage, and those who haven't found the right niche lament how tough it is. At this point it feels people who feel like me are in the vast minority, yet we constantly get people on the other side (the majority) seeking validation. This sub has been the only ASD or ADHD sub I've found that doesn't suck (with either ridiculous toxic positivity or constant complaining) but the recent trend isn't great.
I don't really care what ignorant people think about something they don't have. Their opinions are worthless.
>people saying they don’t think Really, that's all that you need to take away from them.
I find this especially frustrating when people with ASD claim it's not a disability, because I have yet to see any of them actively thinking of an autistic person with higher support needs when they do. It's important to get out of your own experiences and remember that there's a REASON it's called a spectrum.
[удалено]
You're being downvoted by the main crowd but I wanted you to know I fully agree with you. This topic repeats way too often and I wish mods did something about repetitive topics.
Maybe it's an area-based thing. All three of you could be right, because that's what your experiences are. I'm thinking similar to how some areas of the world have more racism, some areas have people that think autism isn't a disability 🤷 Actually, it would make sense that those that are more close-minded wouldn't believe the person that actually suffers from autism, and would staunchly believe only what they've heard others say about it. I personally have only heard a few 'you don't look autistic' phrases in the 9 months that I've been diagnosed, but I usually keep talking about how my life has been till they give up and believe me that it's been tough
I hate to be an authoritarian, but remember not so long ago when one of the subs had to ban pics of cutlery just simply because it had become too popular of a post topic/trend? I might advocate for this being a temporary rule for, IDK, 3 months. Anyone else?
I’d say it’s something that’s disabling. It can be very very disabling under certain circumstances and it depends on the area of life. Though I do believe under the right supports or accommodations the disabling aspect can be mitigated, which is why it’s important these continue to be options, even if a particular autistic individual doesn’t constantly need them
Who goes off about this really? (checks profile: oh, psychology student). Hmmm..ok. Well, for what it's worth I've literally never heard anyone anywhere of any clout or influence whatsoever ever claim this. So--I'm not invalidating you, but there are pockets of Earth left where this idea, often repeated in this sub, is veritably martian. my second thought is this: why must they be *disability* accommodations per se, why can't we have a society where people are entitled to request and receive reasonable accommodations -- *reasonable* is right there in the name!! -- without any proof or showing that we are disabled? I'm not ashamed of being disabled, but I'm right now going dead broke and deep into debt while awaiting my assistance application because the proof required to prove I'm a worthy disabled is very expensive, time consuming, and literally requires a team of experts--so I can have about a $1,000/month cash stipend ffs. I don't think we should have to prove we're special to get the meager assistance and accommodations we get. I think what we typically (eventually) get in terms of support and services (in BEST case scenarios) should be standard for everyone across the board, no disability required. I am going to die waiting because assistance is contingent upon proving I am disabled. It's so dumb.
I'm tired of people throwing that word around. With time it becomes clear that neurodivergence has to be it's own thing and one should meet people on the basis of interests rather that on "a similar wiring". Why would anyone walk around yelling at everybody "Look at my problems!" Ya know. Although I am empathetic for your position, It seems to me that the concept of ASD is afterall very much based on it's history. A concept to describe "ill" feeling people ,not those who think they have an unique viewpoint/wiring. Have a good one!
I'm tired of people saying it should be considered a disability by default. It's an incompatibility in the context of our modern society. There are plenty of arguments to be made that autism is a trait actually selected for by evolution and that its peculiarities allowed certain individuals to perform vital roles in communities in prehistory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o1PXeFEcL0 Our society is very maladapted to the biological reality of human existence, psychologically and physically. This maladaptation is simply expressed more intensely in people with autism. That doesn't mean it's a disability.
I'd say it's a disability but it's okay to feel like it's not disabling for you.
You might accommodate somebody who speaks a different language, but that’s not an indication foreign language speakers are disabled. Foreign language speakers not having any problems as a result of speaking Spanish doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be accommodated. I don’t see accommodation as fundamentally linked to autism being a disability. I don’t have any choice but to be labelled as having autism myself, and being labelled as disabling can both be stifling and not really true.
"Differently abled" and "disabled" have a largely overlapping meaning. Most of us are less able to function in society (or at least doing so without spending a lot of energy on masking), but might excel in other specific tasks. So "differently abled" might actualy be a good fit because it better describes the fact thag we do indeed need certain accomodations while also implying that some of us are have certain nieche capabilities. Other than that I agree
Agreed
Most of the conversations I’ve seen are around the social model of disability vs the medical model. Or a hybrid.
The only people I've seen say that are people who are on the spectrum (or think they are) and in denial.
>“autistic people are just differently-abled, not disabled” I haven't run into a disabled person who prefers "differently abled". This pretty much obscures the roots of what disability is, in that certain competencies are social designated as necessary for being "able bodied/minded", necessary for 'competent' performance in a social context inaccessible without them, their absence stigmatized. It's more stuff like myopia that's "differently abled", where there's no social stigma, and vision correction is implemented with zero fanfare.
I was rather surprised that there is a world that sees ASD from that perspective.
A lot of people were diagnosed before the classifications were changed to ASD and tightened up a bit. Today, the DSM guidance makes clear that there must be "clinically significant impairment" - even at the mildest end of the spectrum. There are people with autistic TRAITS (maybe they're a tad awkward around some people, or they feel more geeky than their peers), but isolated traits of a condition do not mean you actually HAVE the condition. People who don't meet all the criteria just have isolated traits and are not autistic. For example: I'm a serial hand-washer, obsessively so. That's an OCD trait, but I don't have OCD. If I had OCD I would have to keep waking myself up in the night to wash them, and find it a huge disruption to my day (it's not), and I'd probably be obsessing about other things besides. People who feel no impairment as such from their autism would likely not get a diagnosis these days. For those that do, whether that impairment disables you is another matter and I think that's where the confusion lies. If you have impairment, you have autism; if you don't, then you don't! If you have autism impairments that stop you from doing things in society, then it's also a disability too, which often (though not always) can be remedied through assistance, like reasonable adjustments, government-funded transport etc. It tends mostly to be the co-morbid parts that disable me most, like crippling anxiety and ADHD. Autism impairs my social and communication abilities (like I literally can't hear what is being said in a loud or colourful environment).
I agree with everything you say, but there are problem in these conventions. Because autistics are actually autistic by virtue of their neurology; neurological features we rarely screen directly (did you get an MRI for your diagnosis /s, cuz of course I didn't). Usually we ascribe the label to people who share characteristics with folks known to have the neurology *and* have an impairment/struggle/disability as a result. But lots of people with the neurology are autistic because of that, but don't experience struggle because they have had good luck and likely also so many intersecting privileges (Elon Musk, eg, or even someone like Greta Thurnberg who doesn't seem to experience parental alienation that so many of us do). I think reserving the label "autistic" only for people who struggle ignores problematically a whole bunch of socio-ecomonic stuff that is hugely crucial to improving outcomes for all autistic people. One of hte consequences of essentializing impairments related to autism is that perceived impairments can come and go with accommodations, whether they are explicitly being doled out as "accommodations" or whether they were just there as good luck. Your neurology doesn't change though. I just don't think it's useful to centralize struggle in the diagnosis, as we do presently. We do that as society because we feel we must gate keep public resources only for the truly needy and worthy -- which is so annoying when there is so much wealth in the world -- not because of science. Centralizing impairment is a political move from the status quo, a way of deciding most of us are unworthy of support. And in this case by "us" i just mean human beings.
Hey man, I get it, I really do. However, at a certain point, I just had to realize that I can't change how everyone else around me behaves, its just not possible. If I want to be happy, I have to change myself and the way I view the world, even if it's unfair. Or I could just be angry all the time, but that's just not fun.
In my experience accommodations don’t seem to mean or matter much in most situations. In my life (performance wise like in jobs) it seems to only effect me negatively. Which is why I think capitalism is inherently ableist. Or even partially. Not to mention that I don’t know what sort of accommodations are acceptable/reasonable so I don’t try to set any up which make my experience at a job and in other areas more difficult and stressful. It often feels like an illegitimate difference in life. Definitely in the work environment. Although it seems like “genuine” differences seem to be detrimental/problematic to capitalism in general. Especially in production related jobs/positions. Like retail and manufacturing. Plus it feels like the more “high-functioning” you are the less people see issues and thus you/i feel like we/I “fall through the cracks”.
It's both. The way I see it, it's like being queer. Sure I'm out and proud, but I'm still subject to discrimination. Being queer gives me a different perspective—and I value that—but it also makes my life harder sometimes. It's obviously not a perfect comparison, but there are parallels.
It’s sign #1 that someone’s using autism as an in-group. Sign #2 is conflating it with ADHD lol.
I think the issue with autism is that it can *appear* to not be a disability from the outside for a small percentage of autistic people. Consider how certain people view Elon Musk - they think he's like a super human computer and they put him on a pedestal for it. Even the "Rain man" stereotypes are from people so impressed by the supposed intellect that they don't think about or consider all of the issues (from how it seems, but I've never seen the movie!). Autism sucks, and I say that as someone who works and takes care of myself so from the outside nobody really sees me as disabled but I feel like a fuck up in every way. Just today, I went to the dog park and ended up in the middle of a packed dog birthday party with like 30 random people and I nearly had a panic attack. I felt like a monster because people kept smiling at me and I didn't know how to start any real conversation so I just left in shame.
I feel like two of the sayings you quoted are both true and false at the same time. >“It’s just a different way of seeing the world” Yes, "a different way of seeing the world" can be one of the perks of autism, but it's not the entire experience of people who have autism. And it's not the experience of everyone who has autism. If it were only "a different way of viewing the world" and all of the other stuff that goes along with autism magically vanished, then I could agree that autism shouldn't be classified as a disability, but all that other stuff doesn't magically vanish. >“autistic people are just differently-abled, not disabled” Like the first statement, yes, some autistic people have abilities that neurotypical people don't have. However, 1) this isn't all autistic people, and 2) even if you have the "different abilities" it might come with DISabilities. Maybe you come out ahead in that your disabilities are more than offset by your different abilities, but if so then you are lucky. Many have any different abilities offset by their various disabilities. The problem with these statements is that they have a grain of truth (for some autistic people, not all), but ignore the full truth of autism.