The Big Lie, summed up

Post Reply New Topic

About the "autism is bad" lie


Autism has always been around. It was just never diagnosed before, or misdiagnosed.

The way things are going, as autism is diagnosed more, more people will be on the receiving end of a “You're no good as you are; change or we'll be so stressed we feel like killing you literally” attitude. The truth is, a lot of people say they are hopeless, but they don't know. We evolve just like everyone else... just sometimes in different ways and on a different schedule. It's up to us autistics, and concerned others; to either swallow the lie and believe we're garbage, and cower in shame and try to hide our autism for fear of getting harmed or even killed (and by those who think they are helping us!); or rise up against it, stand up for our right to be ourselves, and tell them why they shouldn't kill us or give us “last resort” abusive treatment to normalize us.

I'm part autistic. So are my son, his father, and most of my friends. I take offence.

The lies are these:

1. That we don't or even that some of us will never do this or that great thing. (The truth: that many NTs live low-quality lives, and many autistics do do “those great things”and/or other great things most NTs don't).
2. That we're unhappy-- often so much so that we are better off dead.
3. That we're dead anyway so killing us is alright, because it isn't actually killing anything.
4. That we're not worth as much as a regular person, so killing us isn't that bad (that we're animals/machines/objects/absences).
5. That we have no or not enough redeeming qualities. (The truth is that curing all of someone's autism is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Neurotypicalism has just as many undesirable traits, but not all NTs have those triats, and those traits aren't the only parts of being NT... there are good parts too. The same goes for autism and autistics.)
6. That we're evil and would cause more bad than good.
7. That us, our services and/or our particular talents are not wanted or needed.
8. That we're all dangerous, and that dangerousness isn't manageable.
9. That the bad parts of some people's autism (like head-banging due to sensory overload) are unmanageable/untreatable/incurable except MAYBE for abusive practices like painful electric skin-shock punishments.
10. That we have low or no quality of life. (The truth: the only person who has the right to decide that is us, and for the reasons mentioned in the why-we-should-be-pro-life list, nobody has the right to determine that a life-- their own or someone else's euthanasia-- is completely useless. Euthanasia is a no-no.)
11. That painful aversives are necessary. (The truth: NO. As Jennifer Msumba said to the courts about her experience at the Judge Rotenberg Center, living for years in fear of painful electric shocks is worse than being doped up. She has experienced both.)

I think you may find this link very interesting:

http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/1065/1254

Word!

Please define part Autistic? Is that like a little bit pregnant? Either you are, or you are not Autistic. If you've met one autistic person, you've met just exactly ONE autistic person. That is in part why the DSM has been changed to "Autism Spectrum Diagnosis" because not everyone is the same and no two autistics experience autism the same way. So either you are autistic, or you are not.

Otherwise I really love what you have to say here.

CGG, in the link I posted above, there is this letter, quoted from a parent of an ASD child, in response to the kind of scare propaganda spread by Autism Speaks. Here it is:

Dear Autism,

You don't have my son; I do.

I will make sure that he is never defined by his autism alone, and I will help him to recognize that, although his autism makes some things incredibly challenging, it also brings with it remarkable gifts. I will make sure that we work on challenges. I will make sure that we celebrate his gifts.

This is only the beginning.

— Mom-NOS ("Mom-NOS," 2007)

...

While I agree that one can't be partly autistic - we are or we aren't - I am wondering if you mean something similar to this mother's letter - where she says "he is never defined by his autism alone". I take her point, and I agree with her point of view on that. We are on the spectrum but the spectrum alone does not define any one of us. Is that what you meant CGG?

Yes, I mean the spectrum defines SOME people totally, the people who choose to be defined by it, because that's their interests. Others have other interests. I also meant that there are different degrees of autism. Some are less autistic than others, as in, some are more NT. But maybe not. Maybe it's just different autistic traits that aren't as noticeable in public. You have a good point. So does the letter.

Now I'm going to go read the link; haven't read it yet.

It's great that I'll have to read the rest of the article later; it's long. But I agree with what the ND movement did 100%, and it makes me feel like I can actually make a difference. Do people taking Disability Studies in university/college read that paper? I hope they do. Oh, wow, we can make online submissions? I should put my question-and-answer thing about the JRC in there...

The link is good, and eye opening. Lots of really good information.

As to "interests" yes, for some of us it is a "special interest" but an Autism Spectrum Diagnosis means one is autistic, full stop. Can/do some people have less trouble passing as NT? Certainly, that's in part behind the "High function" nonsense. That's also behind the morons at Autism $peaks saying that people who can talk, or work, or live on their own, or whatever aren't really autistic.

Yes, with work, and sleep, and preparation I can almost pass flawlessly as NT for very short periods of time. Usually a few hours, then I start to have trouble and if I don't retreat and rest I'll meltdown or shutdown, and need four days to recover. If I manage to avoid melting or shuting down, I'll still need to recover and am often still left nonverbal and using my AAC to communicate.

If you are less challenged by autism, great, that's wonderful, it's probably very freeing and you can probably do lots of things I and others cannot. Also awesome. It doesn't mean you are part autistic. It just means you struggle less with it than some of us do.

It's this kind of artificial "grading system" that perpetuates all parts of the big lie, and has some people clinging to their status as aspies instead of autistics that divides all of us, and lets NT folks decide they are better than we are and get to decide our lives.

No law says you have to identify as autistic, but saying you are only part autistic diminishes us all and lets autism $peaks and nt doctors and therapists and more continue to oppress us. It's that almost self loathing I have to pass buried ableist thinking that makes life harder for everyone.

In short, if you'd actually read the article you'd see exactly why it's important to yourself and your children, and their children, never to say PART autistic.

I don't mean autism is challenges, I mean autism has good and bad points like neurotypicalism does, but different ones for different people, and that, for example, some people for example have special interests to a greater degree than others (which isn't a bad thing) and that some people prefer to be alone to a greater extent than others (which, again, is not a bad thing). But it's true you have to have a certain number of traits to be diagnosed autistic. Or maybe I'm confused, forgetting the DSM says you have to have certain traits to a certain extent to even qualify as autistic.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't take the DSM as the authority on autism.

Looking at this issue generally, so many on the spectrum do consider the constructors of the DSM - psychiatrists - to be the definitive or ultimate authority. And many no doubt have been brought up by parents who taught them to believe this, which was reinforced by the media. That's one reason why I think the linked article earlier in this thread - "The Ransom Notes" - is so valid to discussions like this.

To me this absolute belief some exhibit in the DSM seems a very clear example of how ASD people give their power away. Whenever you give others the power to define your self, you are deferring to their power over you, and that is a risky business for psychological well-being.

If you think I'm part of or working for Autism Speaks, no, I'm not. Maybe I was just confused, and I still am.

So what IS the definition of autism? There suddenly seem to be a lot of definitions for that word floating around.