How We Talk About Autism and Why it Matters

Post Reply New Topic

But this doesn't mean I reject the fact that there are vastly differing experiences of autism and that people, including parents of autistic children, should be allowed to choose language that makes sense to them and fits with their values without risking being silenced for doing so.

Levels of Autism
From a personal perspective, when I was going through the research and diagnostic process a few years ago, the levels of autism made, and continue to make, complete sense to me. My experience of being autistic contrasts significantly with someone with level 2 or 3 autism. My experience of parenting a child who will, one day, be able to leave home and be financially independent and have a range of options available to him is also completely different from someone who is parenting a child who will always require a significant level of support.

As an autistic woman and mother of an autistic son, I consider myself a neurodiversity advocate. Much of my time is spent helping people to accept, normalise, and embrace their autistic traits and experiences and encouraging them to ask for accommodations that help them adapt the world around them to their needs or differences.

It doesn't mean my experience is "better"—having level 1 autism comes with a substantial series of challenges—but it means that it is significantly different. Having the vocabulary to express that difference, particularly to people who know very little about autism, is important to me.

It's also important to most of my clients, who are predominantly adult women seeking out a diagnosis later in life. When I explain what autism is, or when they have conducted their own research, they can identify with other autistic people who, like them, have led a life so far which has allowed their autism to go undetected. It also provides them with the vocabulary to talk to employers or access a level of therapeutic support appropriate for their needs.

Medical Model
While the "medical model" of autism is criticised for identifying autism as a disorder characterised by deficits or impairments, it provides a voice for some parents of autistic children who are severely impacted by autism. It also provides a voice for people not in a position to view autism positively.

Some also find that medicalising their condition, through their use of language, helps them acknowledge the devastating impact it has had on their life. Symptoms like severe and potentially violent or self-injurious meltdowns, perseverative thinking, executive function issues, extreme distress around change, sensory processing issues—sometimes to the point of being unable to sit in a classroom or restaurant—consistent anxiety, and a need for sameness affect autistic people daily. Calling for language that "neutralises" their experience—to the point where it is unacceptable for them to talk about autism in terms of severity or disability—reduces their means of expression. If someone finds it more accessible to talk in terms of autistic symptoms that they feel are limiting, disabling, or severe, they should have the right to do so.

Neurodiversity-affirming language represents a generally positive shift for many autistic people. But those who choose to think and talk about their, or their children's, experience in ways which draw more heavily on a medical model, or which stress the negative impacts of autism, should be allowed to do so. If we replace one exclusionary discourse with another, we're simply silencing an entire section of the autistic community.

There's medicalization and then there's social acceptance.
Two very distinct phenomenons, two different priorities.

Again -- people typically cannot see separates or harmoniously both in the same person, let alone in a group of individuals.

Mixing the semantics, gone into polarization, lumping everyone or excluding a particular group...

Heh, people overall in the autism community at large have ways to go.



I say, go on -- put it in a discussion.
Untangle it all by themselves.

Ask questions -- and my suggestion around separation will be around the idea and concept of informed consent, performance, basics of functioning and independence; and inclusion will be about individual fluctuations, relative situations/fluidity in levels and personal/cultural standards.

Since team medical is so rigid and team social is so flexible...
I'll wait everyone to "grow up".

There is and for a long time always been social acceptance of autism. That is unless where you live you have gangs roaming the streets hunting for autistic people to drive out of town.

I don't wake up to a mob of angry neighbours wanting me dead, in fact nobody cares, nobody even hardly cares about someone with schizophrenia near me and that's a lot more scarier, linked to violent behaviour in the media.

Maybe what your referring to is behaviour or acceptance of odd behaviour, which is something else & a lot more complicated.

Society is told to watch out for odd behaviour, the man acting suspiciously on the subway may be a terrorist or just an autistic with anxiety, the man staring at the woman on the bus may be a harmless autistic & that's part of his behaviour, or he may be planning to follow her home & rape her.

This is made complicated by crimes committed by autistic people. Some odd aspie teenagers went on to become mass shooters after all.

Nobody knows or can know & its unlikely anyone or society is going to change or put themselves or everyone at risk just to suit a small number of people

Gained Number Post Count (1).
Lose Time (n).

Lose more time here - Updates at least once a week.