Problem with the word "Aspie"

Post Reply New Topic

I've highlighted a few things that jumped out at me.

Firstly, the thought that you feel you are managing his behavior is very worrying. He is not a child, he is responsible for himself. If you do not like his behaviour it's not up to you to manage it. You are supposed to be his girlfriend not his parent, teacher or employer.

Secondly, people with disabilities have the right to self-determination that includes how we name ourselves in circumstances such as those you describe. They group you describe are comfortable using the term Aspie as an affectionate nickname for people with Asperger's. That's their right and to me it suggests a positive and comfortable attitude towards their diagnosis. I use Autistic more often than Aspie or Aspergian myself, but there is nothing inherently wrong with any of those words. I would be comfortable with this group referring to me as an Aspie. It's up to them to determine how they are comfortable describing themselves and others like them, not up to those without Asperger's/Autism to dictate what they can and can't call themselves. It doesn't matter how it 'sounds' to you; it's not about you. So to be blunt your opinion as an outsider is not what is important here. That's awfully paternalistic and sadly quite typical of those unaware of disability rights culture.

Thirdly you have framed this around you and your feeling and refer to yourself a great deal. Shouldn't his diagnosis, his support group and his label be about him not you? Your relationship is where you come into it, not the way he labels himself. Healthy boundaries are really important.

I just say that I'm a person with Aspergers, and leave it at that. I mean ultimately, I'm still a human being, though my brain is just wired differently than most peoples'.

Chameleon's right (and also being very blunt). You shouldn't "mother" your boyfriend; that's just a recipe for frustration all around!

Regarding your discomfort with "Aspie", perhaps you are uncomfortable in general because you are not used to hanging out with autistic folks? Sometimes, people who haven't gotten to know a lot of people with autism (or any other disability) are a bit uneasy because they are worried about offending somebody, or because they're not sure how to act. In our society, sometimes people talk about disability like it's something you've got to be tactful about, as though it's a shameful thing you have to pretend doesn't exist. People talk about it in hushed, pitying voices. So the contrast between that norm and a bunch of Aspies talking about it openly, as a normal part of their lives rather than something shameful, might make you feel like they are somehow insulting themselves. The very simple solution to that discomfort is just to get to know more people in the group that you're unsure of how to interact with. So instead of this big nebulous scary group, you start to think of them as a bunch of individuals, and your social skills let you relate pretty easily.

It's kind of interesting that you are having this experience, though--as a minority NT in a group of autistics, you were the odd one out, perhaps even for the first time in your life. You didn't know the social norms and you felt uncertain. That experience may have some things in common with the way your boyfriend feels in NT society--unsure, foreign, afraid of insulting someone without meaning to, afraid of looking silly, thinking differently at a very basic level. It's different, because for him the experience is life-long, but there are some similarities.

Meh.

Same here.

I have an issue with the word "disability". I prefer "adaptation". A different neurology providing a different set of strengths and weaknesses. Homogeneity is seldom a good thing.

In terms of being managed, you're his girlfriend, not his carer. However, I rather like it when my wife lets me know my clothes are weird, or my hair needs adjusting, or that I'm sitting strangely. That type of direct feedback is helpful.

What I want to know is how somebody unintentionally pulled a name which looks like "Ass Pie" out of condition which already sounds like "Ass Burgers"? As you can see, I don't like it. I typically refer to myself as autistic instead.

Are you using these terms in an context suited to evolutionary biology? Because an adaption in evolution normally describes the end product of selecting pressure on a population, not ordinarily a physical or behavioural trait belonging to a single organism. So Asperger's isn't already an adaption belonging to a single population of human beings, it doesn't appear to have evolved through natural selection and there's no evidence that it's increasing based upon any benefits advancing its inheritance (any increasing diagnoses appear to be the work of a better understanding and awareness within society). I think it could, however, be a malfunctioning adaption. Some evolutionary psychologists believe that this is feasible.

Although it is important to note that there's a strong distinction between medical fitness and "fitness" used in in a biological context. Considering that evolution has been the basis of eugenics, I think it's much more professional, sympathetic and reputable to use the medical model than any perspectives of evolution for understanding any abnormal conditions. And yes, I agree that homogeneity is typically advantageous for a species/population/gene pool.

Last edited by Norepinephrine on 18 Dec 2013, 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Actually this is very interesting. The unit of evolution is not the population, it's the gene, or geneplex. If a gene provides a survival advantage, the organism carrying it will propagate the gene, and the gene will spread within the population.

However some genes only provide an advantage up to a certain density in the population at large. An example of this would be left handedness. Left handed people are slightly more likely to die young in accidents (interesting but true) because the world is set up to cater for right handed people. However left handed people receive one very significant survival advantage. When fighting, the opponent expects an attack from the right, but it comes from the left.

We see this in sports where we find a higher than expected number of left handed people. However, if left handedness becomes too prevalent in a population it ceases to confer an advantage because it is no longer surprising. The benefit is lost, but the drawback remains, so the left handed gene dies back a little until the balance is restored.

This is game theory. If everyone does one thing, everyone loses. If everyone does the other thing, everyone loses too, but in some circumstances there is a balance, and there are advantages to being part of the majority, and also to advantages to being part of the minority. If the minority gets too large, the advantage will be lost, and it will die back naturally.

I would say the same is true about the Asperger's geneplex. It clearly conveys some advantages, the ability to focus on a single area of expertise for example, as well as some (often significant) disadvantages. Over a certain level though, each individual would be at a disadvantage, because the entire population would be at a disadvantage.

I'm entirely certain my neurology gives me a significant competitive advantage over my NT peers.

Last edited by superluminary on 18 Dec 2013, 10:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

^^^
Slight off-topic alert there. Sorry. Did I mention I'm really interested in Genetic Algorithms?

Last edited by superluminary on 18 Dec 2013, 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, I never said the gene wasn't the unit of evolution. I actually agree with this seeing as I'm a massive proponent of gene-centered views of evolution. I was only saying that the term "adaption" typically describes the product of natural selection, not traits randomly sampled in in a population brought on by genetic drift or other mechanisms. But I do see some point in what you're saying. Society and the majority at large account for a lot of problems that we face, as is consistent with social-models of disability. But I do believe asperger's carries some inherent drawbacks in the context of evolution and population genetics. For example there's many co-morbid conditions as well as its relation to lower-functioning forms of autism.

I don't like that word but for a different reason. I don't find it derogatory. I just somehow find it rather embarrassing. I never use it myself. I'd rather use the word autism etc.

I don't find anything wrong with it, but I guess that everyone's perception of things can turn out different...

I don't find it derogatory, but to me, it sounds like a breed of dog. That's why I cringe every time I see the word.

it's better than being an ass-burger, to be sure.

It's probably already obvious, but he needs to be told things literally and straight foward. He won't understand body language and non-verbal queues. For this reason, we have trouble communicating. I tend to say things non-verbally, but I've had to adjust for him to better understand me. Even though I say things literally, he still sometimes reads into things that are straight-forward as he sees fit, resulting in miscommunication and arguments.

I'm sorry, that's not what I meant. I meant I have trouble coping with his behavior. I don't try to manage his. I meant to say that sometimes I can't manage to cope, if that makes any sense.