Talk:Autism rights movement

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver

So, let me get some things straight.[edit]

Is this (especially the neurodiversity thing) pseudoscience? Because to me, it seems nothing more than identity politics being used as a medium to promote mental illness denial (especially since fucking bipolar disorder is defended under this label). --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 17:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The "pseudoscience" bit depends on the specific claims made. In general, looks more like an attempt at philosophical re-framing, which may or may not be valid, depending on your views and again on the specific claims made. This is one of the reasons why the article would be better served with more citations. That are not links to the front pages of websites.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
A search for "bipolar" returns no results on Autism Network International, and only two results on the Autism Self-Advocacy Network - one is in an organization name, the other is in the footnotes of this open letter about the Sandy Hook shooting.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
For bipolar, I was talking about the whole "neurodiversity" thing, which overlaps with this.
But I also agree with all you say. We should do more citations, but this seems to be a relatively fringe thing. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 18:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
This is the first I've heard of the term having anything to do with bipolar disorder. Do you have a source for this? --GastonRabbit (talk) 18:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Here:
[T]he neurodiversity concept was initially embraced by individuals on the autism spectrum, but subsequent groups have applied the concept to conditions unrelated (or non-concomitant) to autism such as bipolar disorder [emphasis mine], ADHD, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, circadian rhythm disorders, developmental speech disorders, Parkinson's disease, dyslexia, developmental coordination disorder, dyscalculia, dysnomia, OCD, and Tourette [sic] syndrome.
Any questions? --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 18:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Many of those don't have citations, bipolar disorder being one of them. --GastonRabbit (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
There's also these guys and this book (one frequently cited by neurodiversity advocates). And no, the whole "but it's the fringe!" doesn't apply here because neurodiversity is a fringe thing in the first place. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 18:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You guys sure are lazy. It took me only a few seconds of Googling to verify the stuff you're complaining about. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Raysenn, nobody other than you said anything about anything being a fringe idea or not. --GastonRabbit (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Just in case. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 22:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah. I used to identify as a neurodiversity activist, but I don't anymore because of the whitewashing of actual mental illnesses (i.e., not autism). I have OCD and I would get very angry if someone told me that me crying out for the pain to stop is just "part of diversity". I mean, if someone who has OCD/bipolar disorder/etc. decides they don't want a cure, fine, but seeing as how most sufferers of OCD/bipolar/etc. are suicidal, most people would want a cure. Also, a lot of facilitated communication apologism, which to me shows they are pseudoscientists. I am anti-cure-for-autism, and think that autism isn't a disorder, but neurodiversity activists are just ableist as curists because they romanticize illnesses that kill autistics and support NTs speaking over autistics. It's really sad. :/ Snokw (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
There's a fair amount of diversity of opinion within the neurodiversity movement itself, though. It's primarily about fighting the tendency to dehumanize neurodivergent people, treat them as inferior, lazy, defective, or fundamentally "broken", with useless lives not worth living, deny them their agency and rights, stigmatize and disrespect them, ignore their opinions, tie their worth as individuals to their ability to hold a job, etc., making the movement just a part of the broader disability rights/self-advocacy movement. That neurodivergent people never suffer from their conditions, that these conditions are never disabling, that nobody should ever want a cure or relief of specific symptoms, that no support is ever needed, etc., is so obviously nonsensical that I've never seen anyone defend these ideas. Only opponents of neurodiversity erect these ridiculous straw men in my experience, and fail to address the core claims of the movement. See, for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, and especially here.
As an analogy, consider trans people. Gender dysphoria sucks, and it's a suffering not always only due to societal discrimination, prejudices and restrictive binary gender norms, but there is often an apparently biological aspect involved (for example, incongruence between body and internal mental body plan), that acceptance alone cannot relieve. But a "cure" for gender dysphoria that involves simply getting rid of the cross-gender desires and turns the person into a (gender-conforming, even?) cis person of their assigned gender is just as impossible as a "cure" that turns an autistic person into a neurotypical person, as both would require a complete rewiring of the brain, and most trans people do not even want to become cis (of their assigned gender) just like most autistic people do not want to become completely neurotypical, because they feel it would make them different people and rob them of their individuality. Even (and, I think, especially) people with severe, painful, even crippling gender dysphoria typically would rather have their body modified than their mind "converted" and their gender identity changed, as far as I'm aware, and you can hardly accuse them of "romanticizing" their condition.
Intersex people have similar concerns: more focus is on making intersex bodies conform to an arbitrary norm than on the wellbeing of the intersex individuals themselves (such as freedom of pain and dysphoria, or their ability to orgasm – medical intervention is typically unnecessary or can be reduced). In sum, the goal is not to turn the person "normal", but to turn the person into a happy person, regardless of if they are "normal" or not. Even if it turns out that the person affected by a condition, despite treatment, has a need for specialized support or has other special needs, has trouble doing certain things, cannot do some things at all, cannot hold a regular job, etc., the main priority should be their own standards and goals, and their quality of life as perceived by the person themselves. --91.7.4.44 (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Science Can Only Prove Notions of "Is" Not "Ought"[edit]

Hence there is nothing pseudoscientific about saying these different ways of thinking, these different neurologies should be accepted as equal. It's philosophical reframing not pseudoscience. Scientists can show how X, Y, and Z results in A. They can't prove which way is best.92.204.14.250 (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The article only mentions Pseudoscience in the see also section and doesn't seem to be unfairly biased. Is there something I'm not seeing here? Zero (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Complaints from incensed Facebooker[edit]

Comment on the official RW page: [1] May be worth going through for fixes - David Gerard (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, except for the first couple of posts, the complaint is not very specific beyond "autistic people have it bad", something that this page doesn't seem to dispute.
I think the main problem of the article is that it was originally supposed to be about a "neurodiversity movement", but the current title and partially the content creates the impression that it is about autism advocacy organizations in general. I suggest renaming, refocusing and/or spinning parts of this into separate articles (e.g. if the concept of neurodiversity or approaches to it is problematic, it deserves a separate article).--ZooGuard (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

As someone who's close to a fair number of people on the spectrum...[edit]

I actually think both sides have valid points. Able-ism is certainly problematic, but at the same time, it's clear many people with ASD would consider themselves to be *suffering* from it, and not just because of how ableist idiots treat them. From what I've seen (and talked with others about), the symptoms themselves already provide enough pain without people inexplicably using "autism" as a synonym for "fucking retarded".

Though it wouldn't hurt if more people on the spectrum could learn to laugh at themselves. Though, on the flip side, far too many neurotypicals are too serious as well. Resident Ishtar worshiper (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I add this as an #ActuallyAutistic: I don't identify with Neurodiversity. Autism is a painful condition. I do not enjoy it. I'm accepted, but it fucking sucks. Neurodiversity often erases the experience of people who don't enjoy being autistic and we should be wary of that. — Unsigned, by: 176.231.115.134 / talk