Delete thread

Post Reply New Topic

What? I was just saying that his posts read exactly like past theory that I've read, except with a find/replace. Everything he has said has been said before, and better.

But that is not all you said.

"w*k, jargon, and rehashed queer/anti-racist/feminist theory,"

And that, to me, is highly offensive and judgmental terminology.

Look, I don't agree with the OP either. But I don't find it productive to resort to that kind of speech, and would simply rather not participate in any discussion that sinks to that level. It's unnecessary, proves nothing, and doesn't contribute intelligently. It's nothing more than grade school name calling.

tl;dr

moar tl;dr

Being a woman is not solely a social construct, in that biological features such as (potential) pregnancy, menstruation, and differently shaped genitals exist. Gender, however, is 100% a social construct. The question is not whether the characteristics are social, but whether the fact that they have disabling effects is social.

Also, what about transgender people?

My life is none of your business. Whether I would/wouldn't share your impulsive revulsion for such people is ethically irrelevant. And “ret*d” is hate speech.

I put this together because I'm fed up of finding nothing but liberal-humanist, pro-capitalist, quasi-conformist arguments whenever I look for autistic perspectives. These people do not represent me, they are not speaking for how I experience autism, and they are contributing to silencing me and putting me at risk.

So why do you object to my claim that I'm arguing with people who are closed-minded? I'm finding it a battle to get past the reaction of “it's against my preconceptions and so it must be wrong” here. Probably a losing battle. All the terms I'm using have both experiential reality for me and fairly precise theoretical meanings, but they're obviously setting off flags for other people, and they're trying to manage the challenge of my perspective by sweeping it under the carpet. And this is just the few people who have bothered to respond. I know from previous threads that there's a lot more autistic-liberals on here than are responding, so most of them have apparently decided either not to read my post or not to respond. Which doesn't give me a great deal of confidence in their openness to other perspectives or their ability to coherently articulate their own when faced with criticism.

Personally, I find the illocutionary silencing which is being performed in the discourse of the people who oppose me more offensive than the insults. But this has been going on from the start. Three posts in and I was accused of talking “pooh”. Before we heard from you, I'd been accused of “jargon”, party building, trying to model people in my image, etc. This is the kind of thing I was referring to as closed-mindedness. To be honest, I'm disappointed but not surprised that people have responded in this way, because what I'm saying is treading on toes, interrupting a dominant monologue of epistemologically privileged agents, and goes against the ideology people have been brought-up into. They need to silence what I'm saying because they can't afford to engage with the content. But I've tried throughout to stick to the content of my argument and to patiently explain things people have rashly misunderstood.

Postmodernism : What communists dreamt next to take down capitalism after the Soviet Union failed to be a free place, much less even stick to what Marx predicted.

tl;dr

tl;dr

tl;dr

moar tl;dr

Unlike you, I don't like spreading details of my personal life online. There are people out there who will collect such details and use them against people. Call them sociopaths if you must. I don't especially want these people linking together the different places I've posted, knowing how many panic attacks I have or haven't had, knowing if I'm on any medications, or recording how many of my friends are schizophrenic. I also don't like personalising political debates with people I don't know, because it risks triggering old traumas.

I'm shocked that people with a diagnosis, who should know better, don't agree with me; or rather, do agree with the dominant position. To me, autism liberation and mad liberation go together logically, so it shocks me when someone appears to believe autistic people have (some kind of) rights but schizophrenics don't. It's a bit like if I saw an anti-racist argue that black people should have rights but Latinos shouldn't.

There is such a thing as psychological suffering, which is not the same thing as psychological difference or “illness”, since neurotypical people also suffer. In many cases, it is entirely sociogenic (e.g. trauma). We should think of it through ideas of suffering and healing, not metaphors of illness and health.

I have heard a number of cases of autistic people having 'breakthroughs', suddenly integrating their emotions and sensory systems better, often in connection with an adoption of perspectivalism, New Age ideas, or some other relational philosophy. I have been through something like this myself (though less of a flash than a long process), and I think it makes autistic people a lot happier (I've heard at least one case where it also made a 'low-functioning' child 'high-functioning'). But it doesn't make people non-autistic, and it doesn't make people function better within a dominant system which is rigidly anti-perspectival – in many cases, it will make people function less well (since they become, for instance, more alert to the rights of animals and of vulnerable humans, and the integrity of ecosystems and spatial contexts). I believe this kind of healing is very important and positive, for several reasons: it increases our ability to express ourselves, it increases our happiness, it brings us closer to truth, and it gives us a special kind of awareness of the world (which incidentally, is not at all unique to autistic people, is already available to everyone – regardless of psychological type – in indigenous societies, but is radically alien to anything the typical person in the dominant system today has ever experienced or realised).

If someone believes what they cannot prove in absolute and has their own brand of circular reasoning they believe based on an external reality they perceive exists in absolute including in what cannot be proven as non-existent it cannot be proven to them logically as not yet absolute.