Another point of view that anti-cure "Aspies" must

Post Reply New Topic

Are you sure about that? Biologically, we should all like the opposite sex. If we don't, there is a neurological error some place. My point is that, like gays, there are some aspies that claim that they are not "broken", and others, like myself, acknowledge that they have a neurological impairment and desire a cure if a real one existed.

But if you mean in terms of disability, I would have to say that aspies are far worse off than NT gays. I know that NT gays face a certain amount of bigotry, but other than that, they don't seem to have any serious functional difficulties.

I was referring to functionality. Still, One might argue that while being gay is clearly neurological it doesn't mean it's a dysfunction. Population control seems to be the most likely reason for this phenomenon.

Then again, as a bisexual transgender, I am a bit biased.

an important point about the "cure" issue:

where is the line between condoning / seeking a "cure" and condoning eugenics?

and among those clamoring to eradicate autism, what percentage are parents / caretakers / educators / those associated with organizations like Autism Speaks? (vs. those on the spectrum)

i don't know how to answer these questions; i just think a discussion about "cure" cannot exist without asking them.

also, from article in original post:

from article, i don't see any evidence that the parent who wrote that seeks to understand what his child wants or does not. he suggests that his son will not be able to live independently; as a parent, he is clearly defensive and exasperated. the cure that he seeks may simply be: emancipation from his role as caretaker. and perhaps also he seeks: to discredit those who are more high functioning (whatever value that term has, for lack of a better term) than his son. also, he has not done his research (but rather is speaking from a defensive, emotional and therefore illogical place), as:


also, the term "anti-cure" (from topic title) has a "pro-cure" bias, much like the term "anti-life" rather than "pro-choice." also (from post topic) the term "aspie" in quotes (and then again the term "autistics" in quotes), a possible attempt to discredit those who identify as autistic who think differently than he (a neurotypical poster).

this is surely not a simple issue, but if the primary dividing line between those who advocate a (non-existent) cure and those who don't lies at that nebulous juncture between the spectrum and neurotypicality, any discussion about it is good as moot. or it becomes an issue of the rights of the disabled (or as anbuend - a.k.a. Amanda Baggs - says, the "dis-enabled") vs. the rights of those who are plagued by their needs.

(please note the use of the word "primary," above, to mean that i recognize some people on the spectrum have mentioned they do, in fact, wish for cure; and my statement that the issue is not simple is meant to include the concept that not all people on the autism spectrum want the same thing, nor all neurotypicals who speak for them; but i also mean that when neurotypicals speak for those on the spectrum, one must determine before giving their opinions any weight whether they are in fact speaking for someone with autism or are speaking for themselves).

lastly, i would like to point out that virtually everyone with autism who can speak well (even if not in actual spoken words) for his / herself has had some attempt made to discredit them as "not actually autistic." what this says to me is that only those who are not autistic are allowed to define what autism is, and i cannot express in words, or in any way, how backward (and misrepresentative) those sorts of allegations and that kind of thought is.

Last edited by katzefrau on 11 Jul 2010, 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

There is still the issue of what happens if a genetic test is developed, but a cure isn't. We have a genetic test for down syndrome and fetuses with this gene are routinely aborted. Would the same thing happen to autistic fetuses? I'm not sure that it would be a bad thing. Why bring a child into the world that will not know anything other than suffering?

I'd rather be alive and autistic, than an abortion statistic.

True as stated, but parents do have the right to speak on behalf of their children, particularly young children. Including NT parents speaking on behalf of autistic children.

Just to react to the linked article; this guy Harold L Doherty shoots himself in the foot by insinuating that because HFA's like Alex are successful they can't possibly be autistic. He has an autistic son, with developmental delays, and to him autism is that severity of disability.

Instead of venting his obvious disappointment with his sons unfortunate situation, he should educate himself to the full range of autism and more specifically how to help his son to cope with life. Both he and his son will benefit.

Read his blog for some more incentive on why not to listen to Harold

A cure is, in my opinion, a fairy tale. As stated before you can not change the human brain. What we can do is find coping strategies and through therapy help those that may not be so fortunate with their coping abilities.

The people I've met didn't seem to be exhausted after the socialization., In fact, they desired it and enjoyed it. They were able to talk about a variety of different topics, and behaved more like my classmates at school than like the rest of the people there. I just wonder where their impairment comes in. I can do the NT act, and yes, it makes me exhausted after a very short period of time. For them, it seems like that wasn't the case.

That is actually the most likely situation. A cure is highly unlikely; a genetic test will probably be available within ten to twenty years.

And I resent the idea that I don't know anything but suffering. I suffer far less than many NTs, and I enjoy my life. The assumption that disabled people suffer more than non-disabled ones isn't even borne out in sociological research: Talk to them more than a few years after they've become disabled, and their subjective quality of life comes out exactly the same as that of non-disabled people. There are just as many unhappy NTs as there are unhappy disabled people; the only difference between the two seems to be that the disabled people blame their disability, and the NTs blame something else.

Why bring a child into the world if they will suffer? Well, in that case, we need a genetic test for homosexuality, too. Homosexuals suffer for what they are; therefore they shouldn't exist.

(The last paragraph is sarcasm.)

That was what I found the most offensive, as well. I mean, I know it's probably not what he MEANS to imply, but it makes it sound as though "success" and "being NT" are synonymous.

This is the same thing that hacks me off when people act like the only way to live with ADHD is to be on meds. I'm sure that helps some people, but if I don't want it, I shouldn't be treated like a sick person refusing life-sustaining medicine. Similarly, I understand why some do best with medication for anxiety, but if I know myself well enough to know I can handle it with prayer and meditation, then that's MY business.

BTW--did not realize anbuend and Amanda Baggs were the same person, but now that I see that, I'm not surprised: I got the very same feeling of dealing with a mind quite a bit more advanced than my own (but not condescending at all ), when watching the video someone posted here recently.

I didn't notice that--Yeah. "You're successful; therefore you can't be autistic." That's probably one of the age-old disability stereotypes: "Disabled people, by definition, cannot ever do anything better than non-disabled people; they can't succeed; and if they do anything well or obtain any advantage, it's purely because they were helped by non-disabled people."

Scary that someone who still holds that kind of an opinion is actually attempting to raise an autistic child. It's one thing to want a cure; it's quite another to devalue disabled people to that extent.

Oh it's Harold? Then he's not worth listening to at all. He has treated autistic people very cruelly online, and has deliberately refused to listen to anything we actually say, and turns it all into a caricature. If autistic people agree with him, he does not question their autism no matter how capable they are. If we do not agree with him, he questions our autism and in a couple cases has thrown his lot in with people who have made death threats and other cyberstalking sorts of acts against some autistic people. Most parents, regardless of their child's abilities or their personal opinions, are not as cruel as he is to autistic adults who disagree with him. He is part of a small clique of really vicious parents for whom anything goes as far as how they treat autistic people (unless those autistic people agree with them, in which case anything such autistic people do is okay even if it is in itself cruel and sadistic and bullying). And he repeats his viewpoints no matter how often people say "No, that's not what we actually believe." It's not that he's never heard alternate viewpoints to both his own and the strawmen he sets up, it's that he basically covers his ears and goes "lah lah lah I can't hear you" and then repeats what he says. He knows that people unfamiliar with both the way he operates, and the way the autistic people he denigrates actually think, will eat up what he has to say, just as some people have on here. His purpose is not to understand, but rather to propagandize and hope people take him seriously and never bother to actually read up on the viewpoints of the people he is slamming.

I'm not saying this because he wants a cure. There are plenty of parents who want a cure who still behave with a minimum of respect towards autistic people who don't. There are plenty of parents who want a cure who don't necessarily respect those of us who don't, but who still have that bare minimum respect for other human beings (i.e. not deliberately aiding people who engage in defamation, stalking, and death threats, and don't join in the defamation in the manner that Harold has). There are plenty of parents who want a cure, but who have honestly never heard any no-cure viewpoint except for "We don't want a cure because we've got lots of l33t skillz!" This man is none of those things and for the sake of both the autistic people his actions harm, and the pro-cure parents he makes look bad, he should not be listened to.

I disagree. I think evidence strongly suggests that autism is not strictly genetic, and that the best genetic tests will be able to do is find genetic markers associated with an increated risk of autism. Genetic markers shared by plenty of people who don't have autism.

As far as being gay, having six fingers, etc., goes, "not being a dysfunction," that doesn't mean such people aren't disabled in some contexts. Being disabled isn't "having a dysfunction" or "being unable to complete certain tasks," it's how you are viewed by the society you happen to live in.

Nondisabled people generally have all kinds of difficulty doing all kinds of important things. What makes them nondisabled is not a lack of impairment, but rather the fact that the society they live in does not expect everyone to have those abilities. The society they live in provides services to most of the people who lack those abilities, and those services are not considered "special" or unusual.

Disabled people are people who, because of a specific trait, are pathologized by the society they live in and treated as if their particular combination of traits is dysfunctional.

If I were born in the 1940s in America, then even if I weren't autistic or physically impaired, I would still be disabled because I am a lesbian and during that time being a lesbian was considered a mental illness. People were institutionalized for being lesbians, they were given shock treatments, they were brainwashed to try to make them straight. Because they were classified and treated as mentally ill, they were disabled in that time and place.

Fast-forward to a hypothetical future where there are wheelchair ramps everywhere. Where nobody is expected to walk. Where wheelchairs are not considered medical equipment, and are provided to anyone who needs them (and people who don't but just happen to want to use them for some reason or think they look cool). Where help with household tasks and transferring and bathing are provided as similar services to plumbing and car repair and grocery stores. Where any medical needs specific to people who use wheelchairs are dealt with similarly to the medical needs of people with hay fever, and are not considered different -- are considered "just part of routine checkups" and stuff. Then at that point, most people who use wheelchairs are not disabled and are not considered to have impairments in major life activities because nobody is expected to be able to walk, or to be able to do anything else that wheelchair users may have trouble doing.

Fast forward to another hypothetical society where everyone is expected to fix their own cars, the same as people are now expected to brush their own teeth past a certain age. Mechanics don't exist. If you cannot fix your own car, and don't know anyone willing to fix your car, then you have to prove to a medical examiner that you really can't fix your own car and aren't just lazy. After filling in a bunch of forms, you get a special kind of medical worker that comes to people's houses and helps them fix their cars (not to their own specifications, of course, but to the specifications of the agency they work for, which may clash with the car owner's specifications or even be pretty destructive). People look down on people who can't fix their own cars and consider them stupid and incapable. Then suddenly you have an entire class of disabled people that doesn't exist in the here and now, and they suddenly have "dysfunctions" and "impairments" that would be obvious to the people in the future society but that nobody can perceive now because that just isn't on the radar screen of what constitutes "impairment in a major life activity".

That's where I'm coming from when I say that gay people are disabled in some times and some places. Disability has nothing to do with dysfunction as some kind of objective category (there is no such thing), it has to be with what people regard as a dysfunction and what they regard as just part of the normal range of life. If some sort of massive environmental factor caused everyone to lose their genes that cause legs to form, then eventually everyone on the planet would be legless and being legless wouldn't be considered dysfunctional because everyone would have to have societies that dealt with being legless as the norm. If someone were born with legs, then they might even be considered disabled at that point because the world would be built for the convenience of people without them.

That's one of the things that parts of the disability rights movement have been really good at -- realizing that who is and isn't disabled is culturally rather than physically determined. It's not an objective fact because there is always a way to build a culture that considered now-disabled people part of the norm and seamlessly planned for them, and there is always a way to create new "impairments" and "dysfunctions" where they didn't previously exist because they and their needs used to be seamlessly integrated into the norms of the main population but now suddenly are not. Both things have happened to gay people -- being suddenly pulled out of the norm and being made into disabled people, and being put back into the norm so we're suddenly nondisabled. (Unfortunately many of the ways that gay people have achieved being put into the norm involved using stereotypes of disability and saying "we're not like THAT".)

My opinion on this topic is simple. The entire discussion of whether a cure is a good or a bad idea is totally moot until the cause(s) of Autism are known. Period.

Who speaks for whom? Well that's pretty simple too. Those who are "Autistic," but cannot speak for themselves, usually have a parent or some advocate who claims to speak for them, but the reality is that they cannot speak for someone whose mind they cannot read. The advocates for very low functioning Autistics speak for themselves. Period. Those of us who have the capacity to speak, speak for ourselves, and don't appreciate anyone speaking for us.

But here are the real problems that makes the discussion moot to begin with:

Nobody has any idea what causes Autism. Nobody really knows whether severe Autism and high functioning Autism really have anything at all to do with each other, except that they apparently share certain behaviors and traits. The fact is, no one has any idea whether severe Autistics actually think anything like high functioning Autistics. Okay, there are some extremely rudimentary tests out there that suggest a similarity in thinking processes, but suggestion is a far cry from definitive demonstration.

Considering that something like Asperger's syndrome cannot even be proven to be related in cause to severe Autism, yet is considered to be Autism based only on outward appearances, it is possible they aren't related at all in terms of cause. If they aren't related, a cure for severe Autism will not mean a cure for Asperger's or, possibly, other forms of high functioning Autism. If they are someday found to have different causes, or a cause for Severe Autism is found, and proven not to be the cause for what we now call high functioning Autism, I think it's very likely that one or the other will cease to be called Autism, or at least will either retain its difference in nomenclature, or will be given an entirely new label. If this were to happen, talk of a cure would cease to be such a highly controversial topic.

If, however, it is found the causes are the same, and a cure is found, then and only then will discussion of the topic make sense to me.

For the time being, any talk of a cure is nothing but hypothetical conjecture on both sides. If the causes are found to be different, any further controversy over it would seem to me to be just, well, silly.

Why don't we just either wait and see what is discovered, or get involved in the process of discovery before we get all riled up over what could be?

i really dont understand the people who say they are opposed to a cure. the people who are seeking one dont say they want to apply it to everyone unilaterally against their will. but when you say there shouldnt be research to look for a cure, you are denying those who want one from having one.

no one should have that right to force their belief for or against a cure on someone else. yes it gets sticky with parents and guardians, it always has with everything of this nature, but to disallow a cure to prevent that is a bigger injustice.

you CAN support a cure while making the decision for yourself not to take one. thats called pro-choice. it gives everyone the freedom to choose their own path while restricting the option from no one.