Why "Neurodiversity" is wrong

Post Reply New Topic

I was thinking of the push for infant and early toddler assessment not the difficulties adults face trying to get properly diagnosed.

I think you make a valid point . No child,even if 'normal', develops at the same speed . Narrowing the range within which certain mental and physical attributes are expected to occur could certainly ,IMO, increase the number of false positives .

Many “normal” toddlers happen to act like children with classic autism.

They spin around. They spin objects. They don’t respond to their name. They don’t seek to make friends. They seem oblivious to their surroundings. You must watch them like a hawk in the streets.

It’s more difficult to tell if a toddler is autistic than a preschool child.

Autism is malformation of the brain of varrying severity and location so its highly likely the comorbids are linked to that.

As an example if i had a malformed knee cap i might be able to move my leg in a way others cant which would be a good party trick, but it would come at the cost of not being able to run and in constant leg pain with a comorbid of arthritis.

For this reason the comorbids cant really be seperated from the autism as one leads to the other in the majority of cases particularly with anxiety.

As far as cure is concerned you'll probably see personal genetic medicine for some that will slowly roll out over the next 20 years with a ten year trial period.

They'll probably also be some sort of gene therapy for pregnant women to ensure good brain dev that will simply be marketed as a positive, as opposed to curring anything in the same way folic acid is sold now.

Autism is at the present time not diagnosed by brian formation but a set of traits. Under this type of diagnosis if enough whatever enough is autistics have a certain trait that trait should be considered an autism trait.

Hyper and hypo sensitivity was considered a cormorbid but is now considered a diagnosable trait. There is no reason to think other traits now considered comorbid will not be diagnosable traits in the future. My guess is the next one will be executive dysfunction. Anxiety is a plausible candidate.

I agree with you that a cure partial or total cure will not be called a cure but a therapy or some new agey positive politically correct word. That may be a whole new word or a rebranded old one.

Yes of course because these malformations are sometimes so subtle they don't show up on an MRI scan. But they have been found upon examining brains from deceased autistic people. At the moment they cannot diagnose from examining the brains of living people so they rely on traits presented.

I think in the future all organic brain disorders like autism, schizophrenia or tourettes will simply be looked at as malformation, with its genetic cause, rather than the 19/20th century names that were given.

https://www.autism-society.org/what-is/causes/

https://corticalchauvinism.com/2013/07/ ... roduction/

https://corticalchauvinism.com/2013/07/ ... he-basics/

A link describing future gene therapy for autism via personalised medicine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjeBM95Nft0

Another interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDJpE9kVF2I

Most diseases don't have one single treatment or pill to cure. Treatments for depression vary by the person, Some things work for some people and some things don't. And depression has no cure just ongoing treatment. Even treatments for conditions like cycle cell anemia have varying degrees of success due to genetic differences. And traits like how tall someone is are not determined by any single gene. Genetically manipulating for height might prove to be impossible. There may be no simple cure for Autism but l8ike other psychological conditions there are ongoing treatments and adaptations.

I will respond to the rest a lot later but for now...

But, what if I wish to have that radical re-wiring of my entire brain and I wish to make the bargain? Is it not my choice to make? ASAN says "Not about us without us" yet where is my representation in that? What voice do I get to have in ASAN and ND's agenda.

Neuro means mind and diversity means different meaning there are differing minds and ND says they all ought to be accepted.

Ok, but what about choice diversity as well. Wouldn't these differing minds wish to make differing decisions regarding themselves? Who are you (ND and ASAN) to impose your will and your version of diversity upon me? I would never ever seek to cure those who didn't want it but ND seeks to take away the choices of those who do want it.

Where is the diversity for the choices I and others with similar positions wish to make for ourselves in the whole Neurodiversity camp?

This disability does not just affect myself but others around me and others who live with me and have to be my caretaker.

Where is the diversity in choice?

This “radical rewiring,” it seems to me, would be impossible.

It is like subtracting a chromosome from every cell with a person with Down Syndrome.

Nothing wrong with seeking a “cure”—but people do drastic things harmful to themselves in this quest.

It's impossible now but may not be in the distant future.

I can see why,if a cure is ever available, having the choice to say yes or no is crucial . However two things spring to mind for me.

1)Those who are severely disabled. I can see why a parent might need to make a choice for their son or daughter . However some in time can improve to make the choice themselves.

2)Would a decision not to opt for a cure result in a "If you don't want a cure we won't give you help and support" scenario ?

Why would taxpayers want to support people who made a choice to be Autistic? They would say you think your Autism is a gift, you think you are the next stage in evolution and you want my money and special privleges? Go f**k off.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 06 Jan 2020, 9:38 am, edited 2 times in total.

It's usually a rough deal for a person severely affected with anything.

These people and their caretakers would, at least, want a substantial mitigation of their condition.

It's not just a 'severely disabled' vs 'It's a gift/next stage of evolution' situation though . For many there's an acceptance that there are strengths and weaknesses . Those people don't adhere to "I'm the next stage in evolution " thinking . What they want is help for the things they struggle with without losing any of the strengths being on the spectrum can bring .

That's what I would want, too.

Emphasis on strengths, while attending to "weaknesses," seeking to soothe them, and to strengthen what is "weak," without seeking to suppress the autistic strengths just because these strengths might be unpalatable to some neurotypicals.

I suggest your simply falling for ND propaganda, there is no evidence that the brain would be “re-wired as such”.
In fact, one of the rules of propaganda is the more something is repeated the more it becomes true in many people`s minds.

Allot goes into a person`s sense of self: - national & local identity, language, memory, culture, religion, family, experiences & interests, thus it’s impossible to wipe out someone’s memory like a hard drive, because of almost infinite physical neural connections making up that memory.

Gene therapy has shown to change behaviour in mice showing autistic traits. Its early days & it might not be a complete cure but it certainly has promise, 20-30 years from now it may help a lot of people. The least it can offer is to spare many children a life of limitation via early intervention especially those with Intellectual Disability.

There`s drugs also coming though that may help influence genes and curb the worst of autism. Again early days but 20 -years?



I suppose the million-dollar question is why would someone young enough choose to remain severely disabled & in psychological pain when there is a treatment for them? I specifically state “disabled” to mean someone with a level of autism who is unable to work or function in society?

I have autism & I work & pay taxes.

As is often mentioned here many with autism work and contribute to society & will be more able to given workplace changes.

Would your gov care if 1 in 60 choose a path which limits their life expectations? Would your gov care if they became janitors rather than talk show hosts after all janitors are essential are they not?, would they sit up at night worrying about their non-existent social life, if they choose a library over a nightclub? Does your gov care about them or are they too busy with their own money & power mission?

I think in LA there`s hundreds of thousands of homeless people does anyone in your gov care about them?, or those in Detroit living in squalor?, is this the main talking point on your news channels at the moment alongside Iran & impeachment, I think not?