The Term "Aspie," a Rant
17 Jul 2016, 8:36 pm
That was then this is now. That past expert opinion conventional wisdom was proven wrong provides a cautionary tale against assuming todays conventional wisdom is right.
Are you suggesting that in the future ASD will lose its privilege of being a DSM diagnosis due to changes in clinical opinion?
Here's the thing about homosexuality losing its status on the DSM: even though it looks like a victory for the LGBT cause, it's actually not. It deprives gays and lesbians of a compensable diagnosis for any trouble relating to their sexuality in what is still a very anti-gay country. This is not positive.
Would ASD's removal from the DSM make me feel a little less "mental"--maybe, but it wouldn't change that there is something fundamentally different with me and that people who are like me but less well-adjusted definitely need funding for care services.
In 20 years it would not surprise me at all if we look at how autism is viewed today with the same astonishment as we look at the Refrigerator Mother era I grew up undiagnosed in. I think this is especially true because the causes are still not really understood and diagnosis is still largely about observed behavoirs. This makes the definition of what is an autism impairment suseptable to society's judgement as to what behaviors are wrong which can become confused with actual impairments (such as Executive dysfunction IMHO)
Sure there are Aspie wannabies and people who think they are the next step in human evolution because they identify as aspie.
I think the amount of these people is way overblown.
Numerically "overblown?" Perhaps. Unusually vocal? Hell yes, and that's the problem
If you do that to be trendy or as an excuse to act like an as*hole you are are going to find out quickly like "real autistics" people will be doubting you are really autistic, you will be bullied, and not hired and fired. I may be correct or incorrect about the number of aspie wanna bees but like I tried to point out earlier it is perception of hordes of wannabees that is causing harm. What all this focus on the special snowflake aspie identifiers does is inflate their already over inflated egos and increase the belief in all these negative stereotypes. Why is this good or nessecary? I don't get get it, enlighten me, I am really clueless here.
I'm a little lost here. Are you saying that by emphasizing the protected, handicapped aspect of ASD, that this would make it more attractive to "aspie wannabes?"
I'm not sure it would, and here's why: there is something secretly distasteful about being a gimp or a cripple or a "ret*d." Yes, it's part of civil society to be polite and tolerant of people's disability--for sure. ... but would the average American bring one home for Sunday dinner, as a date?
This is an important aspect of ASD lost to people who want to sign up with the "aspie" "community." It's not the eidetic memory or card-counting savant powers, the quirky nerdiness, or anything that the Sheldon Cooper character evokes.
It's the fact that ASD people are crippled in fundamental, invisible ways that paraplegic or Down's Syndrome sufferers will never be.
BTW I do not know about TED but cancer survivors blog and give talks about thier experiences all the time. That I have cancer is noted in my signature.
So naturally you can imagine your own annoyance with people who don't have cancer standing up and delivering public speeches about their "cancer experience?" This is actually probably a rare occurrence.
But what does happens all the time these days where people who are self-diagnosed--or perhaps just lying--get up and lecture about the hardship of having ASD.
[/quote]
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York
18 Jul 2016, 3:26 am
It does not bother me in the least that others speak publically about their cancer experiences. Their experiences will often be very different then mine because there are many types of cancer and there are 4 stages but most will have some similar experieces to mine with chemo, radiation, fear of reoccurrence and like me actual reoccrrence.
The eliminition of homosexuality in the DSM highlights the key area we differ. You say homosexuality should have stayed in the DSM because dispite those experts coming to the conclusion it is not a medical or mental disorder some parts of society still believe it is wrong. This means it is a problem of society not a medical one. Most of the gay rights leaders are and were the most sucessful gays and are and were mostly white. Others of the LBGT community resented and resent that. The white male domination of that movement has caused problems, the trans people did not get any real recognition until the last year or two for example. But that does not mean the whole idea of gay rights activism is wrong, just that the LBGT rights movement have to get better. Beyond gay marriage because of the gay rights movement if you are gay companies want to sell you stuff and it is much more difficult for them to discriminate against you. Most people will not think if you want to teach you will brainwash the kids with the "gay agenda" as was true 20 years ago. It is much easier to come out and be yourself which is more mentally healthy. These improvements have benifitted a wide range of LBGTQ people not just the elite.
In autism we are in a similar place LBGTQ was 40 years ago, there was a gay rights movement, a few out celebrities some of them such as David Bowie people questioned the authenticity of, but the vast majority of people still believed gays were sick and preverted. This is relevent to the cancer I was writing about. Unlike many of the cancer public speakers I have far from been able to resume a "normal life" . Yet unlike with autism very few will accuse me of bieng lazy and making excuses and lecture me because I have not been as successful as celebrity cancer survivors and few will accuse the cancer speakers of faking cancer or not having "real cancer". That these issue are common with Autism is an acceptence and society issue and needs to be solved or eased that way.
I do not know how autism will be viewed in 20 years. Maybe we will diagnose by dominent symptons and diagnose Executive dysfuction autism or sensory overload Autism, maybe the evidence will show there is no such thing as autism, it is actully many different conditions. I just expect it will be radically different then today.
If a person identifies as aspie for ego or excuse making reasons they most likely in real life will find out in it will be an ego deflating experience and they will be called out on thier excuse making. Thier aspie identification will likely be short lived. That is why I think the amount of actual wannabees is way overblown. I agree with with you that the loud wannabees and elitists are creating a percention problem. I disagree with you on the solution to that problem, including putting so much energy and focus on them.
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
19 Jul 2016, 12:26 pm
What I'm saying is that a certain amount of gravity needs to be recovered for the ASD, insofar as it is a clinical diagnosis for a D I S A B I L I T Y. Profound alienation. Impaired executive function that will mar your behavior and render you distinct in any crowd. Unable to perceive or convey emotion. But still, so very nearly human. If the ASD person sits there, without moving or speaking, there is no way of telling that it is a counterfeit.
Forget the fact that many ASD sufferers have the exact same needs in terms of intimacy and interpersonal interaction as neurotypicals.
Forget the fact that automation is increasingly doing away with all jobs that do not depend heavily on human interaction.
I'm not sure if you implying or stating that individuals who are given the ASD diagnosis are "very nearly human" or "counterfeit", so I will reserve comment on that section of your self-described "rant".
In your original post and further commentary, you seem to place great value on the DSM-5 diagnosis of ASD, through you state in your original post that you believe that there is a genetic component related to diagnosis of ASDs. Assuming that a person's treatment by society is different because the DSM-5 says so, what difference does it make if the ASD diagnosis covers more people or a stricter definition?
There's an argument to be made that the DSM-5 definition of ASD in reality is covering numerous different situations, such as cognitive dysfunction, large-group social processing issues, different neurological communications preference, and non-verbal communication processing differences, not all of which belong to be treated as a clinical diagnosis, at least not in the DSM-5 concept of a clinical diagnosis. I'm not sure that's the argument you're making.
_________________
Our first challenge is to create an entire economic infrastructure, from top to bottom, out of whole cloth.
-CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Centauri Monopoly"
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (Firaxis Games)
19 Jul 2016, 5:33 pm
I separated out my quotes and your bolded text for ease of reading. All mistakes are mine
I'm not sure if you implying or stating that individuals who are given the ASD diagnosis are "very nearly human" or "counterfeit", so I will reserve comment on that section of your self-described "rant".
Bring it on, by all means.
On a bad day, when I'm feeling low, I'd have trouble not arguing that point.
I cannot tell where you're going with this, and I can see a number of different things you could be saying, so I'm going to have to refrain from giving this a deeper consideration.
As for the last statement, though, I fully appreciate that the DSM is not some sort of behavioral health "bible"--I'm there, believe me. If you look at the history of the DSM project, etc., you'll agree that is basically the APA's pact with the government over what constitutes a disorder in need of professional treatment, and hence deserving of the public's largess.
As the other guy noted, there's considerable fluidity in terms of what the DSM endorses as a condition, and its a heavily influence-able project, both by politics and culture. Therefore, it is more that the popular imagination influences the DSM, an NOT--as you seemed to believe I meant--vice versa.
Therefore, it behooves the individual ASD sufferer to kind of sit-up and take offense every so often, when the disorder is misrepresented. This is only one argument embedded in my original post--in my opinion, there are much more compelling arguments than material self-interest, in opposing the cute-enization of ASD.
In reverse order, yes, I was under the impression you put more stock in the DSM-5 than you describe above. I do not consider DSM-5 controlling in the least, in large part because of it's (quite possibly deliberate) ignorance of genetic, cultural, and social issues, as well as a lack of a objective neurological description. Since quite a few government and related programs, as well as the medical community incorporate it by reference into decisions, the DSM-5 has been often accepted in neurodiversity circles as controlling.
I'm aware of the reports that some of the DSM-5 delay was due to the arguments about ASDs, and that arguments for a more minimalist "dysfunction" argument won the day. I thought there were more arguments embedded in your Original Post, that's why I asked for clarification on points. That does not mean agreement.
One of the downsides to a more narrow "dysfunction" focused definition is that IDEA/504/ADA is harder to use, in medical, government, employment, and education. While that probably was the intent, I think those who made that argument overestimated the ability of the various governments to replace DSM-5, if they had in fact gone with a broader definition, and particularly if they went with a neurological-based definition, had one existed.
_________________
Our first challenge is to create an entire economic infrastructure, from top to bottom, out of whole cloth.
-CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Centauri Monopoly"
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (Firaxis Games)
19 Jul 2016, 5:38 pm
Please read the rules, if you have not already done so, there are rules about refraining from personal attack, ridiculing other members, cross posting, and baiting is also beyond the pale here.
Hopefully the thread can now proceed without any breaches at all into an interesting discussion.
19 Jul 2016, 6:19 pm
I'm not sure if you implying or stating that individuals who are given the ASD diagnosis are "very nearly human" or "counterfeit", so I will reserve comment on that section of your self-described "rant".
Bring it on, by all means.
On a bad day, when I'm feeling low, I'd have trouble not arguing that point.
I cannot tell where you're going with this, and I can see a number of different things you could be saying, so I'm going to have to refrain from giving this a deeper consideration.
As for the last statement, though, I fully appreciate that the DSM is not some sort of behavioral health "bible"--I'm there, believe me. If you look at the history of the DSM project, etc., you'll agree that is basically the APA's pact with the government over what constitutes a disorder in need of professional treatment, and hence deserving of the public's largess.
As the other guy noted, there's considerable fluidity in terms of what the DSM endorses as a condition, and its a heavily influence-able project, both by politics and culture. Therefore, it is more that the popular imagination influences the DSM, an NOT--as you seemed to believe I meant--vice versa.
Therefore, it behooves the individual ASD sufferer to kind of sit-up and take offense every so often, when the disorder is misrepresented. This is only one argument embedded in my original post--in my opinion, there are much more compelling arguments than material self-interest, in opposing the cute-enization of ASD.
In reverse order, yes, I was under the impression you put more stock in the DSM-5 than you describe above. I do not consider DSM-5 controlling in the least, in large part because of it's (quite possibly deliberate) ignorance of genetic, cultural, and social issues, as well as a lack of a objective neurological description. Since quite a few government and related programs, as well as the medical community incorporate it by reference into decisions, the DSM-5 has been often accepted in neurodiversity circles as controlling.
I'm aware of the reports that some of the DSM-5 delay was due to the arguments about ASDs, and that arguments for a more minimalist "dysfunction" argument won the day. I thought there were more arguments embedded in your Original Post, that's why I asked for clarification on points. That does not mean agreement.
One of the downsides to a more narrow "dysfunction" focused definition is that IDEA/504/ADA is harder to use, in medical, government, employment, and education. While that probably was the intent, I think those who made that argument overestimated the ability of the various governments to replace DSM-5, if they had in fact gone with a broader definition, and particularly if they went with a neurological-based definition, had one existed.
Happily, there is basically one idea I am now replying to, so I can respond as with one statement and not annoy B19.
Yes: my original point assumed that the direction of flow was from the culture to the DSM, and not vice versa. Yes, the DSM matters, not as the progenitor of culture but rather as its fruit. The entry for ASD in the DSM is our collective meal ticket in terms of services, and I'm very much conscious of the things that keep it: namely, an awareness of how crippling this disorder is.
'Rainman' came before Sheldon Cooper. As a culture, we were introduced to this disorder by the Rainman film and documentaries on Temple Grandin. This underlined how tragic this disorder was, insofar as there are elements of a person there, alongside of incredible potential that has been curtailed by the Disorder.
In the interval that ensued, the most common appearances of adult autism--that I have witnessed, anyway (big caveat there)--have been suspiciously high-functioning "cases" of autism. My concern is that if the ordinary ASD sufferer endorses the "aspie" term, and it becomes synonymous with someone who is smart, aloof, and slightly particular, is that the momentum behind the autism movement will dissipate.
This would make everyone's life harder on both a personal level, but also over time, as the popular conception of what it means to be on the spectrum evolves from someone with a crippling developmental disorder to simply being a nerdy a**hole.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 39,637
Location: Long Island, New York
19 Jul 2016, 7:35 pm
I asked specifically what you thought of individuals FEIGNING a cancer diagnosis speaking publicly. While many would be reluctant to do this on the topic of cancer, I suspect it happens frequently with an 'invisible' disorder like ASD.
The eliminition of homosexuality in the DSM highlights the key area we differ. You say homosexuality should have stayed in the DSM because dispite those experts coming to the conclusion it is not a medical or mental disorder some parts of society still believe it is wrong.
Incorrect. I believe it should remain in the DSM because it is (1) a mental deviation from an established norm, that (2) has the potential to cause distress for the individual, that (3) the state should pay for.
Emphasis on (3)... emphasis on the provision of funds for care and treatment. That's what I'm concerned with: the bottom line. ($$$)
My point is that it only appeared to be a victory in terms of LGBT rights: it wasn't. The DSM doesn't determine who's weird and deserving of discrimination--Joe Blow on the street does. All the DSM does is determine the codes of disorders that behavioral health providers can be compensated for rendering care to.
This means it is a problem of society not a medical one. Most of the gay rights leaders are and were the most sucessful gays and are and were mostly white. Others of the LBGT community resented and resent that. The white male domination of that movement has caused problems, the trans people did not get any real recognition until the last year or two for example. But that does not mean the whole idea of gay rights activism is wrong, just that the LBGT rights movement have to get better. Beyond gay marriage because of the gay rights movement if you are gay companies want to sell you stuff and it is much more difficult for them to discriminate against you. Most people will not think if you want to teach you will brainwash the kids with the "gay agenda" as was true 20 years ago. It is much easier to come out and be yourself which is more mentally healthy. These improvements have benifitted a wide range of LBGTQ people not just the elite.
In autism we are in a similar place LBGTQ was 40 years ago, there was a gay rights movement, a few out celebrities some of them such as David Bowie people questioned the authenticity of, but the vast majority of people still believed gays were sick and preverted. This is relevent to the cancer I was writing about. Unlike many of the cancer public speakers I have far from been able to resume a "normal life" . Yet unlike with autism very few will accuse me of bieng lazy and making excuses and lecture me because I have not been as successful as celebrity cancer survivors and few will accuse the cancer speakers of faking cancer or not having "real cancer". That these issue are common with Autism is an acceptence and society issue and needs to be solved or eased that way.
I do not know how autism will be viewed in 20 years. Maybe we will diagnose by dominent symptons and diagnose Executive dysfuction autism or sensory overload Autism, maybe the evidence will show there is no such thing as autism, it is actully many different conditions. I just expect it will be radically different then today.
If a person identifies as aspie for ego or excuse making reasons they most likely in real life will find out in it will be an ego deflating experience and they will be called out on thier excuse making. Thier aspie identification will likely be short lived. That is why I think the amount of actual wannabees is way overblown. I agree with with you that the loud wannabees and elitists are creating a percention problem. I disagree with you on the solution to that problem, including putting so much energy and focus on them.
OK, so think about this: you clearly recognize that the DSM categories are plastic. You acknowledge that they change frequently due to political and cultural shifts, as in the case of homosexuals.
So why does the shift in cultural perception of autism not concern you? Would it really be a benefit to the ASD community if the culture said: "Oh, these guys are close enough to normal and maybe just a little different--it's neuro-discrimination to have them in the DSM."
The DSM gets yanked. Care gets yanked. Square one.
There are people out there faking cancer to swindle people or because they have some sort of fictious disorder. Of course I do not like it and hope these people are found out and pay for it. but I also will not obsess over it or think there is a major wanabee problem without some sort of evidence. The perception of a major overdiagnosis and wanabee problems seems to me based on nothing more then the amount of diagnosis is going way up there must be massive overdiagnosis, because of the Sheldon type charactors there must be a big wanabee problem. If it is in reality a big problem then time must be spent fighting it, if it is more percieved then reality it is causing damage by creating suspicion ie. guilty of not bieng autistic until proven otherwise in a place like this that should be a support site, people self doubting thier own diagnosis, possible under diagnosis because clinitions fear becoming part of the "over diagnosis problem" . I have noticed the "Do you think I am autistic" threads often begins with the OP saying something similar to "I know you can't diagnose me" type qualifier. This did not happen much when I started out here. This to me seems like OP making a probably honest inquiry feeling he or she needs to prove they are not another wanabee because of what to me seems like problem that is more perception then reality. That is what bothers me
I personaly think the expansion of diagnositic criteria and representation in the media ala far from perfect has done more good then harm. The wanabees and diagnosed non autistics this has caused does not compare at all to the real autistics that never would have been recognized without expansion/media IMHO. I do fear the current suspicion of over diagnosis and wanabees will cause many autistics not to get diagnosed and to have thier diagnosis be worthless because it will not be thought of as real. Because of these probable consequences these problems better be about a lot more then a few hipsters and aspie supremacists.
Government benifits are not based on the DSM criteria of bieng impaired, they are based on ability to work. My Aspergers diagnosis did not get me disability, I made too much money in the 1980's which "proved" I am not disabled enough. Three disability lawyers refused to take my case because under the rules I had none. I was awarded disability because of a mild stroke, which was fortune because of the decidly unmild cancer I developed. So awarding of benifits is pretty much all about perception. So all of the autistics claiming there is a big overdiagnoses and wanabee problem, rejecting thier own advocacy organizations because they are "elitists" IMHO may help lead to the very benefit reductions we fear.
Perception is a catch 22. The dangers of too positive have been discussed above. Too negative and as is still to often the case leads to autistics not getting opportunities to do things they are able to do.
_________________
“Self Acceptance is a process not a performance”
“You are autistic enough. And you always have been”
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.
Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 19 Jul 2016, 8:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
19 Jul 2016, 8:15 pm
I love that everyone's sort of skimming over the fact that this guy just basically said he believes women and PoC can't have autism.
Like, I know we all have our various struggles with understanding where other people are coming from and that people can have different experiences from our own, but this is beyond the pale. There are lots of people here of various ethnicities and genders who aren't white and male who don't need to be hearing this BS.
_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War
(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)
19 Jul 2016, 8:38 pm
Good riddance to bad rubbish, then.
Is it improper to ask what other usernames were associated with this person and if they are being banned too?
_________________
"Ego non immanis, sed mea immanis telum." ~ Ares, God of War
(Note to Moderators: my warning number is wrong on my profile but apparently can't be fixed so I will note here that it is actually 2, not 3--the warning issued to me on Aug 20 2016 was a mistake but I've been told it can't be removed.)
