I Absolutely Play the Autism Card

Post Reply New Topic

We've all been told to play the cards we're dealt with. People with a certain appearance can play the beauty card, people with a certain physique, the athletes card, intelligent people can use that card, and those with great social skills or money, well, they have some pretty highly valued cards as well.

For half a century I was unaware I was autistc. Let me rephrase that. For half a century I had no idea that there was a name for how I was and that other people similar to myself existed. Despite not having a name for it, I always had the autistic card in my hand.

I considered it a liability, but I hoped that the other cards I played would compensate and I could still 'win" in my life. I was considered attractive, and I played that card. I also played my cards of good physical health, perseverance, integrity, compassion, fairness and loyalty.

Worked okay for a long time. But I stopped being dealt the' hot chick card" and started receiving the old lady card. The good health became the" cancer card", the "perseverence card" was suddenly the" too tired and confused to think of what I should be persevering on" card. After spending all of our money and more to try to help my son with excuciating neurological pain, the "reasonably decent amount of money" card became the 'losers who live in a travel trailer"card. The "I have the greatst friends in the world" card became the "oh no, it's Vicky" card.

These are some of the cards I have been dealt. These are the cards I have to play. I refuse to "fold", I refuse to lose the game [for me not a competitive game] of living a content, interesting life that brings joy to both loved ones and strangers,and eases suffering for many people.

I have no problem with others who receive government assistance. I feel there should be more of it. Because of my particular cards and how I play them I have not applied for any benefits at all. Yet. [I am more than aware that I am less than a card from needing to do so]

Here are a few examples of how I play my autism card [and old lady, and cancer, and sick son, and my chutspah cards-the chutspah card I only recently created and dealt to myself- to improve the quality of life of myself, family, strangers, and, yes, society. Here are some examples.

We live about an hour and a half from Manitou Springs. It is a delightful little community with all sorts of interesting shops. Also, and left alone by the authorities, there is a great deal of buskering going on. I busker.

I am the old lady who is obviously arthritic or something, who is belly dancing, I wear a classic egyptian bedlah,and skirt, but I wear a purple body stocking under it. My signs mention my breast cancer and being autistic. I can only dance for 3 minutes at a time. Then I need to rest for a full half hour before performing again. During this time I answer peoples questions. I also tell them about options other than "Autism Speaks" to donate to and why I feel they are better. The breast cancer equivalent of "Autism Speaks" is the "Susan b, Komen" foundation[Race for the Cure] and I also explain to them them why donating to other breast cancer charities are vastly preferable. And they throw money in my jar. They aquire understanding. Oh, and an Avon book that they can order on-line from [unless there is something from my Avon basket they would like to purchase on spot]
How else do I play my cards? Well, there is no way I can work a 9 yo 5 job.I did for many years, but not anymore. When I get confused and/or fatigued I need to rest immediately or I will be sick for days. I cook meals for people to pull out of their freezer when they want an awesome homemade meal. I charge them double what it costs me to purchase the ingredients. Because I buy in bulk and shop specials they often pay only as much as they would if they were to cook themselves [or even less] I wind up with meals for my family that costs us nothing. I do the same thing with cookies and cakes, but I actually make real money with them. And I only bake and cook when I feel alright and I take many breaks.

I no longer really associate with many people in my actual community [long story mentioned in other threads] and if I had a do-over I would not reveal either my autism or my cancer.[though I have received a few donations for the retreat in February from a few members who feel terrible about what happened]

All in all, though, i will play my cards, ALL of the cards I am dealt.

I play the card too. I just played it today actually. I need to take a long bus ride to visit a sick loved one and it's going to be a five hour bus ride. I called the disability part of the bus and told them that I am autistic and need to sit in the most front passenger seat so I can have a clear view out of the windshield. If I sit in the back of a vehicle I get severe car sickness. This may be due to my Autism. I am not sure if it is or not but the bus company was completely accommodating and told me that I will definitely be able to be the first to board the bus so that I can sit where I won't get sick. I don't ever abuse the AS card but I definitely pull it out when I need it. Like Vicky said, I spend almost a half century not knowing I was on the Spectrum and suffering because of it. I can't get any benefits because of the age I was when I found out. I am very happy for people who can get benefits and I hope that they get as many as they need. But I will take any help I can and if pulling the card every now and then will make my life a little easier I have no shame in doing it.

Last edited by skibum on 08 Nov 2013, 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ski bum; come to the retreat in february and I'll let you belly dance with my Isis wings.

Please stop with the belly dancing. That is all.

why?

There must be different ways to "play a card."

I usually think of "playing a card" being like, "Oh, you wont let me cut in front of everyone else coz I'm autistic, and you hate autism, huh!" when really it's the queue jumping that's unacceptable.
Or, "You pay me less coz I'm autisic!" when really it may be that the person just sux at work.

I guess I saw it as whipping out an artificial "trump card" to cheat through, some process.

This is what a lot of people think that "playing the X card" means, whether it's autism or race or gender or whatever. That's because they often perceive such people as being legitimately entitled to fewer things than everyone else, which makes it kind of a BS stereotype.

Actually "playing the X card" means acknowledging the real stuff that happens to real people. It's okay to be honest about these things.

Okay, so if I were to go down and apply for social security and tell them that the reason I needed it was because if I worked some people might be offended by loose flesh and wrinkles, I would be, rightfully denied.

There are a number of moves I can no longer make. Most, not because of my age, but because of side effects from the 17 medications I am on. There are many I can make that most people of any age cannot. [such as belly flutters, they actually have nothing to do with the belly but are diaphragm vibrations]

I have young women approach me often, and tell me that because of my zest for life that is apparent in my dancing that THEY are less afraid of getting old. That means so much to me.

I am supposed to stop because a few yahoos erroneusly think the dancing is about sexiness and an old wrinkled lady should know better. Oh please.

Wow, yeah, AspE's post was totally uncalled for.

That sounds fun, thank you. I actually tried belly dancing from a video. It's a surprisingly good workout. Your retreat would be very nice. Unfortunately that trip our west is a bit beyond what I could afford. Maybe in a few years and it could be doubled with an awesome ski trip. I wish you the best success for it though.

And I say belly dance to your heart's content girl! Life is too short, make the best of it and have a great time.

From the above posts, I'm left wondering what exactly 'playing the autism card' involves.

In my own (perhaps-limited) interpretation of the phrase, I occasionally 'play the autism card', but only in situations when I fear (rationally or not) that my failure to make others aware of my condition would probably have an adverse outcome for me.

Examples might be: Justifying a socially atypical but situation-specific personal requirement, e.g. explicit explanation of applicable standards, rules and regulations when interacting with some aspect of officialdom; or providing an individual with a context which might help explain certain (to them, puzzling or unusual) aspects of my behaviour in a social setting.

I don't 'play the autism card' purely in the hope of gaining some advantage over others (be they NT or not). I'm far too fair minded (perhaps too fair minded) to do that.

Indeed, in perhaps the majority of reasonably-conceivable situations, inappropriate or misjudged disclosure of my AS could potentially put me at a degree (possibly a great degree) of disadvantage.

It's a disclosure of some highly-personal qualities that are generally perceived as weaknesses or faults, and an action which typically results in an altered perception of you (accurate or not) and which potentially lays you open to possible adverse outcomes typically including but not limited to:

I) Negative personal perceptions or expectations, either pre-existing or spontaneously-arising (which, having a very limited immediate social impact in either case, can be regarded as less important, dismissable as totally unimportant, or -- in cases where such negative perceptions remain unexpressed (and thereby unperceived by the subject)-- not even considerable in the first place, let alone as having any degree of importance at all); and

II) Unfavourable treatment -- Sometimes as a consequence of the above-described perceptions and expectations; but more often, due solely to inadvertent individual or corporate/collective incompetence (or even specific or general AS-naïve standards of practice), which tends to disadvantage the AS person, either generally as a group who may have cause to interact with that company's employers or representatives, or individually (and which demonstrable mistreatment is unquestionably much more important than the mere perceptions and expectations (described above) which may have given rise to, or helped perpetuate, the AS naïve (or actively AS-negative) mistreatment in question, but which treatment, whatever its ultimately diagnosable cause or causes (or even lack thereof), and depending on its degree of directness and blatancy, is potentially far more easily-recognisable as such by the AS person affected, who may feel it necessary to react in various ways as deemed appropriate in response to the mistreatment he or she has undergone, including such possibilities as:

* Demanding immediately to speak to a manager about the mistreatment (and possibly pursuing further lines of 'attack', if unsatisfied for whatever reason, with the manager's received response);
* Undertaking never to deal with that organisation again (if it is considered practically avoidable at the time, whether or not this undertaking subsequently proves unrealistic, for whatever unanticipated reason or change of circumstances, and has to be modified or abandoned altogether);
* Making it a point of principle to use the mistreatment as a personal experience which demonstrates an example to others who the company may affect (including, potential employees; potential (or actual) customers; or representatives of potential or actual business-partners or investors; or simply to acquaintances of no possible involvement, who may indulge what they may see as a harmless personal obsession) and of why the corporation or organisation is not a suitable body with which to interact on any level that his or her argument appears to demand (with several possible grounds of approaching the same fundamental point: Including but not limited to ethical concerns due to inequality-promoting standards, or the raising of general questions over procedural unfairness/mistreatment that befell the AS person (and by extension, implicitly possible further hypothetical examples of such unfairness (often of highly-debatable probability in themselves) which might well befall the potential employee/customer/whatever to his or her disadvantage)
* Writing and delivering a long and detailed letter of complaint to the organisation's CEO or corresponding figure, and (if this exercise has proved of therapeutic value in itself) perhaps not be concerned by an actual lack of response, or the lack of concern exemplified in a received response (which may potentially be due to the use of a standard or template 'brush-off' letter, reproduced without regard for the details of the complaint which produced it, or due to a genuine lack of sympathy and/or understanding and/or expressed desire to 'put things right' on the part of the signatory, or any of a huge range of possible reasons)
* FInding out whether the treatment he or she received was demonstrably (or at least arguably) illegal by reference to current industry-specific or disability-specific (or indeed, relevant but non-specific) legislation and (where necessary) to specific precursors or analogous situations in case law, and then (if the prognostications are favourable and legal counsel is findable (and affordable, perhaps operating on a pro bono or no-win-no-fee basis) and if the company doesn't offer to settle out of court on suitably persuasive financial terms (regardless of any implied or explicit intention to do nothing to prevent such a future occurrence of mistreatment of AS people), and if all the relevant and correct legal formalities have been precisely upheld (I.e., the potential case is not ruled inadmissible on an unforeseen technicality) ultimately suing the relevant organisation for compensation (and possibly in the interests of furthering social acceptance and understanding of ASDs)

(N.b: The above sample of potential avenues of redress does not attempt to describe or predict such highly-unusual and/or socially-inappropriate and/or actively illegal reactions as an AS person might consider as responses to the mistreatment he or she experienced (either due to social naivete at one extreme of the range of reactions, or at the other extreme due to a highly personal (and uncharacteristic for an AS person) desire to enact some disproportionate revenge on the organisation, whether the organisation is considered as an object (e.g., by planning (or actually succeeding in executing a plan) to blow up the organisation's HQ, or just the relevant branch giving rise to the mistreatment), as a collective entity (e.g., by attempting (with individually-predictable degrees of success or failure) to introduce some known pathogen into the organisation's air-conditioning or water-supply), or as represented by specific individuals of actual or supposed relevance to the mistreatment (e.g., by conducting campaigns of harassment against such individuals, through various means, which might reasonably cause the target to fear for his or her life, a fear that might be wholly justified by the ultimately-intended conclusion, whether implicit throughout the planning and conduct of such harassment, or arising in the mind of the aggrieved subject at some point during the prosecution of such a campaign, whether or not this intention was communicated in undeniable terms to the targeted individuals, or subsequently determined to have existed by evidence discovered by investigating police officers, or actually subsequently-admitted to by the perpetrator (whether or not he or she evaded detection or justice), or even (if consistently denied by the guilty party, in the light of his probable eventual detection, identification and arrest) as adjudged to be a reasonably-inferable and legally-determinable conclusion of the accused's intent, drawn from the available evidence presented by the prosecution in a subsequent court case, which is presumed (for the purpose of curtailing this already overcomplex argument) to be ultimately probative of the AS person's guilt).

III) Outright exploitation of your social disadvantages and/or vulnerabilities (which misbehaviour is always, and without possible qualification, critically important to you) by the prejudiced or unscrupulous, or even (in the worst cases) through the AS person's limitations resulting in the arousal and activation of purpose-specific personal malice by unusually anti-social individuals (whether their anti-social characteristics are temporary or permanent, or whether they arise through personal habit or through neurodiversity), who may employ strategies to adversely affect the AS individual, that the AS individual perhaps cannot (because of varying degrees of social deficits) suspect, imagine, perceive, identify, or even (in severe cases) escape without some degree of outside intervention: Which intervention is all-too-frequently:

* Unanticipatable by the AS victim of persecution, due (e.g.) to not being understood as necessary, applicable or even available to them; or is
* Perhaps both highly-desired and simultaneously inexpressible by the AS victim of such targeted antisocial behaviour, due (e.g.) to individual communication limitations imposed by their condition:

And the unpredictable relevant opportunities and possibilities for suitable intervention are, in any case, easily-missed or that actually go unperceived altogether due to an enormous range of possible factors (including but not limited to factors that tend toward the individual/collective social/cultural standards or limitations of persons arguably in a position to intervene), such factors even potentially affecting the conduct of professional individuals as they relate to:

* The specific individual needs (for diagnosis-dependent medical care, whether that care be intermittent or permanent, and whether such care carries with it explicit but varying degrees of requirement for (either periodic or ongoing) clinical observation and/or supervision and/or intervention), and/or

* A recognisable, appropriate and practical degree of professional social support and social care needs that are initially ascertained (sometimes with a lesser or greater degree of case-specific theorising, apparently called-for by the individual case's supposedly (or evidentially) unique aspects, some of which aspects will be classified as 'unforeseeable' and will therefore tend to be disregarded as irrelevant, in terms of both provable clinical necessity and by reference to specific aspects of existing social and heath care standards (i.e., devalued, by a systemic and self-reinforcing tendency to fit people into categories, rather than merely observe tendencies among individuals), a practice that is often of dubious ethical and/or social and/or procedural justification but which is maintained by qualified professionals and subsequently met in a specific (and supposedly responsive) way particular to the needs of that AS person (who yet remains unacknowledged as a victim of social persecution), these often being

* Specialised professionals who may have relevant duties to ensure what are professionally-recognised and upheld as standards of 'safeguarding' (statutorily or otherwise demanded and/or enforced or at least enforceable) where vulnerable people are concerned, which for whatever reason are not being complied with (or are even formally or informally perceived as unnecessary in the hypothetical persecuted AS individual's personal case, due to a predetermined level of appropriate support being in place (which is ill-adapted to recognise such mistreatment) and a lack of awareness of the persecution by the relevant professional/s, for whatever subsequently-identifiable reason, e.g., the reclassification of the AS person's needs, or something as simple as what will be presented in subsequent case-specific reports, and potentially cited in relevant professional publications, as the AS person's "failure" (i.e., inability, either inherent or context-related, e.g., because of threats issuing from the persecutor (whether perceived by the AS victim as being credible, or objectively intended as credible) of further and intensified persecution and/or serious personal injury or even ultimately death, should the AS victim tell anyone what he or she is undergoing) to make the relevant professionals aware of the situation;

This (admittedly extreme, but occasional real) situation frequently only coming to light by the non-inevitable suspicions and unpredictable positive actions of:

* AS-sensitive individuals
* Simply concerned family, friends or colleagues
* Randomly-involved but keenly socially-aware professional observers, be they caregivers who are perhaps relevant to the AS individual's occasional, usual, or even everyday, needs and who are often more acutely aware than most of that individual's usual standards and behavioural characteristics (and of those which are unusual but typical of strong personal distress), or individuals who are otherwise placed in a position which frequently results in experience-enhanced potential for recognising such persecution and enforcing or ensuring some degree of responsible behaviour by (in the case of police officers, up to and including enforced social isolation of) either or both the AS victim and his or her persecutor).
* Others (not described here)

Any and all of these characteristically-negative reactions (and others, undescribed in the above) may be displayed at once, or consecutively, with varying degrees of explicitness and objective or subjective detectability.

And due to the perceptual social deficits of AS I am inherently ill-equipped to predict or anticipate such an individual's character and therefore to reasonably be expected to anticipate the degree or potential degree of their (given) unavoidably-negative reactions to such a disclosure and its potential personal effects upon me.

So (through experience, often repeated experience, of all of the above forms of suboptimal responses to disclosure; and of other negative reactions, not necessarily comprehendable and/or describable) I am now veeeerrry cautious indeed about 'playing the autism card' and usually only do it when the following procedure (or some adaptation of it) is applied and the outcome deemed as probably positive for disclosure (and/or when certain logically-arising (or otherwise-considered applicable) considerations and requirements, which should be reasonable and relevant, are met satisfactorily):

1) The reasonable expectation of an appropriate professional response (e.g., while under suspicion by a police officer, who may otherwise misinterpret some of my characteristically AS reactions or misunderstandings, which may very well vary under the given stress of such a situation; During application for the appropriate and relevant Social Security benefits available and applicable to people in my situation, health-dependent or otherwise, or any other relevant aspects of my home country's 'Welfare State'; or during interaction with NHS officials who are treating or assessing me, where disclosure might be relevant to an adjustable aspect of the appropriate level of my care); or ...

(This is where it gets complex: See if you recognise some of your own tendencies in this, if you can be bothered to read it at all):

2) ... An overall positive perception of a previously-unknown individual person in a purely social context, arrived at as the result of an informal and case-specific 'character assessment', which is typically made predominantly internally i.e., deliberately and without any social expression, except in certain carefully-considered instances, including:

2a) Such indirect expressions of curiosity or underlying intent or (unusual among AS people) outright social interest which, while done with as much subtlety as I am capable, render the whole process of social evaluation, and possibly the specific intent to reach a provisional conclusion as to the socially-receptive qualities of the person under my assessment, wherever such inquiry and socially-informed consideration leads to the provisional conclusions that are considered to be strongly indicative of:

2a.i) Optimal socially-positive outcomes to potential AS disclosure, in cases which (after due care and consideration) yield positive results ranging anywhere between some personally-perceived (but experience-derived) socially-conducive extremes (considered from an AS point of view, with regard to possible disclosure of diagnosis) including (but not limited to):

2a.ii) Individuals that are of an acceptably-adjudged optimum predisposition (i.e., demonstrating a range of qualities surpassing a reasonable observer's anticipation of an individual's socially-expected standards) toward AS-positivity. Such a determination (provisional at first, and ideally becoming more pronounced and nuanced through observations and personal interactions as time goes on, although occasionally revised or (rarely) entirely abandoned) involves logically-dependant or naturally-arising related sub-judgements, such as:

2a.iii) That the individual is of a stance that is strongly and justifiably believed to be disposed (or of a stance that is actually unarguably-inclined) toward greater than expected and/or demonstrable acceptance of AS status disclosure (and who is implicitly, therefore, of a greater-than-average sensitivity toward both the fact of, and attendant implications arising from) personal disclosures of AS status; this positive predisposition being, perhaps ideally for the purposes in hand, due to

2a(iv) relationship-acquired personal knowledge and first hand experience of an individual with a declared ASD diagnosis, whom the subject regards with (not provably inappropriate or insincere) unconditional or at least highly-favourable (and ASD-acceptant/regardless) love, affection and understanding, e.g., an affected family member or longstanding friend;

but certainly as a bare minimum:

2a(v) Total AS-naïvete or perhaps even complete ASD-obliviousness, presented as part of an overall character-type chiefly distinguished by its qualities of social inertness, incuriosity, and overall general uninterest in (or even lack of comprehension of) any matters that lie beyond certain limited (and typically material and/or financial) social aims, desires and perspectives, and hence the individual's anticipated lack of interest in your potential disclosure, which is (perhaps perversely) regardable as a 'positive' reaction, in as much as he or she:

2a(vi) Might potentially become an acquaintance or a friend (unlikely, given the implicit clashes of perceptions of AS/NT relationships involving such character-types) -- or at least, not an enemy or opponent -- due to your (perceived) personality, without any preconditional and/or consequently-improved understanding or even basic awareness of AS, and therefore:

2.a(vii) (As a bare minimum in terms of potential disclosure) will probably continue to interact without any preconceived negative opinions (or even eventual conclusions) on the subject, if it is even remembered in the short-term, let alone if (having been forgotten soon after being brought to awareness) the subject is subsequently recalled for some reason, with distortions (of whatever degree of person-specific or condition-general accuracy) inherent in the process of the production of human memories and their subsequent voluntary or involuntary recall, and the usually-distorted memory of the subject then comes under conscious consideration by them (all of which behaviour is unlikely among this character-type, but not predictably impossible).

3) All of the above deductive processes being (despite my greatest attempts at avoiding outright detection throughout) potentially inferable by e.g. an expert psychologist with a very great understanding of AS, or a very astute and insightful layman (neither of those being types that are represented among my typical friends and acquaintances, to the best of my knowledge!), on such occasions when I find I need to make certain case-specific inquiries (typically expressed at a privately opportunistic but also socially-suitable juncture (an opportunity which might (frustratingly for the AS individual's intended inquiry) be missed, or might even never arise in the first place!) and which inquiries are usually conducted in as indirect or even disingenuous a manner as possible, which I judge to be necessary to learn otherwise-unascertainable information that I consider may prove critical in my private decision-making processes;

All of which is:

4) Ideally informed by the observed spontaneous reactions to and expectations of (or even relevant personal disclosures made previously and subsequently remembered, or offered contemporaneously and with a degree of immediacy in the situation, by) people ranging from the familiar, and ideally including NT friends or acquaintances of mine, who are preferably mutually familiar with me and the subject in question, and which NT friends or acquaintances I therefore believe (with arguably justifiable soundness, in some cases) to be usually-reliable judges of character, whose apparent reactions to that previously-unknown person therefore have effects (potentially ranging between the subliminally-influential to the finally decisive) on my propensity to disclose or not at some stage, be it now or at some point in the future (whether that point is identifiable and/or imminent, simply potentially-foreseeable or currently altogether indeterminate) my AS status to the unfamiliar individual in question; to totally unfamiliar persons (whether as merely 'unknown quantites' or outright strangers), but who (as a bare minimum) demonstrate that they are in any form of (perceptibly or inferably unhostile) social familiarity, however casual, with the individual in question.

Or of course, I could just bypass all of the above processes by taking an instant (or eventual) dislike (rational or irrational, with highly-variable justification and reasonableness) to the new person in question, or not even regard them as potential confidants (for whatever reason) in the first place, which means that none of the above-described deliberative processes are required because I will not be disclosing my AS status to them, unless something unexpected happens (e.g., and which has actually happened to me, I judged someone to be somewhat aloof and so didn't think I would 'disclose' to them -- and then they 'disclosed' their AS status to me! Which caused instant reassessment of the both the specific situation and others perceptions of what I regard as my own (and found to be generally-accepted, either implicitly or explicitly, (even allowing for tact (or occasional, but no doubt well-meant, outright dishonesty) among some observers) when I have subsequently 'disclosed' my AS status) personal standards of socially-modulated behaviour).

Christ. The contents of this post could arguably be printed out and produced in evidence whenever a NT person fails to understand or comprehend or even perhaps accept, the levels of conscious application, deliberate concentration and occasional outright calculation that might be required by an AS person in a social setting.

And remember that the above set of procedures is expected to be carried out within a reasonable timeframe, which (by NT standards) is usually accomplished predominantly by instinctive means, and therefore almost instantaneously, and is often only subject to rational standards of examination and or evaluation later, perhaps much later, if the need ever arises at all.

I didn't even realise it myself until I started to analyse them in relation to disclosure to the specific example of potential 'disclosure' of AS status to an unknown person in an informal social context.

TL;DR: 'Playing the autism card' is the sensible thing to do in some circumstances (chiefly very formal ones), an appropriate thing to sometimes[I] do in [I]some other circumstances (chiefly in regards to relevant aspects of your professional conduct, or when you have cause to interact with any other professional (in your field or any other) whose treatment of you might be more sympathetic after disclosure), an occasionally-necessary thing to do (for example, in obtaining appropriate medical treatment or applying for Social Security benefits), and there are some occasions -- such as the example given (i.e., disclosure to a previously-unknown individual in a social context) -- when there are so many considerations, of such a range of (perhaps only perceived as) circumstance-specific relevance, and of such widely-varying ascertainability and/or context-dependent interdependence to be taken into account -- that you would probably do your mental health some measurable degree of benefit by just not even consider disclosing to anyone unless specifically asked.

But, being the socially-naïve optimist that I am, I regard acceptance of my AS (or at least, non-rejection of AS) as being part of my social identity, so I will continue to follow such highly-convoluted decision-making processes in future.

So I don't think I 'play the autism card' overall.

To extend the 'card' metaphor perhaps beyond reasonable limits, I tend to shuffle and deal the entire pack of 'autism cards' and proceed to use them to play a highly-personal game of 'autistic solitaire', and then base my potential for disclosure on my winning or losing streak.

I will 'play the autism card' however, in attempting to excuse this complicated monstrosity of a post, to readers (of any or all of it) or potential readers (who feel they lack the patience to deal with it) or even to other WP users who just regarded it as an irritation to be scrolled past. My specific 'playing of the autism card' is that autistic people frequently display a tendency to talk at unjustifiable length and in incredible detail (either concrete or abstract) about any subject which has caught their attention and which they feel able to speak about, this tendency frequently being without due care and consideration for the attention-span of (or indeed the eventual level of interest exhibited by) their audience,

<autism card>
So I waffle on sometimes: I can't help it, it's part of my disability, Deal with it!
</autism card>

(Actual truth, I suffer from insomnia and once I had begun to type this post (very early this morning, and it's now lunchtime), I couldn't stop allowing other considerations and circumstances occurring to me and therefore -- feeling a perceived need (by a 'model reader') to set out all the details and specifics that had occurred to me, as I (perhaps unjustifiably) imagined that they might also occur to such a reader -- eventually made a mountain out of what could have otherwise been quite a modest molehill of a post).

Last edited by CharityFunDay on 09 Nov 2013, 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

I have no idea what 'playing the autism card' means. Does that mean when you tell people you have autism?

I wear an 'I have autism' wrist band for those situations I'm unsure I'll be able to handle. It's for those times when I become so overwhelmed from stress or sensory stimuli that I find it hard to communicate my feelings and I may even become non-verbal. I even have a mood wrist band. One side says 'Happy to Talk and the other side says Please Leave Me Alone.

I tend to not say 'it's because of my autism' to people because I know they will always take that as me making excuses. Instead, I mention the symptoms more and if people still find it hard to believe I bring up autism.

Sometimes I wish I could bring up my ADHD when I feel and appear less intelligent than people. But I know just how that one go down. "Overdiagnosed. Made up disorder. Big Pharma just wants to poison our children!" etc.

Oh my god that sounds like a nightmare. You deserve social security, you earned that.

I don't think its so much as pulling the autism card, people seem to relate that term as using something as an excuse which is not what you mean here I am guessing? its just making sure that you get allowences made where they are needed, like with the car sickness thing someone mentioned.

I wish I could have the guts to say something to people when I am on public transport, I have a balance disorder that makes standing on transport a very difficult thing to do and it can affect me for ages after having to do it but I cant imagine asking someone for their seat trying to explain that I have a problem, again because its not an obvious physical problem people are suspicious even more so because I look like a healthy young teenager.

Close. "Playing the autism card" or "playing the X card" in general is a matter of perception and judgment by others who have an imperfect understanding of the realities a person might face that would lead them to say these things.

It's not that "playing the autism card" is really an excuse. It is that people perceive statements of fact as excuses and then label them as "playing the autism card" (well, I usually hear gender card and race card instead, but the principle still applies). It is generally better to view this phrase not as an identification of someone actually making excuses, but rather as a means for people to accuse others of making excuses - often accusations that are simply untrue.



And you should be able to sit in the disabled seating, but because of prejudice, you find yourself unwilling to prompt that prejudice (not that you have the prejudice, but that you know it is there, and it affects how you think).