Why "Neurodiversity" is wrong

Post Reply New Topic

I think society will have to adapt sooner or later. "We're here, we're autistic, get used to it", is how I would put it, though I can see why a lot of people would find this to be rather arrogant. It is, but do you really think society is going to start giving a s**t about us if we don't speak out? It's taken many years for the LGBT community to become accepted, and they're still fighting to be treated equally, but at least they've made a significant amount of progress. I think we, as neurodiverse individuals, can do the same. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be oppressed.

Well i don't feel very oppressed.

Well are you looking only at your own personal circumstances, or the community as a whole?

I really have not been around here much lately but I think I have something to add here.

I am an Aspie. Yes I am different. I have actually coped pretty well with it even before I knew what it was. I have previously posted that if there were a cure for asperger's I would not trade my gifts for a cure. (I already posted on that long ago so look it up if you do not understand that statement). I am not really sure how to characterize how deep I am into the spectrum but I am deep enough that my life has been pained by it but I have survived and even by some standards thrived. Maybe in part because of the "gifts".

To quote the cartoon character Popeye the Sailor Man, "I yam what I yam".

I would not care to put up with any experts or doctors meddling with me, especially with their damnable drugs! My viewpoint is not necessarily suitable for others on the spectrum, but it is my choice and suits me well. I am diverse, and it suits me well. I am in some ways disabled or less able than others in the population but also more able in some aspects, and that suffices me.

I am fearful and defensive of what some of the mental midgets at large in society might do to me and maybe even more apprehensive of what some of the misguided mental giants out there would do to me for my own good or the good of society, but then again what is so different about that, it happens to everybody.

Disclaimer:
I have only read some of the posts on this thread, so if it does not fit all that well with some aspects of the topic please do not get too uptight.

There is no such thing as neurodiversity.

I personally do not mind the concept of neurodiversity, to me it makes sense. I am not an extremist on the topic but I can relate to a lot of what the movement is addressing and yes I do believe we are neurologically diverse to a degree.

Thank you for saying that because really I am a bit confused by the title of this thread.
If "neurotypical" is the thing to which Asperger's neurology is compared, then I suppose that neurodiversity exists. If people's brains are "wired" differently in a multitude of different ways resulting in different behaviour patterns or different mental attributes then I suppose that it might be a useful construct. The number of ways that female human brains are physiologically different from male human brains is widely documented (e.g. the size of the corpus callosum that connects the brain halves and the proclivity for intuitive thinking, math skills, etc.) So I suppose that neurodiversity exists. If it is wrong I suppose we would then have to blame either God or evolution (depending on our personal belief system).

Now if the intent of the author of the title intended to put forth the idea that treating people with neurologically different brains differently is unfair, or maybe that only one kind of neurological "wiring" should be allowed and all the rest should be locked up or euthanized, I wish they had chosen a title to reflect that a little better

Thank you for saying that because really I am a bit confused by the title of this thread.
If "neurotypical" is the thing to which Asperger's neurology is compared, then I suppose that neurodiversity exists. If people's brains are "wired" differently in a multitude of different ways resulting in different behaviour patterns or different mental attributes then I suppose that it might be a useful construct. The number of ways that female human brains are physiologically different from male human brains is widely documented (e.g. the size of the corpus callosum that connects the brain halves and the proclivity for intuitive thinking, math skills, etc.) So I suppose that neurodiversity exists. If it is wrong I suppose we would then have to blame either God or evolution (depending on our personal belief system).

Now if the intent of the author of the title was to put forth the idea that treating differently people with neurologically different brains is unfair, or maybe that only one kind of neurological "wiring" should be allowed and all the rest should be locked up or euthanized, I wish they had chosen a title to reflect that a little better.

Now taking my tongue out of my cheek, having read the original post, I think it would have been far better to have a title something like, "Using neurodiversity as an excuse for not finding a way to succeed is a bad strategy".

Who knows why they would say such outlandish things. Whether they're talking about the movement or the facts, do they not realise it's the equivalent of saying "There's no such thing as fruit"? I suppose we can only speculate at the moment.

One possibility, is that they view the movement as a sugar coated fairy tale, or outright lies, where they believe the bigotry and view themselves as diseased or defective in some way. I myself thought I was intellectually disabled and a monstrous person, cursed even, when that wasn't true at all, this was actually after years of abuse. Would that be the case, I'm sure they'll snap out of it one day.

I cant see how anyone can believe neurodiversity is wrong! do hard line autism supremists abuse neurodiversity ? yes, but if not abused neurodiversity is a great thing

Science point of view:

There are differences in the brain for example the extra synapses in the brain:

Children With Autism Have Extra Synapses In Their Brains

That may contribute to our neurodiversity, in the literal sense of course if our brains are built neurologically different.

Movement point of view:

I believe that we deserve to be treated with respect and looked upon as real people not diseased cold hearted robots.

This is where I can agree to some extent to the ideology of the neurodiversity rights movement.

I think that part of the problem when it comes to overcoming these issues, is that the well of knowledge has been successfully poisoned, where it's now normal to believe pseudoscience and anecdote as factual.

That study for example, the language they used is straight out of the DSM and we're viewed exclusively in a negative light, something to get rid of. With the well poisoned, it then becomes easy to classify any differences as damage.

Exactly.
There are tons of simple accommodations that could significantly help us through college and work.
There are also some not so simple accommodations that are needed for some of us too, myself probably included.

For example: My functioning at college would be significantly improved if I were allowed to wear sunglasses. That's a lot simpler than making parking spaces with adequate room for wheelchairs that are nearby the building and it's a lot simpler than ramps. This is such a simple accommodation that should be covered simply by human decency. There are other things that would help even more, but they won't even waver on simpler stuff.

I was under the impression that the Federation had "done away" with neurodiversity...
Actually the Federation always felt hellish to me. Bright lights that never seem to turn off, no real video games (only holodeck crap), rock & roll is dead, and an increased rarity of real alcoholic beverages. The only characters that I can relate to are Data, 7 of 9, sometimes the Doctor, and sometimes Spock/other vulcans.

I am wondering what college that was where they would not let you wear sunglasses. Having taught as a professor an University of North Dakota, and University of Texas, We provided much more burdensome accommodations than letting a student wear sun glasses and though nothing of it.

E.G.
-- We obtained 1 flat screen computer monitor when they first came out and were expensive because we had a student with a seizure disorder that could be triggered by the flicker present in tube type monitors. It was marked that it had to be yielded upon request to students with a "visual" impairment. Funds were provided through the ADA compliance officer on campus.
-- ADD students would be provided with a private room to take exams.
-- Some students were allowed extra time on exams.
-- I even had one blind student who was provided with a "reader" to assist in taking exams. What was really neat was to see how this blind student could draw engineering diagrams on a white board, that his "reader" then copied onto his exam paper for him. This blind guy was one of my best students.

Failing to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements for impaired students can really mess with a college, unless maybe they take absolutely no government funding, financial benefits, and are not public institutions. So as I say, I am curious to know what school would not let you wear sunglasses.

I've been to two colleges, neither of them would let me wear sunglasses. One was a private college and I don't know about it's financial situation.
The other is a public institution that has faced several lawsuits about it... They have said that they will update their policies accordingly, but it's been a few years and they haven't published those changes if they made changes. Either way, I still am not allowed to wear sunglasses and may be arrested by campus police if I am found to be wearing them in a building or around the outside of the building. They will only let me wear sunglasses if for a "medical reason" not a "psychiatric reason." They justify this by claiming that it is a security risk for people to wear sunglasses.