Talk:Autism Speaks

Article
Might be useful. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Having another. 14:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Autistica
We have a section on the stuff their UK branch has done. Bazer63 (talk)

Facilitated Communication
Amy Sequenzia is a Facilitated communication user. Since her communication method is psudoscience, it makes no sense to include "her" opinions on this page. Therefore I am deleting the quote. --RationalWikiman2718 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The Article
I really enjoy this article. I am glad you are spreading awareness of this horrible group. When I am at school I see teachers put autism speaks posters on their walls. When I told my dad about how horrible autism speaks was he didn’t believe me. 🙏🏼 for this article. &mdash; Unsigned, by: TheRoboKitty / talk / contribs16:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

autism every day
ive not looked at the actual advert. ive looked the sources provided and the picture that gives me is not like the picture we paint in the article.

it's ridiculously transparent case of cherry picking and twisting the intended message from what was clearly evident to anyone without an axe to grind - that the difficult and stresses of trying to do the best for your child with a condition you dont understand, has needs you dont know how to meet, were not prepared for and with little to no help from the few inadequate services available are tremendously difficult to manage. the guilt. the anger. the despair. the hopelessness. it takes to a dark place. you fear for the childs future, convinced its something you did, your terrible mother. in your darkest moments you think to end it all. its awful to contemplate.

thats the fucking point. it is awful to think about, to consider. you shouldnt think like that and you shouldnt be put in a situation where you. people struggle in life. sometimes you need more help to cope. to understand and make the right choices. the lack of help, the lack of services available, the lack of information about all of it. that drives people to the brink. thats the message. that an organisation is needed to your corner, that you have good schools, have the best advice, that you understand whats going on, that its not your fault. they will face any challenges ahead with you and can contemplate a future with all your childs needs met.

a pretty worthy message seems to me. its not a message we describe in the article. because its autism speaks and they are on the wrong side of a debate so that becomes 'autism - you'll want to kill your kids.' a mother shares her darkest day after the prospect of inadequate schooling, made her contemplate wanted to drive off a bridge. the monster. and we put the murder suicide bit in bold. the producers had the nerve this was not unusual. the nerve of them. 'inadequate schooling' a bit of understatement though. one that leave that the suggestion is that that autistic kids must be fucking awful. its not unusual say the producers. autistic kids are dreadful burden. almot like they are justifying murder.

that lady dialled it back we say and left this terrible organisation of nazis. except that she doesnt. the link, which has her explaining for her statements (the article opens with quote saying she was advocating murdering autistic people) it talks of being faimilar institutionalising people from experience of her brother enduring it. it speaks of the despair after having visited similar institutions to what her brother had suffered through and distraught she was going to send send her own daughter for the same. she was distraught, this was all new to her at that point. she didnt know what to do, who to turn to. she considered ending it all. but she found a good school that had just opened and met mothers in the same situation and she got through it. it convinced her the need for an organisation to help folk her because they have to feel like that. she stresses she stands by everything she said as the reality of she felt back then.

'autism speaks' apparently have said the pressure of dealing with these issues without the support has led to parents killing their children (with the most fuckwittedly stupidly gratuitous link to our page on 'filicide' to helpfully explain what the phrase 'parents killing their children'. i looked and it means parents killing their children. thanks idiot editor). there is then a link to a news story of such a tragic occurrence. the contempt throughout this is such we are saying autistic people are terrible burdens. you'll kill em at the first opportunity if you are shitty parent who hates your kids, and autism speaks wouldnt blame you. it ends with a dig with another persons account of despair and moments of weakness in trying times. he didnt even apologise for saying he has difficulty coping like the first lady apologised but didnt actually, only clarified, so hes a monster.

i dont know too much about this organisation. nor this dispute amongst autistic people, the families, and the various groups run for their benefit. i do know the opening line of this article 'Autism Speaks is a vile and highly controversial autism “advocacy” organization' is not suggestive of an objective point of view is forth coming, and this section of it which reminded me similar piece on a similar organisation i thought we had deleted is the disingenuous dogshit that results from debate waged like a vendetta with take no prisoners scorched earth policy. those twisting a plea for better care and vital services that was made honestly with candid retelling of their darkest moments and where it might have led them so others wont be, has us turning loving parents into selfish uncaring failures of parents wishing the kids dead and daring to say they couldnt cope and that autism speaks agrees they are better of dead because they are awful and hate autistic people. we are shitting on people and dismissing the toll on their mental health and the need for better because we hate autism speaks. thats pretty sick. its not autism speaks who are monsters with shit like this AMassiveGay (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * not gonna wait for comment, i just gonna remove right away. its not even close to reflecting what is said in its references or how it could be read if you squinted abit and held your hand in front of your face obscuring all but the worst sounding bits. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to "engage" with here. This is a disgraceful ableist rant. Imagine being an autistic person, reading what you have written here. Stormy (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * fuck off prick. if there is something say to about this video, it didnt say it in the article. you dont like organisation? fine. go crazy with criticism. but actual fucking criticism not the fucking tortuous twisting dogshit arguments that it is now. condemnation of something doesnt work when it makes you look like a fucking imbecile, hiding what can genuinely deserve condemnation under dogshit outrage at the one thing in that video where outrage was not at all warranted. good jobAMassiveGay (talk) 07:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"ive not looked at the actual advert" just going to dismiss your opinion then. Second, the constant name calling doesn't help this article. I stand by my opinion of that this nonsense video colors how AS functions and it doesn't feel like its getting better. Just because its years old doesn't mean its not important. 07:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * i have looked at actual criticism of this video btw, by actual grown ups. and the vid. its on youtube there is not actually much worth writing about. the suicide admission is weak everywhere its discussed but that was what was latched onto and baby murder makes better headlines even it if its false. the main criticism i could see was it was an entirely negative depiction of raising autistic kids with no positives. thats what gives the whole 'autistic kids are burden' criticism weight. but this article went straight for attacking someone who admitted that at time they was under so much stress they contemplated suicide. and thats all it did. and it fucked that up too. the whole article is like this the way. it isnt criticism. its an embarrassment. do you think anyone reading it as is will think poorly of the organisation? or dismiss it as hysterical bullshit AMassiveGay (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * and you know? that what fucking angers me. if you dont the people, think they awful people who do awful things. then attack them. but do it properly. with valid criticism. with nothing more than valid criticism. twisting peoples words, exaggerations and misrepresentations, flat out lies - its transparent, especially when done so hysterically. its hurts your cause - any ones cause when done like this. do better. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 'ive not looked at the actual advert" just going to dismiss your opinion then' i think you missed the vitally important 'not supported by the sources'. i have seen the vid now its on youtube. doesnt validate this section in anyway. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * its funny you say about name calling because aside when i was responding to a prick who has nothing more than shriek 'ableist', but you should a gander at the article. you right name calling does nt help. that was part of the problem in the whole article AMassiveGay (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * With absolutely no facetiousness, sarcasm, or malevolence—is everything all right today/tonight? Kntai (talk) 09:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is widely shared within disability rights circles. It's one of the best primers on why this organization should not be trusted. There is just no engaging in good faith with someone who thinks the appropriate response to an autistic person saying, "No, my humanity is not fodder for Debate 101, I am not going to litigate my right to not be murdered" is to hurl insults. You can stop digging any time now. Stormy (talk) 08:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * you dont have to litigate 'your right not to be murdered', i agree. just as well was not in the video which is why its not needed in article the way its been halfarsed. that was my point. i glad we agree. admitting to suicidal thoughts is a not validation of the act suicide and the accompanying killing of ones child, not murder is cases like this its act of despair. the mental health of the parent makes them not culpable, legally or morally. they both would have been victims of an avoidable tragedy, as it always is if acted upon. an admitting to having found themselves overwhelmed by despair does not advocate murder or condone it any way. attacking someone for this makes the callous pricks who dont understand what was being said and why. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that I'll look at the ad later - this is just a reference cross-examination since that's what at dispute here. The entire section on the "Autism Every Day" video is linked to a blog article written by the parent in that video. I will agree with AMG that it is, on the whole, kind of a weak reference to back up these claims (and is in fact a dismissal of the way AS presented these things in their film). Luckily (making my job to whine about sourcing easier), Autism Every Day has a wikipedia page, which has some more solid literary references. Consider incorporating some of those if you want to strengthen the main claims. They seem accurate at a glance. Moving on to the paragraph after that. This is first about "Kerry Stapleton". Unfortunately, the NBC article doesn't actually match the claim being made here which is that AS in some form passively endorsed the suicide. The article paints a different picture however; Stapleton got seemingly pulled over the rakes by commenters on Autism Speaks for trying to murder her kid. AS responding with links to resources and a support hotline is... honestly the best thing you can do when an organization of such nature is confronted with a situation like this. In other words, dump that section or get better sources. The next part pertains to them saying its not suprising if a parent "breaks". This one is well-sourced enough, the source backs this up, no further comment. Harry Slatkin's comment is appalling, no doubt. It's also well-referenced. My main question is why AS should have spoken up about this. The second reference doesn't give me much else to think about. I feel that this segment is worth mentioning, just not with the "AS failed to speak out" bit. More "furthermore, the husband of a board member said X" would be the way I'd write it. Slapping the segment out of existence like this is utter bollocks though, there's clearly salvageable material and most of the claims seem accurate, just weakly referenced. Techpriest (talk) 09:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am being asked to debate my very right to exist. You are asking me and any other autistic reading this to consider the feelings of those who consider our existence burdensome enough to warrant murder while showing zero empathy for how such dehumanization makes autistics feel. Thinking about driving your car off a bridge with your child in it is not simply having "suicidal thoughts." It is having a homicidal thought. And that's the kind of thing people need to talk through with a mental health professional or a trusted friend, not have broadcast out into the world by an advocacy group in a way that normalizes the dehumanization of disabled people. The fact that Autism Speaks thought it was appropriate to release that video (and this video is from very early in their history) just shows how deep their systematic problems go. Like I said: Stop. Digging. Stormy (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There's an argument to be made that both Autism Speaks and the producers of ASE misrepresented the woman at dispute here. I actually read the source. -- Keep in mind that I have yet to watch the ad, but the source claims that the reason the mother in question thought that way was not because her kid had autism, but because her own brother was send to a special needs school and was horribly abused at one. She then considered ending it because she didn't want to subject her own daughter to that kind of school like her brother subjected to. From the response on the academic side, something tells me that ASE didn't represent the video that way. I feel like actually reading shit might help here. Also christ this is a minor section in an article about a much bigger organization, it's not your very right to exist and asking "hey does this actually back up the claims being made" isn't even remotely the same thing as asking "hey, are we talking about your right to not be killed". Have a sense of fucking perspective. If you don't want to discuss the segment then leave the discussion because one-sided "I'm in the right, stop asking further questions" on an article talkpage won't get you anywhere. You put the removal at dispute, it's your task to argue for it. Techpriest (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And it'd be great if someone had an actual working link to the video of the ad/documentary in question or a copy so we could all take it in, because without one nobody's got an argument one way or another. Kntai (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Three other people have reverted AMassiveGuy's edit warring over this section. I am clearly not alone in this. Here is the relevant clip from the "Autism Every Day" film. She's the woman in the green shirt, timestamp 3:35-4:25 approximately. She says absolutely nothing about her brother or concerns over the horrific history of institutionalization. She discusses getting phone calls from teachers about her daughter's behavioural issues and worries about putting her child in an "overcrowded" special-needs class. And, yes, her daughter is right there in the room, mere feet away as she recounts the time she considered driving her off a bridge. It really is exactly as bad as it is described in the article. (Actually worse, I would say, because the article doesn't describe the mother's intonation.) If Autism Speaks edited out comments about institutionalization, that doesn't change what made it into the final cut of the film, or make it okay. Stormy (talk) 10:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this the entire video? Kntai (talk) 10:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's the 7-minute version of the documentary that was uploaded to Autism Speaks' channel on YouTube. Stormy (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reputable third party source for the video? 10:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Autism Speaks deleted their official upload a few years back. All that exists today are the re-uploads. You can check out the book sources in the Wikipedia article linked above, but they're not going to tell you anything about the content of the video that you couldn't you couldn't get from watching the re-upload. Stormy (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They didn't delete it. They unlisted it and because Google declared the war on their own public URLs last month, all unlisted videos from prior to ca. 2016 are now private. Techpriest (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining that. Here's a Vimeo upload of the 13-minute version of the documentary from the company that apparently produced or edited it. Stormy (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

For reference
The wiki has an established problem with (well-meaning) activist zealots writing terrible articles on autism-related topics. A fair amount of trash has already been taken out this year: Common themes in the AfDs were their reliance on batshit polemic and sourcing from obscure activist Twitter accounts and blogs, as well as occasional outright misrepresentation of more mainstream sources. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * National Autistic Society
 * Autism Uncensored
 * To Siri With Love
 * In A Different Key
 * Well, to be fair, this one is not appalling as the others. I'd support removing the references to blogs (especially QuietLuna's blog), Medium, Twitter, etc but deleting it seems like an overkill to me. GeeJayK (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have any firm opinion re. deletion. Right now, I'm just providing some relevant data points to counterbalance the inevitable This Is A Totally Reasonable Take On The Subject guff from our aKsHuAllY AuTiStIc crew. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Why is ableist trolling like this being tolerated? I thought it was just one problem user, but this seems to be a more pervasive problem. I'm sorry I've recommended this article so much over the years, seeing how awful the general treatment and understanding of autistics is here. Stormy (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Go fuck yourself. I'm quite clearly taking the piss out of dumb activist excess (with clearly documented examples), rather than autism in general. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Insults are not productive in discussions. —ClickerClock💾 talk.txt 02:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Spurious accusations of ableism even less so, I find. Hence the invitation above, which I now extend graciously to you. Have a nice day. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

As far as I understand, Stormy, Pluto April and Zero support the edit, while Duce and AMG don't. Me and HBC don't feel strong one way or the other. Am I correct? GeeJayK (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think most of the article requires some pretty drastic work, and I'd be surprised if - on closer inspection - it didn't share many of the same serious flaws as the deleted articles listed above. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

That's twice now I've had abuse hurled at me for daring to be an autistic person who doesn't think it's okay for a so-called autism awareness group to put out a video where someone casually talks about murdering a person like me. That's not "activism." That's just basic human decency. I'm not explaining why normalizing the dehumanization of disabled people is bad to kiwifarm trolls whose only interest is mocking and hurting people like me. This site is toxic. Stormy (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with autism rights is that we don't really have a lot of mainstream sources advocating for us, hell, Autism Speaks is the most mainstream source on the issue. Not many of these sources have openly autistic writers, so in order to get their perspectives we have to look elsewhere. The same problem exists to a lesser extent with trans issues. Plutocow (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. The issue is that more mainstream / reputable advocates know far better than to spew the kind of overwrought guff you'd prefer to have in the article. I'll happily grant they're likely the authors' honest, and maybe even considered, opinions, but that doesn't do a damned thing to make them credible or reliable. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The autistic community is by no means a monolith. There's plenty of disagreement, both constructive and less so. But the one thing that's pretty much universally agreed on is that Autism Speaks is awful. They are not credible, they are not reliable, and they do not have the best interests of the autistic community at heart. This is an organization that was one of the chief proponents of vaccine hysteria back in the day. Stormy (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reputable sources that cover Autism Speaks, just look at There isn’t a need to resort to blog posts by former editors.
 * The vast majority of autistic people aren’t a part of the “autistic community” and have probably never heard of the organisation. Christopher (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to inform everyone there's literally an non-biased news website that only talks about autism. In addition, I apologise to  for our editors who had a cranky day.—ClickerClock💾 talk.txt 02:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "Community" doesn't refer to any specific organization, Christopher. It's just a collective referral to people with certain traits and share experiences. It's a broad definition. Why the airquotes? We're part of an atheist community, I'm part of the ace community which makes me also arguably part of the LGBT+ community even if I don't directly go in any specific group. 03:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * any talk of community needs defining its limits and its scope, especially if making claims about what is 'universally agreed' within. airquotes are entirely appropriate if someone makes claims for the community as whole, especially claims that are the focus of much controversy. the autistic rights movement/neurodiversity movement, from which opposition to autism speaks is largely based, is not the whole of the autistic community, and cannot claim to speak for it. if an opinion is coming from that direction, it should not be taken as the only opinion that matters. especially in the form of the hyperbolic outrage and contempt making up this article. this is about a conflict of ideology, this article a brick thrown by partisans. its a poor shot though and doesnt land. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Soldiers of Odin
I recently have been made aware that a white supremacist group, known as Soldiers Of Odin, once associated with Autism Speaks. It doesn’t take long to find out who the Soldiers of Odin are, except if you are Autism Speaks. Here’s an article I found: http://nosmag.org/soldiers-of-odin-autism-speaks-canada-look-into-it/ SomeAutisticAce