Declaring ourselves a minority group

Post Reply New Topic

Look I am presenting this in a cogent manner. You are the one arguing in sloppy manner. Of course your rhetorical tricks are sphositcated, You accuse me of being arguing sloppily and being in effect disengenous (when you mentioned woolly) without mentioning my name directly. You then slyly called for civility. So now then I mention you directly, being with AS being direct is prefereable, you will claim -"oh ppoor is me , I wanted things to be soo civil, But Asman said I was this and that, I never said anything like that about him (only indirectly).


We have decided what is going on. Have you not read the earlier post? We will be a considered a minority if the disability movement wins, but a disabled minority not a social one.

sigh. i give up. i have tried, but to no avail. however, at least i am in a position to cast a vote now, based on the facts and evidence put in front of me.

I have also suggest something extremely positive, practical and workable, that is to model on the civil rights movement in the US. This model does incorporate a lot of what the "Allies"document says

Last edited by ASMAN on 06 Dec 2004, 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

I had complained to the AFF about this declaring ourselves a minority and I hope my point had sunk in.

There are a number of problems with it:

1. By doing this, a community can segregate itself from mainstream society needlessly.

2. We are also distancing ourselves from the mainstream of the disability pride movement who will fight for us if we fight for them. We are cutting ourselves off from a huge amount of manpower.

3. That same disability pride movement wants the same thing we want; for disability to be considered 'diffability' and remove the downward social comparison which hinders people more than their actual so-called official impediment.

4. This attitude also propagates a downward social comparison among our own number, which is why AFF has drawn much criticism where the legendary Aspergia was very comforting to it's members. Towards the end of it's life, Aspergia's social structure was destroyed by immature Aspies that though emulating NT attitudes would be an improvement where as we already had a comfortable and tolerant system in place. This bread a sense of extremism among the younger Aspies and the established members left in droves.

I'm not really sure how we could classify ourselves as a minority group.

I'm not that convinced that it would help in the education of what autism is. I understand that ABA treatments are something that most autistics want to see banned, I'm just not sure how far we can take this if we are declared a minority. I mean, for example, if a family (with autistic traits somewhere in the genes) has an autistic child and they wish to use ABA as their treatment of choice are you suggesting that the child be taken out of that home and given to someone within that (autistic)minority group to raise?

There are many autistics that have many co-existing disabilities that keep them from being able to do without the disabled tag. The autism itself may not be disabling but you have to consider these folks, too.

I still feel that a movement towards education and eliminating misinformation is the way to go at this time. Like I said previously, we have a long way to go in just this department let alone trying to decide whether we are part of one group or another.

I understand that laws and regulations are being made in Canada that doesn't even acknowledge adult autistics and their recommendations on how we (autistics) should be treated and that is a grave concern for all of us. I'm just at a loss as to what should be done. I know for sure that this is not something that should be decided hastily.

We should have the right to be heard, this is a cause I am very sure of.

It seems to me that until it has been established how much the autism and aspergers spectrum is determined by genes and how much by environment it is too early to decide what "status" to demand.

IF the spectrum is almost entirely determined by pure genetic action, in which environment/nurture , including uterine environment, has little "say" , then perhaps minority group status would be appropriate.
BUT if there IS a significant element of environmental influence ( particularly through diet of mother immediately before or during pregnancy , and/or of baby after birth,) then I am not sure that it would make much sense. After all membership of the group would then be a question of choice , on the parents part if not the baby's, and apparently minority group status does not include groups whose members "choose" to be that way.

Until it is clear what causes the aspie/autie condition, or which ends/parts/degrees of the spectrum are caused by genes and which by other factors(nurture/envir ) I think it's difficult to know exactly what to fight for.
But normal "disability " rights seems most pc solution, though, cos otherwise it's like insulting all the other "disability" groups as if they DON'T have so many wonderful things to offer.

I think if I could I would rather not have these problems with social cues etc. But how can anyone wish that what they experience as them didn't exist? Even someone very disabled by their asp/autie aspects.
I suppose I'm hoping that researchers will find out that what produces the most distressing and disabling symptoms is environmental, and thus be able to prevent them recurring in the future.Unless too much brilliance seems to get lost ......! !??Is medicine unjustified in looking for a cause if it is not genetic?
It is not the same as wanting to get rid of people .

Is it forbidden to mourn what one might have been? Is it perhaps unconscious sour grapes? Rather than rage about what might I have done/been if "this" ( accident of nutrition, or whatever) had not prevented me I will say it is the best of all possible worlds and everyone else should be exposed to same risk/fate !??

Last edited by ouinon on 04 Oct 2007, 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Isn't that basically the same thing though? You judge the value of a persons life and decide for them if they are worth the cost of letting live. Who really has the right to make that decision?

I cant think of a single "disability" thats quite like ASDs. Can you name a single group of disabled people where over half of them don't want to be "enabled"? Who don't want to be cured or fixed?

Thats why we don't really fit in with the disabled minority.. I think the more important issue for us isn't necessarily being treated as equals but more our fight for the right to exist.. an issue no other group currently faces.

A disabled minority group for obvious reasons wouldn't have stipulations and protections preventing the advocacy of prenatal screening and abortion.. the things we will need to continue to exist and evolve.

I was imagining believing that it was the result of my genes, and I understood that it would make a HUGE difference to my attitude if it was. If genes were the critical component , if no other factor was as significant , then I believe I too would fight for, or at least be proud of , my being what I was. I would insist on respect as an equal, on support to deal with difficulties in the longer term.
But I believe that the deciding factor might be diet , and therefore my problems, aswell as my gifts, are an accident of upbringing, like many things in life are, like the consequences of illness and poverty and loss of parents , and warzones etc. Therefore , after years of blaming my parents for it I can now blame diet , in fatal combination with genes perhaps, but the genes not enough on their own.

I would not want to wish this misery and difficulty( no sex life, difficulty mothering, no job, permanent non-creativity,in the sense of actual "production")on anyone else; would not want to risk making anyone elses life harder than necessary if I knew that something might prevent it.
Life is already hard enough , with all its accidents of fortune, with all its pain. If I knew that a certain food/vitamin/whatever , could possibly make life a bit easier for someone I would be glad to know it.

I am not convinced by aspergers' great contribution to society,( non-aspies may in fact have had a more positive influence on society ! !) and so many are not productive, not just because society gags them but because of their intrinsic difficulties. I am not convinced that all that many are happy.
DO we need help , OR are we actually quite alright?

I do understand the difference it can make whether think it is genetic destiny , or "just" environmental accident , on how one looks at it.

PS: was just reminded of old "joke"/argument , that should carry on abusing children cos that's how great artists are made!!

Last edited by ouinon on 04 Oct 2007, 2:34 pm, edited 4 times in total.

If it really is genetically determined I'd be ready to think we might be a new ( or old but previously too disadvantaged to count) offshoot on the human species tree, increasingly favoured by the sedentary , abstract , splintered society we live in , and becoming stronger in these new conditions, more vocal and visible. That's a possibility, but before starting to believe radical stuff like that I'd like to get my facts straight , and KNOW exactly to what degree genes are responsible or not!!

If it wasn't primarily genetic in nature it wouldn't have an 80% heredity rate.

I would say no: Declaring ourselves as any type of group creates stereotypes, which creates prejudice.

Just being on the spectrum causes stereotypes and prejudices.. having it be recognized as a valid minority and therefore an acceptable condition would do more good than harm I think.

How can having peoples perceptions change from "freaks of nature" to "part of a group of people who are different" ever really be a bad thing?

Identical Twin concordance varies from 60% to 95% depending on the study. This means that there is definitely some (or several ) important environmental factor involved in triggering the genetic "expression",( because otherwise it would be reliably close to 100%) and seeing as it is increasingly clear that apparently several different gene groups have to inter-react in "malfunctioning" anyway , I still believe we might discover some cheaply avoidable environmental factor.
Apparently though the research is top heavy with gene-scientists, invested in proving it is genetically-determined, which I'm no happier about than you. I don't like eugenics either.The money is unfortunately not on proving it is bread or dairy or pesticides or vaccinations or other environmental " insults"( as the literature so vividly calls it!)which tip a latent , invisible genetic weakness over into autism/asd .
Health officials in uk however are now thoroughly convinced this is not just a greater visibility , but a genuinely greater incidence. In other words , something increasingly present in the environment is acting on a pre-existing genetic weakness.
That is the real outrage, not the poor treatment of aspie/auties , tho that is bad too for those genuinely disabled by it. But the real horror is that our environment has become so poisonous. And there's a lot of money invested in it staying that way.

There's a 90's bestseller science fiction book I'm trying to remember in which there are increasing mutations as a result of environmental toxicity , and the mutants learn to be proud of their mutations. They even get snobby about them!! And compare degrees of difference from the "old types".

Yeah that ticks me off as well.

As for the genetics of it though you have to remember not all the inherited genes needed to cause an ASD are necessarily going to be dominant genes.

For example even if both parents have brown eyes its not 100% certain their children will have brown eyes.

Considering theres a 0.04% chance of a person having an ASD but an 80% chance of their children having it also how can that be environmental?

If taken independently that 0.04% chance could be attributed to environment or toxic exposure but at such a low general occurrence that would make the odds of a second generation being exposed to the same thing and having their genes modified in the same way 0.0016%