Autistic Speciation versus Autistic Supremacy?

Post Reply New Topic

I've spent the better part of the last 15 trapped into two categories. Someone that thinks the autistic supremacy movement is a bit absurd, as well as being someone that believes it's inevitable that autistic populations over time will come together and reproduce.

Both me and my wife come from families where autism is prevalent btw.


I've never been able to put the right words to the idea, until I discovered the concept of Speciation.

The basic premise is that evolutionary pressures cause a species to diverge into multiple species.

Obviously in humans this would take thousands upon thousands of years.

What I'm suggesting is the idea we're at the start of a gradual process and that it's closer to a pseudo speciation.

The idea we'd replace NTs is obviously unlikely, but the idea there'd be a niche population where autism is more prevalent seems realistic.

Environmental pressure obvious bring people together.

"Get f***ed" says the NT to the autie. OK, we will...

Evolution works only when genetic changes provide an advantage to reproductive success.  People with autism often complain about being involuntarily celibate.  Therefore, Autism provides no advantage to reproductive success.  Personally, I believe that if autism is somehow a product of evolutionary processes, it is a step backwards in those processes.

As long as neurodiverse people and neurotypical people can produce viable offspring together, they will be of the same species.

As long as neurodiversity limits our physical and social capabilities, we will not be superior to neurotypical people.

Autism is a often crippling social development problem even in the gifted. Half of us can barely lose our virginity yet alone make genetically superior offspring over time.

For me being with an autistic partner will drive me nuts and having an autistic kid will drive me doubly nuts. I just find most autistic people overall far to needy to get along with and most NT's think the same.

We are not superior beings; we are not the next step in human evolution; and we have no "super powers" at all.

Hmm.. this is speculative .... have not determined if i am faster than a Speeding Bullit. And
not made it a practice yet , of leaping tall buildings in a single bound ? but who knows what the future may bring . ?

but it has seemed by the law of unintended consequences . Have gained a vast body of disarrayed knowledge. .

Sure, but this is why the concept of niches is so critically important to understanding evolution.

The whole process of speciation revolves around a subset of the population having a niche ability to survive in a particular environment.





But not all, this is partially why population genetics might change so radically.

If only 1 in 4 autistic men find mates, that means your population is changing 4-10 times faster against the normative population.

Surviving in aspies social circles is exactly the niche environment being created by an NT society.






That's not how evolution works.





There are no steps forward or backwards in evolution it is not remotely a linear movement. The vast majority of evolution is lateral.

In a forested environment a polar bear has almost no chance of survival, in a snow covered environment a grizzly isn't gonna be able to hunt.

That is how lateral evolution occurs.

In the case of autism, the social impairments create the divergence.


Speciation is a gradual process occurring over thousands and thousands of years.

In the case of the polar bear and grizzly they can reproduce together, but it's harder because there's no niche for a hybrid.





I never remotely suggested the case. My point was specifically where there are niche situations or locations.

Did you not read that I'm against supremacy or did you simply decide to ignore me?

Thriving in a niche environment is not remotely the same as supremacy.

Dude, there are other people posting in this thread, just as there are other people only reading this thread.  This subject has come up many times before, and has often devolved into claims for people with autism being superior in some way to neurotypicals, despite the abundance of evidence to the contrary.  It is not all about you.

We are one of many subsets of humans, not another species.

I personally find the idea that we are not human offensive.

We are mistreated and discriminated enough as it is now. If the idea ever takes hold that we are another species inferior, superior, or just different then we will become an invader, an existential threat that needs to be wiped out.

This place has been infested with people wanting to do nothing other than bring their own suffering upon others for years.

This place gets discussed in other social environments, and you'd be surprised how certain names get circulated under the phrase "I'm in pain, I need to ensure you're in pain too."

I'm not taking irrational volume as an alternative to rational conversation.



You mean certain people attempt to strawman their way into turning the conversation into a supremacy argument, by ignoring nuance.

I'm not the one who routinely needs to state the case that autistic people by definition are inferior.





This goes back to the irrationality of suggesting evolution is linear. I never claimed that.

I never said that, I said are we undergoing a long term evolutionary process of speciation.




I never once said that. The process would take close to a million years.





This is just misanthropy at it's worst.

Lateral divergence doesn't mean one group is superior to another.

It means people cluster together and across time those genetic differences stack up.

Wanting to be part of a sustainable cluster isn't nationalism/supremacy etc.

It also isn't clear that we're talking about something that is planned/political.

It's one of those situations where it may just start happening on its own.

Try explaining the autistic supremacy thing in terms of the show Futurama, then have them think in terms of the one normal guy and six or seven mutants, think of it as instead if mutants like a talking crab, an octopus, etc just being artistic drawings to actually just show the genetic mutation with autism. The idea of the only female on the show actually being a cyclops leaves the question of "Do I really want to have sex with her and repopulate?"

You forgot Amy Wong-Kroker.

As you can see, she is not a cyclops; just a wealthy heiress married to an amphibious space-alien.

Source:  This Futurama Wiki Article 

I forgot about her, but you see my point about what the show encourages instead of division well Fry is with some other Normal human like Amy. My bottom line was about thinking of the metaphor of "Do I really want to have sex with a woman with one eye when I have 2?" Not so much as something literal like the show was made but more of an analogy of like what if the reason Lela had only one eye because of where I've heard of some people losing sight in an eye because of the course of treatment from a problem.?

Your sentences are difficult to parse, so it is not apparent to me whether you are asserting "Autistic Speciation" or "Autistic Supremacy", per this thread's subject line.