Time to stand up against anti-cure

Post Reply New Topic

Asperger's Syndrome typically does not require intensive treatments as compared to other forms of autism.

that is way too simplified to be used in any constructive way, sorry.

no. and?

On the other hand when ideas and issues are to well understood there is little room for the propaganda to create social delusions.

Please be aware that your definitions are incorrect. Therefore, what you say ends up sounding stupid because you aren't saying what you think you are. You are also misunderstanding what the others on this thread are saying.

Calling others stupid is fairly common of anti-cure which includes calling others ignorant, discriminatory and so on. This ends up overusing the terms and taking away from their arguments which make them appear nasty. I'd suspect you disagree but are not dumb. I suspect you disagree to protect a view point based on politics and preservation of a diversity to be born. I however look at the facts of how the world typically defines things and despite my emotions that would side with your logic balance is needed.

I will submit this to you and by doing so I claim no expertise on genetics nor substantial interest thereof.

*if disabling forms of autism had genetic similarities with mild autism and or genetic similarities with non-clinically diagnosable as well of course there would be insult and further ethical conflicts in abortion politics.

*setting aside the anxieties relating to genetics and curing autism assumed as an entire person in preservation politics I'd interpret it as simply to to treat symptoms commonly attributed to autism in clinically significant manifestions such as sensory overload when chosen. It is curing that symptom when (if) possible. Societally what hinders especially in children is commonly projected as something horrid for another protectionistic instinct of quality of life and so on for those living born children.

*coping is a form of treatment and the treating is curing despite the negative connotation to preservation politics in the womb.

*It is easily assumed the less adverse symptoms and the more functionable the less the severity of autism until it gets to the point where no clinically significant difficulty is manifest. Give common thoughts here I'd theorize autism still is perceived part of a genetic family of similarity to protect despite DSM criterion formulated to assist in quality of life.

Multiple issues collide attempting to sway the image of autism and can be a conflict to one another.

I understand the conflicts of interest and the dire need to revise the image of autism and I understand pro-cure can be very energetic in how they perceive autism to enhance quality of life. However treating is curing and I'd suppose the idea of cure may have been wrongly used or used in a way that could cause confusion given the multifaceted nature of the issue and relating complexities of human diversity ethics.

To me this topic is about facts and not allowing myself to hinder my logic for reasons of bias and my own ego. I blurt out regardless of my emotional personal feelings. This is honest.

I'd like to know why a 'cure' is such a huge deal now? If the statics previously quoted in several threads on this topic are true - then there is no real statistical rise in autism rates but perhaps a rise in reporting and dx. I remember the 70's and 80's well. Severely autistic kids were sent to institutions. Period. I'm not sure why, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.

I think we need to dig into the background of this cure issue to really understand it. Could the above be something that needs exploring?

Federal and state law has been evolving toward community inclusion and living for some years now. Here I am covered by the California Lanterman Act. People with A.S do not qualify. The idea of the rise of diagnoses is likely multifaceted least having to do with the increase of awareness, milder forms being diagnosed but other factors may play a role which may be perceived socially unpopular here. I am not much into the science of autism but must grasp the social understanding for my advocacy job as I am responsible for the preservation of rights in my specific position.

Do you have a source for this?



Other than Kurzweil, none of those people who you listed have autism.



Not everyone with autism is a ~*supergenius*~.




Not everyone sees their autism as positive.

Have you tried Aspies for Freedom? You might fit in better there.

Not everybody is. By the way, I pull my statistics from the National Institutes of Health. The change in Diagnosis and increased recognition of the spectrum and broadening diagnostic criteria, it is why there are more people on the spectrum, not any substantial increase. Most of the people added to the spectrum where in the category of normal to high intelligence. The severely autistic number has stayed absolutely static.

While not everybody on the spectrum is a super genius, but even if that is a minority of the people on the spectrum, wiping it out you are also wiping out human potential for the bare minimum of curing an even smaller minority who are severe. This is not like getting rid of downs syndrome or another intellectual disability. Many people here on this board are gifted engineers, musicians, economists, technologists, scientists, scholars, etc. While that may only represent 20% of the spectrum, it is disproportionate in the upper echelons of science, academia and technology. This is like taking a chunk out of some of the most talented people in humanity and eliminating them. Even then, with the right accommodation or understanding, most of the people on the spectrum could have productive lives. This is not an intellectual disability, but the pro-cure folks treat it like one. No, not every one is a supergenius, but most supergeniuses are almost disproportionately on the spectrum. There is only a few that come along in any given generation. Most are in the normal to above average IQ range, close to 99%. So we are basically saying we want to eliminate a bunch of otherwise fine adults who are different, but have the potential to be productive, to cure the smallest number of those on the spectrum who are severely autistic. Especially when those differences often lead to unique perspectives and insights. You know every major law firm in this country keeps at least 2-5 aspie lawyers on staff just to get that unique perspective. One of my co-workers husband is one of those lawyers. A few people on this board are as well.

While not everybody is a supergenius, the talented people on the spectrum significantly outnumber those who are severely autistic that the pro-cure folks talk about. The fact is the pro-cure folks only see the problems of their children, not the potential. Not everybody who is talented or smart needs to be a super genius like Kurzweil. Most are just productive and do their job well but struggle socially. Honestly computer programming would lose over half of their programmers if both ADHD and Autism Spectrum Disorders were cured, and honestly their better ones. The point is there are people on here who have lots of talents, and are productive members of society. Sometimes they are big contributions, and sometimes they are small ones, but eliminating those contributions and that talent, that difference, does take away from humanity. If everybody was the same and conform, we would be in the dark ages.

Yeah by the way, Kevin Shields, Aspie, know that for a fact. Tim Burton has admitted as such. Wes Anderson is on the spectrum, but probably PDD-NOS or NVLD, he admitted to having diagnosed neurological issues as a child in an interview. You are not just cutting out scientific talent, but artistic talent as well.

Compare that to the most severe forms of autism it is an extreme minority of those on the spectrum.

Also cure does not equal treatment. Quit associating the two.

Ha! Aspies for freedom. Very funny, this board used to not be so bad till the minority of you pro-cure trolls came knocking.

I am also not saying this is always positive. This is a spectrum, just curing it, you are curing eliminating both the positives and the negatives of the spectrum. I have sensory issues as well, I have also had meltdowns. And I have had more than my share of problems. But you know what, I also recognize that despite these issues they make for some remarkable people who are doing amazing things with their life, its not everybody, it may not even be the majority. But its enough. Just because it is not positive for you, doesn't mean it should be cured either. Better treatments, I am all for, but a cure is not what you think, and would be detrimental and what it ultimately means is wiping out talented people. Alot of the pro-cure stuff is based in eugenics and bigotry, the language of getting rid of differences.

1. You keep making assertions, but you aren't actually providing any sources. Links plz.
2. By playing the "You could be curing Einstein/some other great" card, you're engaging in what Richard Dawkins calls the Beethoven fallacy.
3. Not everyone on the spectrum is anti-cure.
4. There will never be a cure for autism. You have nothing to worry about.

Last edited by Delirium on 11 Mar 2011, 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Anti-cure makes people believe something in their social circles or else "your one of them" "N.T's or Nazi's", a "troll" and when you dare to have humility that makes others uncomfortable with there own image of autisms relating to the label politics some will emotionally attack you. Listen autism is a disability. I had a disability growing up and needed allot more help then I got. I think it makes perfect sense others want to keep me silenced with notions of superiority targeting my and other self-esteems who have it and those that need more help because autism is expensive and the whole autism identity ego thing is a perfect silencer. Where I live I've finally put together the compassionate PR needed so people like me will have better chances to experience normal. If any anti-cure butt wants to attack me again and want a piece of me I will stand up for myself and others in my local media, state and or national media and have professionals willing to verify my autism.

Anti-cure has logical problems along with factual problems. Beyond genetic similarities to autism people who do well the concept of autism for the reason of diagnosing is to help people. The more disabled you are the more autism and the less the less autism is relevant to you as it is milder. Quit harassing organizations trying to end real discrimination and injustice with your abortion political games using my disability to advance other political agenda's.

You do realize I am pro-choice. What I am saying is there is a difference between a cure and a treatment. The pro-cure types are often wrapped up in fear. You seem to be totally confused with what I am saying. I know how it can be disabling, trust me, I do. But this is NOT just a disability, its an asset/deficit neurological condition. I am not denying the parts which are a disability. Parts of it are a disability, and part of it is not. I am all for advocating early diagnosis and proper treatment of things which can result in long term issues if untreated. But treating things like obsessions and stimming as bad things as many NT parents do, is also harmful. Its a human condition, sometimes what some may view as harmful are not to an individual, but likewise things unseen, subtleties can be utterly disabling. Autism has many of these contradictions, but it may be an unknown important part of the human fabric as well. We barely understand how something like autism impacts on a sociological and historic scale. How a collective impact of such a difference is negative or beneficial. Or what changes would need to be made on a social or political level to allow for better understanding and integration.

Just as there is a spectrum of pro-cure ideology there is for anti-cure. I am very comfortable with the idea of government spending medical money on community inclusion to enhance my independence and opportunity. As the same time behaviorists are used for some of this. The programs have therapeutic value, enhance quality of life and it is my belief treatment is a form of cure. Yet if you look at autism as strictly a neurological and genetic thing your going to be defensive. To treat autism does not mean destroying ones neurology and genetics as that is impossible as I am that I am.

Autism does not mean the same barriers for every person with it or the same degree of said deficit. Viewing cure in the absolute way as what some organizations want to project to create typical functionability or viewing curing autism in the absolute way as destroying how a person was born genetically and neurologically are extreme interpretations. I like the idea of cure even though my man ego does not want to admit inferiority but the real reality is I have a disability and if the idea of cure leads to treatments and those treatments result in improvement it's perfectly fine with me.

I was going to start another post but I figured this one is enough as it is. Autism is a concept which is assigned to someone due to deficites. Autism does not mean someone does not have gifts of course. Yet many times I see people saying people with autism have these wonderfull abilities and I don't want to seem negative but I do not have a super memory, a math genius, a gift at english and the hyperfocusing to me is both good and bad. I focus to much that I forget to do other things despite having prompts and it is hard.

So a label is assigned for reasons of disability and I've never been a fan of calling myself a disability. A disability is not who I want to be but I am used to that and and if I mix up who I am with a disability as my identity that would be focusing to much on negatives. I think that is why people can be so focused on the autism is a difference bit and autism is not all that bad aside from the abortion politics that conflict with this issue. When ASAN for instance went up against a cure of autism and before that there were anti-cure advocates I was pissed. First they and others want to call me a label, then mix up a label as part of my personality and identity I should have pride in then go up against an awareness style to cure my difficulties with all the added propaganda of it being akin to some kind of brain surgery. This is easy to fall for because who really wants to feel bad with how they were born but after-all a label is for the reasons of difficulty and why would the DSM for instance call bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and other disabilities positive things when it is the negative they wish to improve?

Can someone please tell me why I should call myself a pathological label, seek to redefine the label and feel insulted by others attempting to cure my and others difficulties? Why do people make such big deals out of things? Why are they so rude to call the desire to cure when people march pity? It's just to me nonsense.

Why should I trust people that are very high functioning who have some kind of autism with my best interest when it has been others all along that have helped me and created the supports I have now? What do you have to offer me and why should I trust you?

I may be repeating opinions due to the fact that I have not read the entire forum.

I feel that it should be the HFA/Aspie's choice. If they are SEVERELY low functioning, then yes, a cure could be beneficial. If the person is high-functioning, a cure should not replace whatever beneficial programs that person is in if that person feels that they don't want to rid themselves of autism/aspergers. HFA and Aspies likely have accepted their differences as part of their identity.