Why Aspies ARE disabled, and we should embrace that.

Post Reply New Topic

I guess I don't see those as problems. I am "differently abled" in that my abilities may differ from most neurotypical persons. I more "was" than "am" challenged in the manner that my very low-functioning Asperger's autism as a child challenged me to the point where I am now very high functioning.

Is there also a differently enabled aspect? Yes. Society enables, or supports, some people and does not support others quite as much.

Yay Nominalist!

Exactly Differently-Abled isn't Dis-Abled.

Maybe some Aspies and Autistic people are now a bit of a drag on society because their specializations aren't required in modern society, but I still believe that there was an evolutionary reason for them.

There are also lots of aspies who contribute a lot to society by performing work which NTs would find difficult - catalog librarians, computer developers, mathematicians, scientists (sorry - I know I'm on stereotypes here). These people aren't in any way DIS-abled because society needs them.

Yes, I think that society needs all of us. Society needs to enable, empower, those of different and typical abilities.

I am disabled in this society.

I'm unable to interact with people in person and out there
I'm unable to function academically/vocationally in the presence of people (I need not mention socialization)
I'm unable to organize government aid for myself (this relates to #1)
My special interest precludes nearly everything but living
I'm unable to take orders from people
(All due to AS)

Sure, I have a head full of facts, I can remember every little detail concerning my interest, and I'm somewhat advanced cognitively; it's of no use to society as society is made from the people I cannot interact/function with.

Another planet, society, time and/or whatever and I probably wouldn't be disabled, but here now, yeah I am.

The social model of disability is ridiculous twaddle. More on why tomorrow.

I'm not disabled. I'm not handicapped. I'm not differently abled. I'm certainly not "special."
I'm none of these stupid things. People with Aspergers are considered disabled because that's where we fit under societies checkbox. I hate "differently abled" because the term is coined for sympathetic use. I can't stand false sympathy coming from anybody - even if they think they mean it, it's false simply because they don't understand it. I've always hated telling people about my Aspergers. Sometimes I can't avoid it, my behaviour becomes so obvious that they know something is odd. Even still, my own definition is much, much more accurate, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm crazy as hell.
At least saying that doesn't get me the "he's broken" looks.

different is NOT disabled. let me ask you this:
If in 10 years, 80% of all humans have asperger, does that make US normal and NTs disabled? I dont think so. saying people with autism are disabled only proofs that many people still dont understand what it means to have autism

Through my own effort though I've found I can talk to almost anyone with ease. Instead of getting nervous I just say what I gotta say and forget them nowdays.


Think about what disabled means, is it really that insulting?

So really if its gonna help a lot of people like us to actually live what they wanna live instead of struggling simply to survive its a beautiful thing.

How would it be if many AS people became pennyless bums?

These are wise words. I would like to add that having a disability or disabilities (being challenged) are different from being "disabled". If you are disabled, you cannot function at all. Some people on the extreme end of the Autistic spectrum might come close to this, but it should be noted that there are a lot of savants with HFA. By my definition, very few Aspie's and Autistics would be truly disabled.

That is not true, and has never been true, in any sense of the word that I have ever heard.

Even the legal sense of the word for government assistance doesn't ask that, it just asks that you be unemployable. And even that is a more extreme version of the word than what it really means.

For that matter, I remember in the Terri Schiavo debates, and she's someone who could not do most things, and when disability rights activists tried to say anything about her (in either direction), people would say, "But she's not disabled, she can't function at all. So she's more than just disabled."

They said that all the time. And most people agreed with them. So even a popular notion of what disabled means doesn't mean "can't function at all". And saying it means that is pretty insulting to disabled people everywhere (who do use that term and have that term used about us and have no problem with it).

There's a real word for "Can't function at all," by the way. It's dead, not disabled. Anyone who's alive, even someone in a coma and on life support, is functioning in some way.

Being irreverant to authority is not neccessarily a bad thing. This is my natural state of being as well. Perhaps we as aspies are not group-oriented and only do what feels right to us. We are much more vocal about our liberties than neurotypicals, who ignore all acts of injustice due to social status in the eyes of the group. I can function well in groups that have an actual purpose, objective or goal, rather than an informal group of acquaintances making small talk.

We are getting caught up in the exact meanings of words here. This is a very Aspie thing to do. All I intend to do is clarify what I meant. When I said "can't function at all", I meant it in a social context. Terri Shiavo could not function in a social context. Prof. Steven Hawking, on the other hand, can function in a social context. He is a person who functions in the world with a disability while Terri Schiavo became completely disabled unable to have any interaction with the world. Most people on the autistic spectrum are more like Steven Hawking and therefore, by my definition not disabled.

Danielismyname:
The way I look at things, you are operating in this society. If you wrote your own post, you are functioning academically, interacting with this computer-based society and following its rules. If you have a special interest, this makes you differently abled.

Absolutely cool, the way you put it into words.

I always struggled a lot with people, because I'm oblivious to all the funny, positive and negative meaning and ideas people have attached to words over the time. I have a hard time remembering people use 'disability' and variations of it as an insult in all kinds of languages, because over the course of time, the word has become negative in the minds of people - similar to autism, but much worse so. I don't have this association that is connected to the word 'disability' of the society I life in.


Anyway...
I think we shouldn't try to find newer and cooler words that we see fit just because people haven't used them as much yet. I think we should rather make people understand that a disability isn't an evil thing, just like the scary word 'autism' isn't evil at all.

It's very possible to change the meaning of words, but to do that you have to use them and make sure the context in which you use them is explained to those who don't know it yet.

The main problem I see is also that although everybody freely uses 'disability', few have a clear understanding of it. Even when someone is missing a leg, few people would think that this person can be called disabled.

When people think of disability, few think of actual people they know, but most think of abstract concepts that aren't complete or thought through.


And about getting caught up in words (because it's just so true.)
NTs get caught up a lot in words too, they just don't need to clarify words and find out what they mean in order to function. That's why they're not autistic. They can continue to function while not-knowing and by filling up what they don't know with their imagination.

You're the one who used a meaning of the word "disabled" that I have almost never heard before in my life, and that is in fact insulting to disabled people.



I'm not an Aspie, either, but I'm sure that's just words, too, to you.

At any rate, seriously, you will find a whole lot of disabled people who completely disagree with you, and find your definition of disabled as "can't function" ludicrous and/or insulting.

It works like this, and a lot of non-"aspies" would I'm sure back me up on this:

Disability is the noun form. Disabled is the adjective or verb form. What you are saying is the equivalent of saying that saying someone has autism means they can function and saying that someone is autistic means they can't. It just doesn't make any logical sense at all.

Basically, disability can in various senses mean any of the following things to different people:

1. Difficulty or complete inability to do a particular thing.

2. The same as #1, except only true of people who have been categorized this way by the medical profession.

3. The intersection of a person's pattern of abilities with an environment created by people who only plan for one particular set of patterns of abilities.

4. The oppression experienced by people who experience #3. (Sometimes also called "Disablement".)

And then disabled can mean any of the following things:

1. Finding it difficult or impossible to do certain things. (i.e. "Having a disability by definition #1")

2. The same as #2, only this is only true of people categorized this way by medical professionals. (i.e. "Having a disability by definition #2")

3. Dis-enabled by the environment, someone who is put at a disadvantage by others on the basis of their patterns of ability, while others are "enabled" (advantaged based on their ability patterns, which most people who hold to this definition believe everyone should be, at least to the greatest extent possible, as an ideal that might never be reached).

4. The same as #3, only adding in people who've been pathologized by the medical profession on matters that don't always have to do with ability (for instance, gay people were disabled during the time when we were classified as defective by psychiatry).

5. The same as #3, only even broader, encompassing anyone who's disadvantaged by society in general. (This one is rarely held to, but is commonly the one people argue against when they argue against the social model.)

I find it really hard to believe that "disabled" and "disability" have two completely different meanings, because in all of these cases they're adjective and noun forms of the same thing. Another noun form, like disability, is disablement, which is the opposite of enablement for a reason.

And I don't think this is just semantics, they're the same word, I don't know how else to put it.

Take pairs of words like:

Politics. Political.
Autism. Autistic.
Asperger's. Aspergian/Aspergerian/Aspergic.
Wood. Wooden.
Insight. Insightful.
Empowerment. Empowered.

Then...

Disability. Disabled.

It's the same thing. There's no difference. I mean, have a disability is maybe the more politically correct way of saying disabled, but they do actually mean the same thing. Whether you use a social or medical model, for that matter, doesn't matter, they still end up meaning the same thing.

And if you do go around using disabled only to mean totally unable, while disability means partially unable, you'll probably really annoy some disabled people (or get WTF reactions) at best, which is why I'm pointing it out. I mean, yeah it's only words, but it's words used in a way that will bother people other than me.

I don't consider myself disabled. I have been working for 5 1/2 years at the library. My particular job is easy for me because of my special interests and abilities. I think my major problem is anxiety. I think I could achieve the remaining goals I have set for myself if I can overcome that.

I am not disabled in terms of compassion. I have a love of animals and compassion for people who love and care for them as much as I do.

Frankly, I am always wary of people with under 100 posts, just for the simple possibility of their being trolls . . . not mean to offend, just to clarify.

We are different for a reason because everyone is made differently, and somewhere, someday (if not already), we [through our differences] can make potentially helpful connections with other people/another person because we have the experiences and the mindset that makes it possible to allow us interactions with them.

Likewise, as the result of having differently wired brains, we are able to come up with answers to problems that no one has thought of; making us problem solvers. You just have to find the right field.

As for us being disabled, if you feel that all of those on the spectrum are disabled, then I have no problem with that. I belong to a disabled blogger community, and they're some of the coolest people I've ever met; so I see no problem being associated with them or even being a part of them, because everyone is treated equally within, which is better than what the people of society often offer.