Neurodiversity & Autism Pride

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0hQ7b4pvxA&feature=related[/youtube]

I'd very much enjoy believing and creating awareness about a concept such as Neurodiversity. If I made the decision tens of thousands over the next year would become aware of the concept in the mainstream. However despite my impulse to make this decision and say "yes" I'll do it I need a bit of help.

1. Does neurodiversity oppose a cure for autism?

2. Does having pride in autism exclusive to neurodiversity or can people that believe in a cure for adverse symptoms also believe in neurodiversity?

3. Does neurodiversity mean opposing abortions of fetuses with autism and other disabilities.

4. Who defines neurodiversity and who controls neurodiversity the view point?

If I can get ASAN to reply or other pride based organizations I will interject in my areas autism awareness month and other professionals will allow for it. However I may have to wait until next year because I am yet stressed that some kind of politics demanding it viewed only a certain way will cause problems. I want to understand your view of neurodiversity and what at least some or more people polarize it with such as a cure for autism if applicable.

I think "respecting individual choices as to whether they wish to be cured or not" has to include opposing the possibility that parents will decide for their children whether to cure them or not. It has to be their choice, and I think it is one of those things where the default position should be no cure unless it is wanted. In the same way you wouldn't let a parent decide for a child that they should go through the process of becoming transsexual, so you shouldn't let a parent decide for a child that they should be cured of autism, because it's the same kind of change.

The neuro-diversity movement is always going to have the same problem with factions that feminists have. Different people are going to take different stances and it's never going to be a cohesive movement. I don't think there is any way you can avoid that.

1. No. Neurodiversity is simply a term that recognises the differences between human minds. The term has been adopted, subjugated and at times twisted by varying factions to serve their own purposes. The concept of neurodiversity, in essence, cannot discriminate - it is not a cause. The concept itself has no agenda.

2. Neurodiversity applies to everyone. No two brains are exactly alike... more individual than snowflakes... everyone should be free to choose what works best for themselves.

3. Neurodiversity does not, in and of itself, support or discourage abortion. Cure and abortion politics are reactionary political issues. Neurodiversity is a fact of life. Autism is also a fact of life. So long as someone doesn't get up on a podium and declare that only a certain type of brain is legal and all others must be eliminated - I do not think that cure politics and abortion politics carry much weight. Both are highly charged and fear based - both sides are afraid of some basic denial of human rights. Those who desire a cure should be able to make that choice for themselves. There is little support for the theory that all autistics will be forced into a cure. A genetic test before birth for autism may decrease the autistic birth rates due to parental choice but that same option has not ended births of children with other prenatally tested conditions. There is no evidence supporting 'eugenics'. I can see where both sides are fearful and distrustful of the other but neither fear has been substantiated in action. We, as a society, are in the infancy of understanding and incorporating the ideas of neurodiversity into our culture. In the larger scheme if things I think that progress has been remarkably quick so far. But it is far from complete. all of these concepts need more time to develop and integrate. It's getting there and all this discussion from all sides simply power that process.

4. Neurodiversity is still a clinical term therefore the medical/psychological community that has adopted it 'has control' of it until the general population adopts the concept it for itself. But, like anything else, human beings rarely (I think NEVER is a safe word here) agree on anything 100%. It is human nature to disagree to varying degrees and to debate individual points of view. Thats the charming thing about humans - they are rarely static.

Anyone that does not support choice is just a human rights violator because it's an essential part of DD law here. The concept of neurodiversity simply implies diverse neurology exists and yet still an individual because with that brain can think for themselves it seems others want to demand they choose certain things. Any concept about diversity cannot in principle be a concept of diversity if it does not allow the inclusion of diversity. True human rights evaders can be part of diversity but the concept itself respects diversity so it cannot be dictated by individuals that disallow choice.

I support neurodiversity and I'm against a cure. If you're going to cure something, cure meat but don't try to cure me.

That is your personal choice while others with autism support cures for adverse symptoms.

I have the same concern as Louise18. I would not choose to be cured, but my parents would have done it to me when I was little without my concent if it had been possible. What would keep that from happening?

I think people are thinking about brain transplants. In context to an individual you got to think about what hinders rather then your entire memories, personality as a whole and perhaps neurosurgery.

See also: http://www.jonathans-stories.com/non-fi ... rodiv.html

I have decided to wait until next year for the following reasons.

1. The public would like I'd think to improve the disability "autism" and rightfully as a human right of individuals with autism and this happens by means of cure awareness for research.

2. Neurodiversity has born some very bad advocates and if I make it more popular in the mainstream we'd have problems. I'd have to clean up their mess, study more for the great PR fight and while some good intending folks scramble to understand what the hell they did wrong to offend people.

My suggestions

Anti-cure needs to be wrapped up. What I mean to say is THE END. Anti-cure in it's true form calls cure discrimination, calls those seeking one including people with autism bigots and curebes and not to forget the big misplaced attitude created toward the general public. Some of the worse kind of shock jock "your a bigot" and mind altering propagandistic public relations that makes the world as the oppressors N.T's (666) pinned against susceptible minds that believe the hog wash who have autism. Note if you are against a cure for yourself but support the human right to make a choice you are not anti-cure unless you do not support law abiding research.

I view these items as distractions by distractors and whom if spent 10% of the time they do on "your a bigot" trash for the quality of life inclusion of those who most of the time have it no where near as good as these profoundly high functioning individuals we'd have cause for celebration. It seems instead of noble peace prize potentials it has been traded in for who is the biggest, loudest and most annoying to get the most attention you know what's.

i dont think there is any conflict with neurodiversity and treatment.i think advocacy groups should be less polorized.look at neurotypicals who have problems they need help with,that doesnt mean they give up there self respect.why is autistic culture any different.also to the moderator i havent been getting my reply emails for a couple of days.if a moderator sees this post can you help me

would this in itself not be a violation of personal choice??
i agree that any exremist view as the one you portrayed is detrimental to humanity.
but i think the only cure a lot of people are talking about is an actual cure, not a treatment, i know our definitions differ of these words but i hope you can see what i meant.
in a way what they(anti-cure) want, in my eyes at least, is for people to take care of treatments instead of a cure, something that actually helps and is needed, instead of wasting time on something that could become opressive and with proper treatment wouldnt be neede for most people.

the loudness=attention part is found a lot of places where humans have differing opinion, politics, in particular.
and remember for many of these "higher functioning"(i really hate all these words) people, the major problem in their life is something they can do very little about, even with treatment.
these problems require a shift in perception before getting better and that can be very hard to accomplice if puplic opinion dicates that they should simply be "cured", that they are defective to begin with.

½ reply for now

No because pro-cure cannot violate human right law.


Sensibility.



Why evade the PR awareness as cure allows autism to compete for better awareness and more support. Think of autism as a spectrum which it is and as a diagnoses label it’ centers on functionalism and strictly adverse symptoms on a scale. Pluralize the word cure especially because cure does not fit another person with autism and have the cures simply imply for adverse symptoms which it does now and what you have then is the true meaning of cure. Factions of the self-advocacy movement also want to show good examples of people with autism but the DSMIV is about the adverse symptoms only. I have been a good example where I live and am a role model showing the public and individuals with all sorts of ASD’s and general DD’s they can achieve to if they put their minds to it.


Any good thing can become a bad thing and especially if we imagine into it. We need proof a cure is a bad thing for adverse symptoms or that treatment is violating rights.

Second ½

PR 101. That’s how I introduced myself here.


At this point yes. However, if people are insulted while others not to cure those aspects if chosen and needed then socially little can be done.



People get confused especially individuals in context with ASD. A cure is not an entire person and has nothing to do with abortion politics which is the underlining political issue here. Once cure research is used for abortion it is no longer considered cure but some of the cure research can lead to abortion related agenda’s. Autism is a disability and when it is not it is no longer qualifying for the DSMIV criteria. Having a disability is not the fault of any individual with autism and others desires to improve that are wholesome. Autism is not written on someone’s forehead or body. Some need to learn humility, others should focus less on the label and society could embrace what is much better regardless of the cure topic.

Folks focusing to much on negative may tend to suffer from depression and may need a balance to that. This may be an underlining mechanism to the psychosocial conflict to cure. Other then other idealogical agenda's perceiving it a cure is not universally wrong.

i wont agree that the abortion issue is the reason why some people might find a cure intimidating.
i think it has more to do with the underlying perception that the "propaganda" induces in the public.

in denmark we dont have the abortion debate, basically it is a VERY one sided issue here, with only a fraction of a percent in the debate against abortion, a political party would have no chance of getting enough votes to be eligable if they decided to be vocal about this.

now most government help toward ASD's already focuses on treatment, but a cure, to me, means removing the underlying condition, not mitigating the negative aspects, to me that is treatment.
however there is still an issue with the public perception of difference and neurodiversity here in denmark and i dont think a vocal cure movement would do anything but induce a lot of misunderstandings in the general populace.
now a vocal anti cure movement might cause more of a constructive debate, but in essence what they are saying is ethically wrong in itself(at least if they are as extreme as you portray them)
this constructive debate would of cause be better induced by promoting ND, a view that doesnt pose any ethical questions(at least not in the sense the anti cure is)

Cure has been made out time and time again as simply abortion. That is where the extremism is sourced and is evident all over the internet as a societal judgement and near unavoidably effecting the self-esteem. Now with any movement whether cure or anti-cure your going to have manifested cultural conflicts within a societal model. The right to adapt by means of absolute cure accomplished by means of treatment(s) and that of accepting adverse and or non-adverse differences for a few reasons. Culturally of course we should accept differences of all kinds but those that do not want those adverse differences removed another person chooses to be removed are going to be at conflict in root. However for "what is" and "as it is now" acceptence kinds of awareness it cannot conflict with the cure modality otherwise it is adverse to "what is" in their own choices to change. The issue to me is no longer about cure but bridging a gap between cure awareness and cultural integration awareness issues.

Adverse human rights come into play when another individual seeks to remove the enabling of choice from another individual directly and or indirectly causally. Do you understand? You can ask questions and I can clear up anything not understood.

Not surprising I think that the middle choice, "Neurodiversity supports a cure for autism.", has no votes yet.