autism course I don't 100% agree with

Post Reply New Topic

I'm taking a free course on autism made by people with autism. I'm not done with it, but tbh I don't agree with the premise. But I'll still finish it.
Basically the premise is that autism is a natural variation in the human diversity biome, and not a disorder. "Neurodiversity is just as important a biodiversity."

I don't think all aspects of autism are disordered, but I don't agree that it isn't a disorder at all. I feel like that rhetoric is dominated by people with level 1 autism, people who are only mildly affected by social traits. (I am a level 1 autistic myself, but I know people who are other levels and their functioning is very clearly impaired.)


Why am I posting this? It's been talked about before. But still. Let's discuss.

The website is called Reframing Autism btw. If anyone was curious and wanted to see for themselves. Course is entirely free and self paced.

Oh, the current lesson I'm on is about differences in autistic brains. Very interesting actually.

Next section is on social communication. Which also look interesting, but has the whole "autistic people don't have a social deficit" angle that I dislike.

I don't think its possible to be in 100% agreement with anyone. I also think the notion that neurodiversity is a super-power is toxic.

I do support the premise that neurodiversity is both important and natural. Is it a disability? It certainly can be, but not universally so. A lot of the disabling features might not occur with such severity if there wasn't so much trauma inflicted on people with autism. Another point to consider is how much of the problems associated by the co-morbid conditions related to autism rather than autism itself. If it were possible to eliminate the other issues (PTSD, Anxiety, Depression, etc) How many people would still meet the diagnostic criteria for autism? How many might need to be re-classified?

There has also always been a certain tendency among level 1 folks do distance themselves from the 2's and 3's. At level 1, autism may not be disabling, but at Level 3 it certainly is.

Neurodiversity is important, It can be a disability. It can also be beneficial, but let's not base the individuals worth on the ability to exploit those talents and abilities that come form those so called "super-powers".

I am still finding the course very interesting

The autism diagnoses that are given out nowadays as per the DSM V are "autistic spectrum disorder" and for the ICD - "autistic disorder".

So the relevant psychiatric referral sources have autism as a disorder.

The course you are doing sounds poorly constructed if it does not reflect these realities.

Wouldn't say it's poorly constructed, just they disagree with the medical model.

Unless it was an incorrect diagnosis to begin with, I think people would still meet the diagnostic criteria, as co-morbids don't create the deficits needed for a diagnosis.

The evident contention here illustrates the inherent problem of the concept of Autistic identity being 'owned' and administered by the medical profession and those of the predominant neurotype.

It is interesting to note that until the early 70's psychiatrists were regularly diagnosing homosexuality as a disorder. Yes, it was in the DSM. Something that most people would regard as bizarre if it were happening today. It is now widely accepted as a difference and an identity.

The are a growing number of us who regard Autism is a difference and an identity - not a disorder, or collection of deficits and not an inherent disability. A number of us are focused on our human rights. We prefer to use neuro-affirming language.

In a similar vein the concept of 'level of Autism' and functional labels is considered deeply flawed by a growing number of us. Levels of challenge in relation to living in the predominantly neurotypical world fluctuate dependent on environmental stressors. Using my self as an example, I am educated to Masters level, have a house, a car and a professional career. However, place me in a busy airport, train station or situation where I need to process multiple sensory stimuli or expectations then I am liable to become situationally mute and shut down to the extant that I am unable to function. In short how I present can span all of the 'levels' so arbitrarily applying one to me is meaningless. Am I disabled? I think I am at times - but only by the actions of others and how I have at times no option but to fit into their world.

The number of Autistic designed and delivered training initiatives are growing as the AU community slowly (and at times painfully) draws away from the learned dependence it has inherited from older generations and the covert (and at times not so covert) 'conversion therapy' carried out by a predominantly neurotypical population that is driven by ignorance and lack of acceptance.

Personally I fully support Autism training that is driven by actually Autistic people as a key way of changing the accepted narrative and supporting us to develop a greater degree of autonomy and pride in our inherent difference.

Just to add - I am a qualified clinician who carries out AU diagnosis based upon DSM and ICD criteria. I hate the focus that these diagnostic criteria's have on dysfunction and the way they from AU identity in negative terms - however, I stick with it as at least I can present outcomes to my neurokin in a positive way and encourage a more enlightened approach by clinical colleagues.

+1

I think of an analogy with burn victims (since some is visible, some is not - some burns are larger area, some are more sensitive area) and burns can be more or less disabling or inconvenient. It's a wide spectrum.

But co-morbids as well as environment do have a direct effect on functional ability. Put me in the wrong environment, and expect me to do my job efficiently, or to respond appropriately when I'm already overloaded? Not likely. That's one of my issues with the "level" system. Observe me in the best environment I could probably pass as a 1. Test me in a room that smells strongly of disinfectant or perfume, with a few flickering fluorescent lights? Would that look more like a 2?

While you're right that it won't create the deficits, it can influence my ability to mask them from an observer. Since anyone can show traits of a disorder without it reaching the level of pathology, it does make a difference.

My general opinion is consistent with a slight rephrasing:
"...autism is a natural variation in the human diversity biome, and not always a disorder. 'Neurodiversity is just as important a biodiversity.'"

Clearly sometimes it disables. And, sometimes, it does not disable.

I don't consider myself disabled, just different and somewhat inconvenienced by it. And when I search the Internet for lists of famous people suspected of having been Autistic, what I find is consistent with Autism not always being a disability but rather potentially of great benefit to society.

However, I might say that living in a time or society with arranged marriage might have benefited me.

But I probably won't say it. It took me 45 years to find a bride but I am now happily married...and my bride is on WP. So, Dear, if you're reading this: I'm glad nothing happened that could've kept us apart!

Could well do a lot of good, as long as the student doesn't use it as their sole source of information, which few would. Any source of information with an axe to grind and an extreme stance on an issue is at risk of doctoring the data presented, hopefully only by omitting stuff (rather than falsifying it) that's embarrassing to their core belief. In either case, using other sources ought to prevent the student from being misled. And maybe it's just their way of attracting students, by feeding their self-esteem with the notion that there's nothing "wrong" with them.

There's certainly something "wrong" with me - sensory issues, executive function issues, etc., that cause me trouble that NTs are less likely to be plagued by. If that's not a disability I don't know what is.

There's a political stance that says we're not socially inept, and I can relate to that. I think I have certain social abilities that run rings around those of many NTs. If only the world would wake up and realise how much we could teach them, we'd be revered and they could learn a lot of useful things from us. But the world isn't going to wake up any time soon, so our valuable alternative take on social matter remains largely ignored. And my unusual social attitudes that I see as so admirable may well turn out to be nothing but faulty and wishful thinking, for all I know.

I've already conceded that I wonder if a society with arranged marriages might have worked better for someone with my personal version of Autism. But that leads me to some closely related wondering...

Would Autism have been less of a problem for someone a long time ago?

For instance, before electricity, before cities got so big and common, etc.

I suspect you may be onto something there. Small is beautiful for many ASDers.
Also, judging by Victorian literature, they wrote a lot more clearly in the 1900s. They explained things past the point, just like I do.

And when people rush me I screw up, so the slower pace of the old days would certainly have helped me. Rigid social rules - a tad stuffy, but less confusing once you'd read a good book on etiquette. Give me a time machine and a huge bag of Victorian cash, and I'll check it out.