AS as a Crutch?

Post Reply New Topic

Nonsense. There is obviously more to AS than social difficulties, while that may be the most well known aspect; you also must consider sensory issues, meltdowns, and overriding obsessions. Personally, I kind of think that the inability to concentrate on certain lessons because of the urge to run screaming from the room due to overwhelming sensory input is kind of a problem. And the fact that I have a hard time with job interviews because I don't make eye contact is a bit of a problem too. And when I strain an all ready stressed project group member with an (unknowingly) rude question and there's snapping throughout the rest of the time (without work getting done), I consider that to be somewhat troubling too. I do better than a lot in these areas too; those who are lower on the spectrum probably have a lot more to deal with.

Besides, who said that interaction isn't as important to an aspie as it is to an NT? We might not grasp the general concepts of it, but if you float through these boards, you'll notice that plenty of people are sad about their lack of relationships, both/either romantic and/or friendship. They might not care about the superficial deeds, but they still want to interact with someone.

I don't see the trouble as the law. I don't care about what the law labels impaired or not; it's not affecting me at the moment, hence, my empathy is entirely non-existent. If anything, the label actually is helpful to those who are impaired.

In addition to what the member RainSong said, I'll supply the relevant qoutes from the diagnostic criteria that point to "impairment" rather than "difference":

From the DSM-IV-TR:
A.Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

From Gilberg's criteria:
1.Severe impairment in reciprocal social interaction

And from the king purveyor of "difference" himself (Professor Attwood); his criteria:
A qualitative impairment in social interaction:
A qualitative impairment in subtle communication skills:

To use AS as an excuse to be deliberately rude, or to continue being the same type of person?

That last sentence shouldn't matter because that's part of the problem with the NT world and we should be fighting that as ourselves and not hiding anything. That way when those fools squeal "psycho" we can expose them for their intolerance level and send them skulking to some dark corner severely embarrassed.

Now yes, not many people do know about AS - and the sooner they know the better. I completely disagree about your assertion of reliability. I would in fact say it's the opposite - it's more reliable to explain reasons WITH diagnosis. If you don't have a DX you are more likely to be accused of using it as a crutch.



Fixations, not obsessions, RainSong. And there's nothing wrong with that as long as it gets the respect it deserves. Sensory "issues" only become issues when the way we are is ignored. Meltdowns are a consequence of that - and are things that we can avoid if everything else is properly taken care of. It boils down to "natural reaction" because we are who we are. A natural reaction does not equal an impairment.



The difference is we go one on one. NT's want groups - and they see people wanting to go one on one as "socially impaired". It's nonsense. We socialise differently because that's what we want to do - and that's the point I was making.



You haven't been on the wrong end of it as I have - having my AS DX ignored or disrespected.

Daniel, the DSM-V is going to change that reference to "impairment" if they are doing their job. The reason is that the use of "impairment" is being interpreted incorrectly - as in it's being treated as "damage" instead of "natural restriction" as it should be.

I knew you were going to bring up the DSM-V (since it doesn't officially exist, hence it's not utilized; it's effectively moot); impairment, damage, "natural restriction", choose your subjective poison; all of the experts use "impairment", because objectively, we are "impaired" socially, as well as other "important areas of functioning" (all of the dudes who make these diagnostic criterions say "impaired", are they wrong?).

When you have the majority of individuals with AS unable to make friends, unable to work, unable to live independently; what other objective term can one use to describe their predicament?

Which one fits AS/autism better when compared to the majority?

Also, I know of a verifiable "aspie" who wants to socialize, socialize and socialize with as many people as he can; groups and all; he cannot however because he is socially impaired.

I never use AS as a crutch of excuse, at least not consciously. Unfortunately I am constantly accused of using it as an excuse when I'm trying to explain to my job coach my sensory issues, social impairments, and need for order and routine.

You can call it whatever you want, but it's the same thing; I can say the snow is purple, but that doesn't make it any less white. No, they are issues because they are things that sometimes cannot be avoided; I'm not going to go around telling people they can't wear a certain type of (very effective) coat because I can't stand the sound the fabric makes; I'm not going to insist that flickering lightbulbs immediately be changed because they give me a headache, especially if I'm in the middle of a store. Who says that people with AS sound be respected above others? When it comes down to it, your every need is not going to be catered to, and that's life. The majority is not going to cater to a minority, especially if it causes issues amongst them; in a perfect world, perhaps what you're saying would be true, but this world is not perfect, nor will it ever be. Meltdowns cannot be entirely avoided; there are some mornings where I meltdown simply because the seating on the bus is not how I'm accustomed to; there's no reason others should have to give up the right to sit where they want because it makes me uncomfortable. Life. And seeing how it tends to ruin the rest of my day, making me even more vulnerable to sensory problems, which thus inhibits my concentration on what I should be doing/learning, which later effects my grades/performance, it is an impairment.



It makes no difference; socialization is socialization in the long run. I don't think people automatically assume that those who socialize one of one are impaired; they will, however, assume that someone who cannot realize what they're saying is rude, has trouble speaking due to the environment, fails to exhibit/pick up on body language, and repeatedly refuses to make eye contact (which is, by the way, considered rude to most NTs - it shows a lack of attention to them) is socially impaired, and they're correct. I'm sure some want to, and I'm also sure that some do not want to do such; in any case, even if they wish to do something, it doesn't mean they can. You'll find that aspies are suddenly not "normal" when in a situation with a single person; they're still socially inhibited.



If you insist that what you have is a difference, not an impairment, there's no reason to have a dx; you should be fully functional without outside help, because you're not impaired by your condition. For example, as a child, I was in the 99% tile for height (which means I was taller than 99% of my female peers); that is a difference. It didn't impair me in any way, and I didn't need any extra help because of that; it just was. No one had to diagnose me with anything, because I had no problems with it, and most people ignored my height, which was fine; if anyone was disrespectful because of that, oh well; people are disrespectful about everything. It made no difference, because it wasn't an impairment. However, had I been born with an inability to eat, that would have been an impairment; there was something that I was unable to accomplish, and that something could effect me heavily. At that point, there would have been diagnoses and maybe the law would come into play, because in that case, I would have an impairment. It would be a difference from most people, yes, but it would also be an impairment.

You can't have it both ways. If you're only different from most people, not impaired, there's no reason you should get any help from the government, and you shouldn't be insulted if someone fails to recognize you as different. If you are impaired, then yes, you are entitled to help from outside sources. There's a line between the two, and you can't keep one foot on either side of it.

I completely agree that it is the problem of NT world and the level of culture and education. But in my country (Russia) psychiatry has a bad reputation since the time of USSR, and there is an inertia in society - some people are still thinking that psychiatric diagnosis is always connected with schizophrenia and every their patient thinks that his is Napoleon...
In Russia a lot of people are not trust even psychology and psychologists and "mixing" them with psychiatrists. Of course, situation is changing becomes better than 10 years ago.

I think, that spreading information about autism and AS is absolutely right thing. I see that there is a lot of online information about autism and AS in English which is hard to find in my native language, Russian.

May be, you don't understand me - I mean it is often possible not to mention about AS or autistic traits at all. E.g. it is possible to say not about social impairment, but about deep introversion and not having a talent to read "between the lines" and "precise" things in non-verbal sphere. Not sensory impairment and obsessions, but not being "multitasking" and having a need to concentrate deeply on one problem.


In NT world "natural" often means "standard". E.g., for some people phrase "I came from a party, now I need some rest" is not very natural. It is often reasonable to learn typical reaction but of course not stopping being yourself.

Neither - because none of the definitions you quoted apply to Aspies (within ourselves I should point out). You are allowing the NT world to dictate to us what we are by admitting to a so-called "impairment".



Why not? It's a health hazard - and that's not limited to Aspies either! What about those with epilepsy?



Take it from me - they do. I've seen it more often than I would care to remember!



No, they are not correct. That's an intolerant attitude to take. That's like telling a Muslim woman that wearing a berka is socially impaired because they are hiding their hair. That's right - it's ridiculous isn't it? So is calling all those things social "impairment". It's an NT label and it's wrong. Rudeness can be overcome with education. Same for body language - which I do OK with because I took the time to learn. Eye contact - I don't regard that as essential and anyone who does gets the sharp end of my tongue for intolerance.



Within myself - you're right, I'm not. But I am restricted by others. And THAT restriction is the reason government assistance is required. Hence the need for the DX. Use the NT label, and explain things properly. It's a long hard process - and it is possible because at one time we were OK. Aspies were able to get away with being different. Not any more. The NT world INSIST that we are impaired, and we are treated accordingly. And they get away with it. I have been labelled "impaired" by a senior medical officer - and I hate it because it's wrong. But when I tried to contest it, the case was thrown out as frivilous. You are obviously oblivious to that fact.



See what I said above. This comment is completely intolerant of difference and what the NT world causes due to difference. It's why I compare our issues with that of blacks, homosexuals and non Christian religion. The problem isn't the difference. The problem is the attitude - attitude that is reflected through the law as I have found out the hard way. It's slowly changing thankfully, but a lot of damage needs to be repaired first. And a great example of this is the Australian Aborigines. For 179 years (from white settlement in 1788 through to 1967 when our constitution was changed via referendum) we treated them like crap. And it was legal as well, because the constitution allowed it. In 1967 that changed but it will take a long time for the results to show - even now.

It's the same for us Aspies. If we hadn't been pushed into the open - indeed, I wouldn't need assistance and I'd have a job. But no, I've been labelled "impaired" and until I get that sticky label removed and the damage it has caused my psych is overcome I need the government assistance. The sooner this is changed the better - for all Aspies not just me because I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been incorrectly labelled by the NT world.

Which is your subjective opinion. The so-called "NT world" is the "normal" world, it's us who are {insert adjective here} compared to them. There's 1/300 to 1/10,000 of us to them; they define the objectivity.

If you wish to denounce your label, denounce "Asperger's", which note, the originator of this disorder saw it as an impairment [in clearly defined areas of functioning]. Denounce it, say you were misdiagnosed; rectify the professional error.

Live life and all. I remember you said you were fired from your job due to the Asperger's label (IIRC), if you aren't impaired, I'm sure you can find another job where they won't care if you don't do small talk, make eye contact, but you're methodical and focused on the task at hand (which is an asset in many areas of employment).

It's problematic. I listened to the argumentations why AS and autism should not be officially recognised as an impairment or disability, because it gives way to discrimination and false labels. However, then there is a just as valid argumentation that even AS cannot be removed from the position of a disability, an impairment and disorder or whatever professionals and the government actually calls it (as there are so many terms involved) because even lots of people with Asperger's, as in the lightest form of the autism spectrum, need heavy assistance and therapy.

I fear changing that if AS is put into a different category, many people, children, teens, adults of all ages will receive even less help, because 'they're not that seriously impaired, are they?'. It could get worse than it already is and since it is not a satisfying state right now, a possible turn for the worse is endangering too many people.

Well I try not to use AS as a crutch I admit I have meltdowns quite frequently which make it difficlt for me in an enviroment with others. Helping at my church is becoming extremley difficult and they are being very tollerant of me.

When I think of crutch, I think of the stick that holds you up if you break your leg and so I don't see Aspieness as useful in holding me up in any way, it seems more to have held me down.

I don't say it often, but it might pop up once in a while; it's not a clutch, but more of a "if I say something ridiculously weird or sound like a moron or a jerk, it's not cause I'm actually one."

Or migraines.

People make me meltdown, sensory overload if you will; just them being there, and I have Asperger's. The pain I feel in the presence of people is indescribable. I cannot tell people to go away and...just go away when I go grocery shopping.

There's many people with AS like me; if the "NT" world pandered to us so we can go out and about without unbearable mental pain; there wouldn't be much of a human world.

The overall point remains; when you pander to the minority in extreme ways, the majority will suffer; it's how we as a species have gotten this far (kick the weak out, or worst)--the weak can get pensions nowadays, the weak are lucky.