Does Aspergers define you?

Post Reply New Topic

I find myself in agreement with the general feeling of these replies, that we may be, at least in part, described by some NT's idea of who should be a recognized member of "our club" , but we do not need to be fitted and do not necessarily fit neatly in that NT's preconceived box.


Thank you for asking this question.

Each of us has the ability to define ourselves according to our own wills. There is no reason to turn that will over to a neurological condition described by psychiatrists and neurologists.

If Asperger's helps in that definition, good. However, the labels of others have no inherent power over anyone.

"Nerd" defines me. Sorry, spot taken.

Short Answer, No.

Long Answer, I'm 23, and only just beginning to suspect that I might have it, that means that there are about eight and a half thousand days of events which define me, six years of primary school, five of Secondary School, Two of Sixth Form college, four at Uni, and one at the College of Law, THAT is what defines me, compared with all that, AS, if I have it, will only be one thread in the ever-growing Tapestry of my life.

There's nothing to be gained by second guessing yourself. You can't remake the past, so look ahead… or risk being left behind.
Vala Mal Doran, Stargate SG-1
10.07 “Counterstrike”

That's what defines me.

I'm not an autism spectrum disorder. And generalisations as there is the ICD/DSM don't explain a person either. By this I'd say that autism doesn't define me.

I wondered though. Something made me 'overlook' people as a child, something made things hard that are easy for others and things easy for me that are hard for others. I have come to the conclusion that autism adds to my personality just as ADHD does and my liking for finding solutions and that I have blonde hair and that I'm female. Adds in the sense of negative and positive as well as neutral.
Together these things as well as the family that I was born into always formed my life, but life itself wasn't only able to exist by one of these factors alone and only by the interaction of all factors that I grew up with.

Defining myself is something only I do - but of course, since that 'I' is a creation of all factors above, I was never free of autism forming the world I perceived.

But saying that autism define me would say that only autism ever had a say about my whole being and that's unrealistic and not logical, because I'm not autism, but Sora who happens to be autistic.

I remember a conversation between parents who didn't want anybody to say that their children were autistic. I can understand this, because I see a misunderstanding there.

The children happened to be autistic, but they're autistic persons. Not autistic persons.

The later, that's what the parents understood, but obviously that's not possible, because autism isn't any person, but something that a person is besides being hundreds of other things.

Or it is something that a personality has - but then you'd be imply that if you take away everything a person has, even something as fundamental as having a gender, that there would be still a person. That's impossible too.


(There it is again... and then people ask me why I have trouble 'mastering' language... )

Last edited by Sora on 30 Dec 2007, 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Aspergers doesn't define me, it's me that's the one to define myself. It's who you are that defines you, don'tcha know? It's us who are the ones living our lives, not AS. So I vote No emphatically.

To everyone who voted "No" and yet qualified it in various ways - the minute you qualify your AS diagnosis as a part of your life, it defines you. The symptoms place certain restrictions on your life, your personality - whatever. That varies from person to person of course (the rule of life that applies equally to NT's as it does to anyone on the Spectrum) but as long as there is some influence on your life by Aspergers - it defines you.

Just like any other part of your genetic structure.

Personally, I don't think so. The qualifications indicate that the individual is, at least to a degree, taking power over the category, not letting a category constructed by psychiatrists and psychologists have power over them.

It influences all my behavior and traits, but at the end of the day I am just another person, my issues are just different. The only difference is with AS, it defines how we relate to and interact with others, so it has a much wider scope that other issues.

Am I defined by the colour of my skin? By the clothes on my back? By my choice in books, games, or movies, or that I have choices in them? At the end of the day, it's you, your personality, who is the sum of all that there is to define you. They're but facets of a whole, the entirety of who you are at that exact point. We change from day to day, learning new things, forgetting old things, always in motion.

Do we all let ourselves be held back? Do we allow ourselves to be restricted, to be defined solely by AS, and not on who we are as people?

I am a writer. I'm a quiet guy, polite and honest. I like loud music and good books. I enjoy egg nog, and coke, and I love the snow. Is this because of who I am, or is it because of AS, and all of it is but symptoms on a page in a book? I don't think so, and I won't let it be so. I will not let AS define what I can or cannot do, I will not let it run my life. It's my life to live, and I'm going to live it.

But in order to take that power, you are adjusting to Aspergers. Ergo - there's the definition. The instant you adjust (whether it be to Aspergers or against it), that's recognising Aspergers as a part of you. It's essential that you recognise it. I know through personal experience what can happen if one doesn't recognise it. And I don't recommend it - to anyone.



Space, you just defined yourself as an Aspie with that comment. That's a good thing, and be proud!

That assumes that Asperger's autism is a "thing" which one adjusts to, rather than a useful convention to explain certain categories of neurological diversity. Accepting the label is not the same as accepting it uncritically and without modification.

For instance, I have observed that some people relate to Asperger's autism as an object and ask whether they "have it." I relate to Asperger's autism as a category, a social construction, which can be deconstructed.

It doesn't define me. I do limit myself to other Aspies when it comes to dating, but that's as far as it goes. I don't endorse forming a nation that is Aspies only, and I don't feel that NTs should be banished from the face of the earth.

Tim

Is it any different than accepting you're say, white, thin, black, or enjoy wearing kilts? I don't really think so. Does recognizing that you're white define you as being white? Not really. It's not just one narrow aspect of who you are that makes you who you are. It's much more complicated.

It IS the same thing. In general. That's the whole point I'm making. Any level of adjustment means it defines you - whether it be a few tweaks or a massive changeover. And it also applies in reverse - for example if someone refuse to accept their DX and adjusts to deliberately ignore it. That's still allowing for Aspergers.

It's all about definition. Any acknowledgement of Aspergers and reaction to it - no matter what - means it is defining you. Even in a small way - it still counts. I'm certainly not advocating what Tim Tex is suggesting (to me personally the idea appeals but I know it won't work).

It looks to me like a lot of you (no offence) are simplifying something that is actually very complicated to grasp. I'm making it look as simple as possible, in order to understand that the concept of definition of oneself takes a number of different levels and forms - not just one or two. Maybe I'm overdoing it, but the bottom line - as I said - is ANY adjustment made, no matter how small, defines you. At the very least in part, but that's more than enough. And of course it's not the whole box and dice either, but the fact that it's a part is enough.

In that case, we probably have two very different views of language. Mine, as indicated by my user name, is a nominalist view. I do not think that words are real, and I don't believe that there is any direct connection between the words we use and the experiences we have. We utilize words because they are convenient ways of describing our observations or mental states, not because they are isomorphic with particulars. It is we who have power over words, not the other way around.



I just think that you and I understand language very differently.