- Time
- Post link
So are you saying he wouldn’t have the nerve or creativity without autism?
Possibly, yes.
but how certain of this are you?
I’m not. That’s why I said “possibly.”
Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 197
This topic has been locked by a moderator.
- Time
- Post link
Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?
This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.
This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.
And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.
How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?
- Time
- Post link
I guess I am not able to understand how a mental difficult can be considered a superpower. But I do have to say that you did not answer my question. Are you saying that he wouldn’t have his nerve and creativity without the autism?
You’d have to ask him; I don’t even know that person. Temple Grandin is an example of a person who feels she owes much of her livelihood to tapping the potential of her autism that would not otherwise be available. Most people only know of autism from Rain Man, and there’s a lot more to it than Wapner at 4. They see it not as a mental difficulty–it’s a neurological difference that can lead to social difficulties. That said, it’s an ill-defined “spectrum”, so even that statement was dumbing it down too much for my tastes.
Well, maybe I need to learn more about autism.
- Time
- Post link
I guess anything that isn’t Breitbart or Fox News is now left-wing.
- Time
- Post link
But deaf people would still have the problem of not being able to hear.
Not to jump straight to crude jokes, but it applies. Everybody has problems. Yes, even if everyone could sign and every phone has a visual ring indicator and so on, people would still have the problem of not being able to hear. And some people would have the trouble of being an asshole (seriously not aimed at anyone, but the concept works so run with it). Deafness is a pretty small problem. Hell, I have combination skin (does anyone remember that commercial?), that’s a problem too.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Great post. If someone gave me a magic wand and said I could “cure” my daughter today, I wouldn’t do it, because she’d no longer be the girl I love, she’d be someone different.
I see multiple problems with that approach. One is, should you have the right decide she shouldn’t have “the cure” if one existed? What if she would want to be cured? Another is, why wouldn’t she be the girl you love? I mean, you don’t love her just because she has autism right? If she had never had autism, you still would have loved her, right? Also how would she be someone different? She would just be your daughter without autism. Your daughter is defined by more than just autism. She a person and would still be that same person if her autism were cured. If your daughter had cancer and that got cured, would she be someone different after she was cured? Myself, if I had kid with autism and there was a cure, I’d want him/her to have it(but I will not be so arrogant to deny the possibility that my opinion would be altered if I actually had a child with autism). Why would I want to deny him/her the opportunity live free of autism, to be free of all of its problems?
Call me stupid, clueless, bigoted or whatever, but I don’t get it.
edit: I really hope I haven’t offended by any of what I said in this post, because that wasn’t my intent. Keep in mind that I have no family members with autism. I don’t know anyone that does. So if I have offended, it is because of my own ignorance of the issues.
I’m not offended, they are fair questions.
Cancer does not fundamentally change your brain the way autism does. My daughter has challenges that neurotypicals do not,
neurotypicals? You mean people without autism?
but she also sees the world differently and some of those differences are positives rather than negatives.
I should learn more about these positives.
I suppose you could say that cancer changes your attitude and maybe you find some positives in that, but it doesn’t fundamentally alter who you are as a person the way autism does.
Again, something I need to know more about.
Another way to look at is this - if I could go back and have my first daughter not be stillborn, would I? I don’t know, because it would change the course of our history. Our second child might have been a boy instead of a girl. We might have only had one child, and almost certainly wouldn’t have had three…so our younger daughter would basically cease to exist. “Curing” my daughter’s autism would essentially erase her from this world, replaced by a different girl.
Here we are talking about the problems of altering history as opposed to the issues of curing something. I’d love to go back in time and break my father’s fall so he’d still be with us, but I don’t think I should be allowed to mess with history like that.
Lastly, the argument that she should be the one to have the choice is a compelling one, however I don’t think she is old enough to make that choice (if the choice were available to us). If we were given a magic wand and were told we could choose to wave it any time in the next ten years, I might feel differently ten years down the road.
But here is the problem. If I am understanding autism at all, in order to truly cure it, it would have to be done sometime early in brain development, way before she was 18 and could decide for herself. This brings up yet another issue. Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions? We are talking about a problem with the mind here. What if “curing” your daughter were the only way to bring her to a state of mind where she could make her own decisions?
- Time
- Post link
Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?
This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.
This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.
And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.
How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?
That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”. Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel). Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.
- Time
- Post link
But deaf people would still have the problem of not being able to hear.
Not to jump straight to crude jokes, but it applies. Everybody has problems.
not everyone has disabilities.
Yes, even if everyone could sign and every phone has a visual ring indicator and so on, people would still have the problem of not being able to hear. And some people would have the trouble of being an asshole (seriously not aimed at anyone, but the concept works so run with it). Deafness is a pretty small problem. Hell, I have combination skin (does anyone remember that commercial?), that’s a problem too.
I think not being able to hear music is huge problem. I don’t think you can compare the trouble of being an ***hole of the trouble of having combination skin to the troubles of not being able to hear.
- Time
- Post link
Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions?
You mentioned earlier you should learn more about autism. Just go with that 😉
- Time
- Post link
Damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Fuck everybody.
😉
Well, autism isn’t something that you can “cure” in somebody. Now, if it were focused on determining specific causes and means of prevention, that would be different.
How do you know we won’t be able to cure in the future(maybe a couple hundred years from now)?
Well, to answer the question seriously and completely requires a bit of a historical disability rights primer. You don’t have to agree with this 100%, I’m just presenting this as background information.
The easiest gateway to understanding is to consider the deaf community, cochlear implants, etc. Deafness can be caused by maladies, but it’s not a malady in itself. Some proportion of the human population has always been deaf, and the deaf community considers itself simply part of the natural variation in humanity–not that much different than variations in height–there’s a bell curve, but not sitting at the average is simply not a problem that needs addressing. That’s not to say that a society designed for the middle of the bell curve doesn’t present difficulties for them, but those difficulties are the things to be managed, not the people. i.e. tall/short people may have a hard time finding clothes, being at the right height for photo booths, etc, but those are problems that can be managed. Similarly, deaf people can run into issues talking to people who don’t understand their language. The solutions in those scenarios would be teaching more people to sign, using interpreters, or–technology FTW–texting.
But then there’s things like cochlear implants. They don’t remove the barriers for deafness, they remove the deafness, which is a different thing entirely. You don’t have to know very much about deaf culture to see how this presents a real threat to deaf identity. There’s at least one documentary about the bitter and divisive struggle that has raged over cochlear implants. To deaf community activists, it’s very much like someone invented a cure for blackness, and sells it with the promise of how much easier it will be when you can hail cabs, get help from the police, and make it through in-person job interviews. All of these promises quite possibly being true, but missing the larger point.
Autism is in a similar place. It’s not neurotypical, but it’s within the natural variation of humanity. Many of the problems are simply with interacting with the society at large, and can be addressed individually without changing the identity of the person.
Anyway, that’s the background on that. Again, there’s a whole lot of wild twists and cul-de-sacs I avoided to keep things as simple as possible. So basically, “curing autism” is not something some people would want to pursue even if it were scientifically feasible, but “things that make being autistic in a non-autistic world a lot easier” are.
Great post, not something we think about much.
Obviously great lengths should be taken to prevent stigmatizing people and we should be proud of the people they are, not the ones they “should” be. However, it’s hard to imagine everyone with a disability thinks the same way. What about the deaf people who want to hear? Should “cures” be shunned by the larger community even when some would welcome them?
Of course, going back to autism, there’s nothing as simple as a “cure” there. These things being compared are all very different. Even though there are similarities, the differences are such that they can’t all be necessarily treated in the same manner. It’s a complicated topic on a number of levels.
- Time
- Post link
Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?
This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.
This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.
And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.
How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?
That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”.
But race, and sexual orientation are not in a bucket called “disabilities”, deafness is.
Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel).
Unless you are going to try to argue that deafness is not in fact a disability, I don’t see that parallel.
Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.
What about curing a disability?
- Time
- Post link
Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?
This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.
This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.
And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.
How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?
That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”. Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel). Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.
I completely appreciate those who view their disabilities as identities. Much power to them.
But I’m not sure about the idea that every “problem” is an identity and thus shouldn’t be “cured.” Should people with poor vision not wear contacts (or glasses for that matter)? Should people with bad teeth not get braces?
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
One could probably make the argument that if every deaf person was cured, the uniqueness of deaf culture would be lost.
I was listening to the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy radio series last night, (I just found a long misplaced CD with MP3’s of it recently) and there was a whole bit about people using simulated maladies in order to motivate them to achieve great things. (Real diseases long having been conquered, leaving the medical community seeking new forms of income.) One character even has a gizmo that instills a fake fear of pursuit to run faster. Douglas Adams was truly ahead of the curve.
Where were you in '77?
- Time
- Post link
But here is the problem. If I am understanding autism at all, in order to truly cure iy, it would have to be done sometime early in brain development, way before she was 18 and could decide for herself. This brings up yet another issue. Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions? We are talking about a problem with the mind here. What if “curing” your daughter were the only way to bring her to a state of mind where she could make her own decisions?
Autism doesn’t render someone incapable of making their own decisions, it’s a spectrum. There are many autistic people smarter than you or I who are more than capable of making decisions.
- Time
- Post link
However, it’s hard to imagine everyone with a disability thinks the same way. What about the deaf people who want to hear? Should “cures” be shunned by the larger community even when some would welcome them?
At least WRT cochlear implants, many deaf people do in fact opt for the implants, and (at least as far as I know–I’m not Mr. Cochlear Implant) the cures are not shunned by the larger community at all. A large part (maybe most) of the deaf community treats them like poison, but almost all of the hearing community treats them like “We fixed your deafness. You’re welcome.” And later “We have no idea why you’re being so unreasonable, just get the implants and stop asking us for interpreters. It’s not necessary anymore.”
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Great post. If someone gave me a magic wand and said I could “cure” my daughter today, I wouldn’t do it, because she’d no longer be the girl I love, she’d be someone different.
I see multiple problems with that approach. One is, should you have the right decide she shouldn’t have “the cure” if one existed? What if she would want to be cured?
That’s really up to the person. I know I wouldn’t want to be cured if the option was available, and that’s because…
Another is, why wouldn’t she be the girl you love?
I think it influences my personality a lot. Being “cured” would be taking a part of me out, it would figuratively make me a different person.
- Time
- Post link
Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.
What about curing a disability?
As I think I’ve said before, in their lexicon, disabilities are identities. Deafness is a subset of disabilities. Therefore, from that viewpoint, deafness is an identity.
- Time
- Post link
However, it’s hard to imagine everyone with a disability thinks the same way. What about the deaf people who want to hear? Should “cures” be shunned by the larger community even when some would welcome them?
At least WRT cochlear implants, many deaf people do in fact opt for the implants, and (at least as far as I know–I’m not Mr. Cochlear Implant) the cures are not shunned by the larger community at all. A large part (maybe most) of the deaf community treats them like poison, but almost all of the hearing community treats them like “We fixed your deafness. You’re welcome.” And later “We have no idea why you’re being so unreasonable, just get the implants and stop asking us for interpreters. It’s not necessary anymore.”
Ah I see the issue.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
Great post. If someone gave me a magic wand and said I could “cure” my daughter today, I wouldn’t do it, because she’d no longer be the girl I love, she’d be someone different.
I see multiple problems with that approach. One is, should you have the right decide she shouldn’t have “the cure” if one existed? What if she would want to be cured? Another is, why wouldn’t she be the girl you love? I mean, you don’t love her just because she has autism right? If she had never had autism, you still would have loved her, right? Also how would she be someone different? She would just be your daughter without autism. Your daughter is defined by more than just autism. She a person and would still be that same person if her autism were cured. If your daughter had cancer and that got cured, would she be someone different after she was cured? Myself, if I had kid with autism and there was a cure, I’d want him/her to have it(but I will not be so arrogant to deny the possibility that my opinion would be altered if I actually had a child with autism). Why would I want to deny him/her the opportunity live free of autism, to be free of all of its problems?
Call me stupid, clueless, bigoted or whatever, but I don’t get it.
edit: I really hope I haven’t offended by any of what I said in this post, because that wasn’t my intent. Keep in mind that I have no family members with autism. I don’t know anyone that does. So if I have offended, it is because of my own ignorance of the issues.
I’m not offended, they are fair questions.
Cancer does not fundamentally change your brain the way autism does. My daughter has challenges that neurotypicals do not,
neurotypicals? You mean people without autism?
Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurotypical
Another way to look at is this - if I could go back and have my first daughter not be stillborn, would I? I don’t know, because it would change the course of our history. Our second child might have been a boy instead of a girl. We might have only had one child, and almost certainly wouldn’t have had three…so our younger daughter would basically cease to exist. “Curing” my daughter’s autism would essentially erase her from this world, replaced by a different girl.
Here we are talking about the problems of altering history as opposed to the issues of curing something. I’d love to go back in time and break my father’s fall so he’d still be with us, but I don’t think I should be allowed to mess with history like that.
My point is that simply “curing” an autistic person would not just be a simple do-it-and-it’s-over thing (assuming a cure existed) and that it has ripple effects, and rather large ones at that. Choosing to go back and have my first daughter survive would change everything that came after it, and so would “curing” my autistic daughter.
Lastly, the argument that she should be the one to have the choice is a compelling one, however I don’t think she is old enough to make that choice (if the choice were available to us). If we were given a magic wand and were told we could choose to wave it any time in the next ten years, I might feel differently ten years down the road.
But here is the problem. If I am understanding autism at all, in order to truly cure iy, it would have to be done sometime early in brain development, way before she was 18 and could decide for herself. This brings up yet another issue. Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions? We are talking about a problem with the mind here. What if “curing” your daughter were the only way to bring her to a state of mind where she could make her own decisions?
My daughter has Asperger’s and is high functioning. She can make decisions already, but at her age I wouldn’t want her making lots of unimportant non-Asperger’s related decisions just because of her age (like if she should watch 14 hours of tv today). My statement was more in relation to the fact that she’s too young to be making certain decisions, independent of her neuro condition.
- Time
- Post link
And as I’m sure Frink can attest, “high functioning” is problematic label. It basically means you can often navigate the world and even pass for neurotypical. It also means when you tell people you’re autistic and need some sort of accommodation, you get the side-eye like you’re either making it up or being too demanding. Like when Rex Tillerson wants everyone in the State Department to know he doesn’t like to make eye contact, and the liberal blogs go off on him and I think to myself, “Yeah, like that.”
- Time
- Post link
Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions?
You mentioned earlier you should learn more about autism. Just go with that 😉
I stated that badly. What I should have asked was "Are there cases where autism renders people incapable of making their own decisions.
- Time
- Post link
It also means when you tell people you’re autistic and need some sort of accommodation, you get the side-eye like you’re either making it up or being too demanding.
LOL!
Yeah, I have some experience with that.
- Time
- Post link
Are people with autism capable of making their own decisions?
You mentioned earlier you should learn more about autism. Just go with that 😉
I stated that badly. What I should have asked was "Are there cases where autism renders people incapable of making their own decisions.
Possibly, but not in any of the cases I’ve known (but I’m just Random Internet Dude, not Autism Specialist Dude). Younger than 18, they’re a minor, over 18 they’re good to go. The problem of course is that people with significant neurological impairment are often more hidden from view, so people don’t know about them.
- Time
- Post link
Maybe, but shouldn’t the cure be there for those that want it?
This gets into the weeds pretty fast. The problem is not necessarily the “cure” per se. It’s the subtext that anyone who doesn’t opt for it is being unreasonable. It’s the issues that arise when people stop spending money on ADA compliance when you could just take a pill for it. It’s the minority group becoming even more invisible as their numbers diminish. It’s the loss of cultural connections between family members.
This are problems that have to be dealt with, but I can’t see this problems are justification for denying “the cure” to those that want it.
And of course it’s treating a disability as if it were a disease.
How about we treat a disability as a disability instead of a person’s race, or religion?
That’s not going to fly with this group. Race, religion, sexual orientation, and disabilities are all in a bucket called “identities”. Yes, they’re different from each other, but the basic concept of curing an identity is problematic (and people seriously also try to cure sexual orientation like a disease, and disability advocates see that as a parallel). Curing a disease, no problem. Curing an identity, them’s fighting words.
I completely appreciate those who view their disabilities as identities. Much power to them.
But I’m not sure about the idea that every “problem” is an identity and thus shouldn’t be “cured.” Should people with poor vision not wear contacts (or glasses for that matter)? Should people with bad teeth not get braces?
How about this, what about transgendered people. One could argue their transgender is part of their identity. So should they be denied a sex change operation? You could argue such is a “cure”, just like allowing a deaf person to hear.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
One could probably make the argument that if every deaf person was cured, the uniqueness of deaf culture would be lost.
To that I again answer with this. How do you justify denying the woman in the video the ability to hear?