Why "Neurodiversity" is wrong

Post Reply New Topic

We all have to live on this rotating rock together...come what may...

What precisely do you mean by "SJW"? Are you against minority rights movements in general, or just the more obnoxious manifestations thereof?

If you mean only the latter, it's not accurate to characterize the entire ND rights movement as "SJW" in that sense, although I agree that some ND rights proponents have been very obnoxious in an "SJW" sort of way (particularly on Twitter, apparently, from what I've heard; I'm not a Twitter user myself).


Up to a point I agree that "with rights come responsibilities." But there are also some rights that should be considered "inalienable," as the Declaration of Independence puts it. Do you reject, for example, the idea that elderly people who are no longer able to work should still have all the basic rights of citizens?

In an attempt to accommodate your concentration difficulties, I will break up my reply into a series of posts, treating one of your major points in each post . Continued below.

Depends on the nature of the job. See Autistic-friendly workplaces. Regarding the social aspect, see Autistic-friendly social skills vs. blending in with NT's.


If possible, one needs to develop, perhaps with the help of a good autism-aware therapist, workable systems for handling these things. Plenty of worthwhile advice can be found in Valerie Gaus's book Living Well on the Spectrum: How to Use Your Strengths to Meet the Challenges of Asperger Syndrome/High Functioning Autism. Also, the two autism conferences I've attended so far have featured panels of work-capable autistic adults talking about how they handle executive functioning difficulties.

As for myself, I used to have an awful time with keeping track of bills until the advent of online banking and auto-pays. Currently, most of my bills get auto-payed out of one credit card credit account (while my electric and gas get auto-payed directly of my bank account because there's apparently a law against them using credit card auto-pays); so, for me, the problem of keeping track of a gazillion odds and ends of bills has been simplified to just logging in to my bank account regularly and keeping an eye on my bank account and credit card account.

My boyfriend and I have developed some systems for making sure we don't run out of stuff. For example, the newest not-yet-opened containers of his most frequently used medications are kept in my dresser drawer, for the specific purpose of making it slightly less convenient for him to get them, so we both can more easily notice when he is down to his last container and we need to get more.

One of the defining behavioral traits of autism, an attachment to rigid routines, is actually a way of coping with executive functioning difficulties. An important part of what many of us need to do is to figure out and then commit ourselves to routines that will work for us.

No one system will work well for all "high-functioning" autistic people. We each need to try to find systems that will work well for us as individuals.

Of course, some of us do have executive function difficulties too severe to be dealt with by such workarounds. For these people, yes, it would be highly desirable to have a medical treatment for executive functioning difficulties, specifically. More about this later in this series of posts.

Question: What kinds of efforts have been made to help him learn to communicate? Has any effort at all been made to teach him to read and write, type, use sign language, point at letters and/or picture cards, or whatever his CP will allow him to do?

On autistic rights websites, I've seen a lot of advocacy of the idea that the abilities of many non-speaking autistic people may have been greatly underestimated, with the result that not enough effort has been made to teach them things (such as reading, writing, and basic math) that they might indeed be capable of learning, despite their inability to speak. This idea seems to have gradually gained some acceptance in the autism research establishment; see the Spectrum News articles I called attention to in this post, and see also this article on the website of the Interactive Autism Network.

Such underestimation of cognitive abilities is especially likely for those non-speaking autistic people who, like your nephew, also have severe motor issues such as CP, whose inability to speak may be caused (at least in part) by those very same motor issues.

Alas, this issue isn't nearly as high a research priority as it should be, in my opinion.

See the article I Have Nonverbal Autism. Here’s What I Want You to Know, written by Philip Reyes with the help of his mother Lisa Reyes, and see the author's personal blog. See also the blog Ido in Autismland, by another non-speaking autistic young man.

Of course, even if your nephew ever does manage to learn to read and write/type/whatever, he almost certainly will never be able to work. He still should have the right to as much basic education as he is capable of absorbing and to learn as much as he can, rather than being presumed to be unintelligent because he's trapped in a body he can't control.


No he is not. See above. It can be argued that the ND rights movement doesn't do enough to advocate for the rights of "low-functioning" people, but to claim that "low-functioning" people are "completely ignored" shows utter ignorance about the ND rights movement.

ASAN has two non-speaking (but educated) autistic people, Amy Sequenzia and Ben McGann, on its Board of Trustees. See also the description of Cal Montgomery on that page.

One of ASAN's requirements of its affiliate groups is that they must be "Inclusive of the entire autistic and disabled community. To give a few examples, your group should be welcoming and accessible to people with intellectual disabilities, nonspeaking people, people with mobility impairments, etc."

Most ND rights proponents emphasize the social model but are not absolutists about it. We're not against any and all treatments. We're against specific kinds of treatments that we see as harmful, and we're against pouring billions of dollars into the goal of radically re-wiring our brains.


Certainly he does need treatment, especially for his CP.


It would certainly be desirable to have medical treatments for executive functioning problems, for those whose executive functioning issues are too severe to be dealt with via the kinds of workarounds I wrote about in one of the previous posts in this series.

What I'm very wary of, on the other hand, is the idea of medically re-wiring one's entire brain, as would be necessary in order to "cure autism."

As for emotional regulation, there are already medications that can help with that. What's needed is for more psychiatrists to be educated about the various ways that autistic people may react to medications differently from the ways that other people do.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 27 Dec 2019, 11:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Self-improvement is indeed necessary for everyone. The ND paradigm does not deny this. However, self-improvement is much more likely to be effective if you can identify whatever personal strengths you might have and use them to deal with your challenges. There's a difference between self-improvement and a total rejection of oneself, or trying to force oneself into an utterly unnatural mold.


It would indeed be desirable, and might indeed be feasible, for there to be medications for the kinds of concentration problems associated with some kinds of autism, just as there are medications for ADHD. However ....


Treatments for specific issues are one thing.

However, a total "cure" for autism would entail a radical re-wiring of your entire brain. How could that possibly not be a devil's bargain at best? How could it possibly not entail a great risk of losing whatever abilities you already have? How could it possibly not violate the most basic principle of medicine, "First do no harm"? The human brain is extremely complex, and it's not a mass-produced machine with interchangeable parts.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 27 Dec 2019, 8:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The following is part of a series of posts begun here, on the previous page.

And by asking for billions of dollars to be poured down the rabbit hole of pursuing a total "cure" for autism, you are effectively trying take those billions of dollars away from, for example:

- research into cure/prevention of Alzheimer's and other dementias, which are degenerative conditions that affect many more people than autism does.

- research into a possible cure, or at least better treatments for, cerebral palsy. It must be absolutely horrible to be trapped, from birth, in a body that one cannot control, as your nephew apparently is -- far worse than autism per se, in my opinion, and possibly one of the reasons (possibly perhaps even the main reason?) why he can't talk. Do you not agree?

- research into better ways to help "low-functioning" autistic people learn to communicate. (See my earlier post here.)

- research into various possible simpler, less risky autism-related medical treatments (e.g. for autism-related attention issues) that could make your life a lot better without an attempt to totally re-wire your brain.


The medical research budget, and the larger scientific research budget of which it is a part, are necessarily finite. So there will inevitably be debates over what's the best use of all that money. However it gets budgeted, it's never going to please everyone. So, all we can do is make the best arguments we can for whatever we think the priorities should or shouldn't be.

In the interests of so doing, I will repeat one of the central arguments I made on the previous page:

Possible future treatments for specific autism-related issues (e.g. concentration, executive functioning, emotional regulation) are one thing. It is at least reasonable to imagine that at least some such treatments could be relatively harmless.

But a total "cure" for autism would entail a radical re-wiring of your entire brain. How could that possibly not be a devil's bargain at best? How could it possibly not entail a great risk of losing whatever abilities you already have? How could it possibly not violate the most basic principle of medicine, "First do no harm"? The human brain is extremely complex, and it's not a mass-produced machine with interchangeable parts.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 27 Dec 2019, 10:41 pm, edited 9 times in total.

In my opinion, it is best for "high-functioning" autistic people to try to form alternative extended families with other autistic people with whom we are personally compatible, so we don't need to lean as heavily on NT caretakers. I'm not saying we shouldn't have NT's in our lives too, even in our intimate lives, but we should try to avoid leaning on them too heavily.

Those with NT partners should, if possible, try to build networks of similar couples; this would help the NT partners feel less isolated, too, and would hopefully be a source of practical help for them now and then.


This is an important concern and is one of the reasons why health professionals of all kinds, not just mental health professionals, need to be trained to communicate with autistic people. In some locales, autistic people have the option of carrying a card or badge that identifies their communication difficulties.

Also if you and your S.O. were part of a close friendship group of similar couples, as suggested above, one of your friends might be able to run to the hospital soon after you got there and advocate for you.


Have both you and your SO made a point of learning to be assertive without being aggressive, and learning both to give and to gracefully receive constructive criticism? (See Autistic-friendly social skills vs. blending in with NT's.)

If more people made a point of learning what I call autistic-friendly social skills, that would be a win-win for society as a whole. NT's get into misunderstandings with each other too, after all, though not as often as we do.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 27 Dec 2019, 8:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

ASAN is part of the larger disability rights movement, which has done A LOT to increase employment prospects for MANY different categories of disabled people. Of course disabled people are still relatively much more likely to be unemployed than non-disabled people. But surely the advent of wheelchair accessibility, for example, has made it possible for many (though not all, of course) wheelchair users to work, whereas previously they could not. The fact that many wheelchair users still cannot work isn't a reason not to accommodate those who can.

Do you feel that not just the ND rights movement but the disability rights movement in general should just give up?


Admittedly there hasn't been much progress on the employment front for autistic people. On the contrary, many workplaces have become far less autistic-friendly than they were thirty years ago, due to the "open office" fad and other deleterious changes in corporate culture.

But I see that as a question of strategy, not a reason to give up the goal of autistic-friendlier workplaces.

What's needed now, in my opinion, is groups of work-capable autistic people who work, or want to work, in particular categories of professions / occupations / jobs. In the not-too-distant future I plan to start building a group of computer professionals. Hopefully some of us can then build an online platform that will make it easier for other, similar groups to form, for other job categories.

Also there should be more advocacy of win-win solutions that benefit society as a whole, not just autistic people. For example, not just autistic people but almost everyone, except for managers, hates "open offices," and there is growing evidence (see articles here and here) that they lower productivity and employee morale for almost everyone. Likewise, society as a whole would benefit if everyone were more assertive (without being aggressive), rather than relying on subtle hints.

Although we do need accommodations for our specific disabilities, we aren't just a special group in need of special favors. We are the the canaries in the coal mine for a lot of things that are wrong with contemporary society in general, and that harm NT's as well as autistic people, though to a lesser degree.


But, apparently, during all of that "long time," you never bothered to read up on what the leading ND movement advocates actually were saying, or learn much if anything about the leading organizations?


It's a good idea to adjust one's beliefs in light of new information, but not usually a good idea to flip from one extreme to the other, rather than trying to integrate the new and old info into a coherent whole. Apparently you previously embraced an unrealistic, extreme, and rather ignorant variant of the ND paradigm, and you now see various flaws of your previous position. But that's not a good reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Mona, you've responded with a lot and I'd like to talk to you here. But, I don't have time right now.

But, I will say that you have some excellent ideas and Teach has constantly referred me to you.

But, when I mean SJW I mean the more obnoxious types who don't want to discuss anything and never want to discuss the issues men may have as well. It's all about "rape culture this, rape culture that..." Yet, they refuse to discuss how men and boys can be raped as well and all the associated issues with that. One simple example out of many.

But I will respond to everything when I can.

A cure is fine for those who want a cure. But a cure applied before a baby is born should be decided by the parents. Problem is in that case there is no way to determine whether the unborn herself would want a cure.

ND extremists do not want a cure for autism because they are usually hf & it suits themselves. The biggest motivators for HF aspies are fear of the medical community, their own ego at "not being labelled disabled" & obtaining "special status" in their workplace/ organisation with whatever benefits those entail.

They wrap their cause up with disability rights to give themselves more legitimacy, but the central cause remains the same along with their motivations preventing a cure for autism using any kind of false made up excuse they can find.

For those at the slightly more disabled end its largely fear of the medical establishment with the unknown benefits and responsibilities a cure would mean for them at a particular stage in their life.

Fear of the medical community is understandable in one sense given the dark history of mental health treatment, with grim victorian style asylums, forced even violent restraining, old historic ABA techniques that almost involved torture. Much of this is whipped up by hf ND fans to scare people against their best interests.

None of this of course gives any benefits to those unable to work or with more severe symptoms living in mental pain and a shortened life span, as cubedemon6073 correctly states. When all the happy flag wavers have gone home we or our carers are left to pick up the pieces and get on with our disadvantaged lives.

But as I always state to want to be cured or not is a personal choice not something to be forced upon or taken away!

largely a straw man position with quite IMHO desperate and false reasoning, let me remind you autism destroys lives of children and cuts them short, sometimes very short at 36 for severe autistics.

Another false fact:



There is not a shred of evidence backing that claim up, but even if there was ( which there isn't) its individual choice, not for a small group of hf people to dictate to the rest of us.

By the way:



The two are linked together like all the co-morbids, its likely the autism caused the Cerebral Palsy. Officially 7 times the likelihood of CP happening with autism than on its own in NT`s. Just like it caused epilepsy in 1 in 3 or Intellectual Disability in 1 in 3, poor fine / gross motor skills in many.

Unless you think the incredible coincidence of all these things happening together is magic?

Poor innocent autism attracts such a bad crowd! (sarcasm intended)

We just do not know if the “co morbids” are autistic traits, indirectly caused by autism, or just something more likely to happen in an differently developing brain, or other. In other words a cure might get rid of autistic traits but still leave the person profoundly disabled.

We do not know what a cure might look like. It might be rewiring via gene editing, preventing autism via abortion or very early ABA, all or some of the above, or other. Yes any cure seems far away at the moment but I think it is likely to happen at some point because there is the brainpower and willpower to do so.

I do not fear the medical establishment per se but the human fear of difference and the particular fear and distaste autism brings. I see “links” being breathlessly touted based on minute sample sizes that I do not see with other conditions. Desperation leads to corners being cut, solutions rushed out. It is providing fertile grounds for charlatans. IMHO if a cure comes, this fear of difference/uncanny valley effect will lead to no choice, limited choice, or a choice between two or more evils.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 28 Dec 2019, 12:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Things I'd like to see (In no particular order)

1. Speedier recognition of possible ASD ,
and thus assessment for such.

2. Assessment of cognitive strengths and weaknesses(I have a good idea about that,
but professional help could have revealed the extent of such strengths and weaknesses)

3 . Help to make the most out of any strengths , and to minimise the effects of any weaknesses .

I agree with 2 and 3 but fear the current sustained multi-pronged effort for 1. This is probably leading to all sorts of misdiagnosis in the youngest set. While there are obvious cases for early intervention we are not recognizing kids are people that develop at different rates, that letting kids be kids is usually a good thing.

I know the above if probably a lost cause and ok boomer as hell. So be it, that is how I strongly feel.

I am saying the time to being assessed should be reduced . I'm not saying the assessment itself should be less thorough .

I'm coming from the position of someone who had to wait from 1973(first psych appt) to 2019 for it to be realised there was more going on than just serious mental illness .

The result inadequate/poor help and support .