Autism Blog - Autistic « Left Brain/Right Brain

05 Feb 2009

Author: Sullivan
Comments: 105

Autism

Autistic

This is one of those posts where the idea has been rolling around in my head for a very long time. For whatever reason, I feel the need to finally put it into words.

There is a struggle going on as to whether the word “autistic” is a valid now. As in, “Autistics deserve better”. There is a big push for “person first” language such as “people with autism deserve better”.

I’ll admit, I use both.

I’ll also admit, I think that people with autism deserve to have the vote in how they can refer to themselves and how they want others to refer to them.

Arguments against “autistic” range from silly (“autistic isn’t in the dictionary”) to something I can at least understand, if not fully agree with (“person first language honors the person, not the condition”).

On example of the push for person-first language cam in the last year or so. New York State passed a law requiring person first language in official documents. One autistic I know pointed out to me that groups such as the Society for the Blind or the Society for the Deaf, for example, might not appreciate the idea. Think of changing the name to “Society for people with blindess”. Any reason to do that?

Much of the discussion of “person first” in regards to autism, I am fairly sure, based on the nature of the term “Mental Retardation”. Once we hear “mental retardation”, it is hard to not hear “Mentally Retarded”, “Retarded” or the word that was discussed a lot in 2008: “Retard”.

“Retard” is vile and pejorative. It is an ugly playground taunt that has no place on the playground and unfortunately many adults never left behind. It has tainted the term “Mental Retardation”. Journals now recommend avoiding the term “Mentally Retarded”. Here is an excerpt from the Information for Authors on the American Journal of Mental Retardation (AJMR) website:

When context makes it clear whether an author is referring to people with mental retardation or when it is otherwise unnecessary to refer to intellectual level or diagnostic category, authors should use the most descriptive generic terms, such as children, students, or persons, without using qualifiers such as “with mental retardation,” “with handicaps,” or “with developmental disabilities.” Under no circumstances should retarded be used as a noun. Prepositional constructions such as “students with mental retardation,” or “individuals who have mental retardation’ are preferred over adjectival constructions such as “mentally retarded people,” except when clear communication dictates occasional use of adjectival designations. Because normal has multiple meanings and may inappropriately imply abnormal where it is not applied, this word should not be used. Instead, more operationally descriptive terms such as “intellectually average pupils” should be used.

(emphasis mine)

There is a lot of interesting stuff there. I like, most of all, the suggestion that generic terms (children, students or persons) be used as much as possible.

An interesting thing to note is that if you look on the journal archive page, you will see that starting in 2009, AJMR changed its name to the American Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AJIDD). This is in part to recognize the broader scope of the journal (which includes papers on autism, fragile-x and other conditions). When I first saw this change, I couldn’t help thinking part of the reason is to get away from the term “Mental Retardation” as well and this is confirmed by an editorial in the first AJIDD issue:

The Journal has also changed dramatically over the years, with the issues addressed reflecting advances in technology, the advent of new theories and methods in other fields, and changing societal concerns. These influences have also led to a name change for the Journal. In part, the change has been motivated by a desire to avoid the negative connotations that have come to be associated with the term mental retardation. I fully endorse this change in terminology because it reflects our field’s commitment not only to our science but to the people whose lives we hope to improve through our efforts. Quite simply, the change in terminology is a tangible sign of our respect for, and solidarity with, people who have disabilities and their families.

The phrase I focus in upon is “... to avoid the negative connotations that have come to be associated with the term mental retardation.” (emphasis mine)

You see, it wasn’t always that “mental retardation” held as negative a connotation as it does today. More to the point of this post—we don’t have to let “autistic” become negative.

From my vantage point it seems as though if we say, “Don’t call my kid autistic” or “Don’t call me autistic”, we are creating the negative connotation where one doesn’t exist today. What if “the blind” or “the deaf” had complained years ago? Would we now be cringing when we hear the names of societies for “the blind” or “the deaf”?

I am not so disingenuous as to ignore the major difference between deafness, blindness and autism. Of the three, autism is the one associated with intellectual disability and differences in personality. It is a harder battle to keep respect in the connotations of “autistic” than for “blind” or “Deaf”.

But, I for one am not willing to help make “autistic” a bad word.

Link to this post?

If you want to reference this post in your site, use the code below to link to me from your website.

<a href="http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2009/02/autistic/">Autistic</a>

Comments

105 Responses to “Autistic”

Socrates
February 5th, 2009
21:42:12

“Aspie” for me, worse than “Retard” – I know I’m a lone voice. But to use the diminutive of the name of a disorder as a label…

If it was confined to use for us, by us – it’d be less of a problem for me.

But it’d still be a problem.

Like - Dislike
Joeymom
February 5th, 2009
22:00:35

This debate is really about identity politics, and that is something only an individual can really resolve. I have this discussion among other friends… are they “black” or “African-American”? And its a pretty even divide, with everyone have their own reasons for preferring one over the other.

Then there is my son. He isn’t “white.” He’s “apricot.” And he will get upset if you call him “white.”

Like - Dislike
anandamide
February 5th, 2009
23:11:33

I have thus far abstained from referring to myself as a ‘person with homosexuality’.

Like - Dislike
Fleecy
February 5th, 2009
23:46:11

I most often say “autistic people.” I don’t particularly appreciate person-first language (both for reasons Jim Sinclair mentions in the oft-cited articles, and because I just find “person with autism” an incredibly clunky thing to say). I don’t see anything wrong with saying “autistics” or “autists” either (although I find “autist” kind of an awkward word for my mouth)

I also generally use the blanket term “autistic” and not specify any kind of “diagnosis” (autism, asperger’s, etc.) unless it’s been made clear to me that this person I’m talking to/about has a specific preference to be called by something. I often discuss autism-related things with someone who prefers the term “aspie” or “asperger’s” for themselves, and when talking with them I take that into account.

That law about person-first language, while I’m sure well-intended, sounds a bit ridiculous in application. “Person with blindness”? Give me a break. What is wrong with “Blind person” or in an organizational name, simply “Blind”? Especially in an organizational setting where, indeed, a person’s blindness is kind of going to be the focus.

Like - Dislike
Cale
February 6th, 2009
00:03:53

I personally identify as an Aspie, and don’t think I’ve ever used the term “person with Asperger’s”. I will use “person with autism” only when an individual clearly specifies that this is what they prefer to be/ for their child to be called, mostly because of the reasons stated by Jim Sinclair.

Like - Dislike
Bunny
February 6th, 2009
03:44:15

@Socrates

You’re not alone on this one. I also dislike “Aspie.”

Autistic is fine with me. “Person with autism” suggests there is a person, and then something tagging along with that person, autism.

Regardless, a person with autism is an autistic person.

Like - Dislike
Epsilon Semi-Moron
February 6th, 2009
08:24:55

Those AoA twats already wrote a blog called “Ban the A-word” last year, arguing that having Autism is a stigma, and “autistic” is an insult.
Pfff..

I also call myself autistic, hearing “Person has Autism” makes me cringe, because it’s usually accompanied by this patronizing soft language pseudo PC blurb, that George Carlin ridiculed so often.
A good example of this demonstrative “caring” language was the standard reply from Action for Children to complaints about their monster Dan ad. It contained all those usual phrases: “We didn’t mean to offend… sufferers of the disorder… living with the condition… those affected by autism…”
Basically they were saying: “Fuck off and complain to the Ad Standard Council!”

Like - Dislike
Ivar T
February 6th, 2009
09:28:04

I find that sometimes people insist on “people with autism” because they see autism as such a horrid thing not to be so directly associated with one’s personhood, while I personally prefer to see autism regarded as something neutral in it self.

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 6th, 2009
14:38:03

Autistic people, as far as I know, generally prefer “autistic.” I don’t know if someone like Jon Mitchell prefers “person with autism.”

If that’s the case, I would conclude that autistic people who are OK with being autistic prefer the term “autistic” and autistics who long for the mythical cure prefer “person with autism.”

There is a difference between “autistic” and “person with autism.” When you say “person with autism” you are implying that the autistic person is an otherwise normal person with something extra they carry with them. With “autistic” you are conveying that there’s a type of person called an “autistic person.”

Curebies obviously prefer person-first language because of the above.

I can see why people with some disabilities prefer person-first language. When the disability can’t really be separated from who the person is, however, my guess is that person-second language is preferred.

You wouldn’t say “person with blackness” or “person with gayness.” Think about why that would not be taken as an unimportant semantic choice by either black people or gay people.

Like - Dislike
Clay
February 6th, 2009
17:12:27

Joseph said:
“Autistic people, as far as I know, generally prefer “autistic.” I don’t know if someone like Jon Mitchell prefers “person with autism.”

I think that in the minds of Mitchell and his mom, it’s always, “person cursed with autism”. To them, “person with autism” is too neutral and non-judgmental.

Like - Dislike
mayfly
February 6th, 2009
22:00:56

We can say a person has diabetes, is diabetic, or is a diabetic without being controversial. This is because the disease is not seen as the sum total of that person, and no one would argue curing it would be tantamount to murder.

That’s not true with autism. My daughter has a profound disability known as autism, she is autistic, but she is not an autistic nor an autist, She is much more than that. She is a human being, a child of God, not a disease.

Others feel that because of human developmental dynamics autism is so ingrained that cure is impossible or if possible would so drastically change the person that the old person would be killed off.

Autism has not benefitted my daughter in any way. So I support a cure. I don’t see that has making her a new person, but allowing the person she is blossom fully. Nothing would die, the burden of her disease would be lifted from her shoulders;

There have been people who have had their personalities greatly changed by brain tumors who have reverted to their prior selves after the tumors were removed. In these cases law-abiding peaceful people have turned into perpetrators of violent acts. There is no debate over which personality should win out. Of course there is also the problem of the tumor itself which has a good chance of literally rather than figuratively killing the person.

I wonder if a tumor has ever made a violet person loving?

If curing autism would result in such a drastic personality change, that a person would be figuratively killed, can one ask which person has more of a right to live?

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 6th, 2009
22:25:33

If curing autism would result in such a drastic personality change, that a person would be figuratively killed, can one ask which person has more of a right to live?

You didn’t just say that, mayfly. Think about it. What does it say about the right to life of autistic people in general compared to the right to life of non-autistic people?

The right to life should not depend on the person’s characteristics. I don’t think most people would dare advance such an argument. (It’s an interesting point to raise in regards to prenatal genetic testing.)

About the claim that autism has not benefited some autistic people at all, I think it’s not relevant to person-first language. For example, some little people might say that dwarfism has not benefited them at all, yet still dislike “person with dwarfism.”

BTW, when was the last time you met a gay or black person who said they believe in civil rights only because they benefit from being black or gay?

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 6th, 2009
23:10:07

Diabetes (especially Type 2) can be seen as a disease of overweight lazy people. By extension, ‘diabetic’ can be seen as a label of ‘lazy and fat’, thus people can and do attempt to distance themselves from it.

The idea that the label of ‘diabetic’ vs. ‘person with diabeties’ is not seen as a controversial subject does not tally with my clinical experience of people with diabeties.

Not a very smart condition to pick if you’re trying to argue against person-second naming.

Like - Dislike
mayfly
February 6th, 2009
23:22:46

Joseph I know exactly what I wrote. No one is talking about actually taking a life. The question is if there is an autistic personality and a non-autistic personality inside a person which one should be encouraged. I reject that the notion entirely, but those who feel that a cure is tantamount to murder, must in someway agree with it.

I don’t quite understand how the question on civil rights is germane. Are you saying it does not matter whether the person will have better quality of life without autism? Don’t confuse the quality of life with the value of life. Both personalities have equal value. Indeed if I thought there was anything to the two personalities theory then curing would be a much tougher proposition, because I have come to know and love my daughter as she is.

It is very germane to ask even in that case what would be better for her.

As I’ve seen other kids move up the spectrum due to education and maturity, I’ve never seen a child’s personality change. I have seen them become more confident and social, as they are able to throw off much of their chains of autism. They remain on the spectrum, and autism is still burdens them, but its weight is much much less.

Like - Dislike
John
February 6th, 2009
23:54:18

Autism could benefit from more differentiating language, not less, like Eskimos and snow. The spectrum needs to be crafted elegantly in language with perspective so that the needs of the individual are met. To me, Aspie is an insider’s term that conveys self confidence. For those in the early developmental stages, especially those struggling with communication for subsistence needs, I choose a person first description – my child with autism – but labels in general should not be used gratuitously. I don’t think “autistic” needs to become an atomic word. It’s an expedient term that has can be used from a clinical distance, but not by me in how I talk about my family.

Like - Dislike
laurentius-rex
February 7th, 2009
00:19:54

Um gottes willen, bin ich ja das was ich bin und likest thou not, then irrumare te.

peut etre je suis en retard avec quelgue chose, and so are the trains, especially with the snow, CP notwithstanding.

Like - Dislike
Mayfly
February 7th, 2009
00:35:49

Dedj, the whole point was that the terms diabetic and autistic differ from each other in their social contexts.

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 7th, 2009
01:52:55

No one is talking about actually taking a life.

Neither was I. But what you said, mayfly, did imply that an autistic person (assuming you concede this type of person exists) would have less of a right to life than a non-autistic person.

I don’t quite understand how the question on civil rights is germane. Are you saying it does not matter whether the person will have better quality of life without autism?

Call it civil rights, or asking for acceptance of one’s condition or way of being. The point has to do with your view that autism does not have any benefits. Be that as it may, a gay person would generally not argue that homosexuality should be accepted because it provides benefits. Neither would a black person, a woman, a dwarf, etc. Yet, you do appear to make the argument that without benefits, there should be no acceptance. In other words, for autistics to be considered equal, I get the sense that we are required to be better than equal.

As I’ve seen other kids move up the spectrum due to education and maturity

You see it that way. The way I see it, an autistic person grows and matures, just like any other type of person. Would it make sense to say that an NT person moves up the spectrum of intellectual impairment as they grow up? It happens, clearly. A normal adult is generally much more intelligent (without adjustment for age) than a normal child.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 7th, 2009
02:04:38

Except they don’t, that was the point.

Generally, we accept ‘diabetic’ as a neutral term, because a: it’s so prevalant and we’re therefore likely to know someone with it, b: charaties and organisations have done the groundwork to dispel some of the negativity surrounding the label, and c: the debate about labelling of persons with physical conditions is significantly more advanced with positive condition-related self-identity having been around for donkeys years.

This doesn’t mean that the same points of contention surrounding labelling don’t exist for diabetes – it would be silly to claim they aren’t when charaties and organisations have to work so hard to dispel the ‘too much sugar’ and ‘fat and lazy’ stereotypes. People with diabeties can kick up a lot of fuss about the label, because there is still a lot of negativity about it around.

Like - Dislike
Mayfly
February 7th, 2009
03:33:50

Dedj, I think we are fairly close on this. I didn’t consider the link between obesity and Type II Diabetes. However, I don’t think there are many diabetics which would object to a cure as it would change who they are. There is no Encrinodiversity Movement. Saying a person is a diabetic is thge same as saying he has diabetes. Saying a person is an autist)ic) is different than saying the person has autism.

Like - Dislike
Ivar T
February 7th, 2009
15:34:08

It could appear as if there exist an assumption of that a life as autistic would be of less quality than a life as neurotypical.

I find it unscientific to assume any such thing.

Like - Dislike
Ed
February 7th, 2009
18:45:28

It’s a bigger burden for many people due to stereotypes associated with any type of difference/disability that reflects how a person thinks and reasons than the difference/disability itself.

Overcoming another persons prejudices related to what can so easily be associated with your own personality can require the very skills that may be the area the person is less capable of. Often that skill is a limitation based mainly on how most of the dominant majority of people pride themselves….at the expense of others differences.

I think the dangerous treatments and ugly stereotypes for all thinking that is different or seen as less that typical indicates how far people will go to protect their pride.

I don’t think that autistics or anyone else can afford to be seen as needing what isn’t available and what the medical establishment attempts to treat in such dangerous ways.

Like - Dislike
mayfly
February 7th, 2009
18:45:44

Joseph, no matter which personality you choose to develop or suppress you are killing off the other one. So no matter what choice you make you are in a sense “playing God.”

Yes, a person who is low-functioning would have a better quality of life if the disability was removed. I measure this by having friends vs. being alone, being able to communicate vs. not having a voice, starting a family on ones own vs. not developing a long-lasting romantic relationship, caring about the plight of others, instead of lacking the capacity to feel or understand others’ pains, living as a part of society vs. being in an institution.

Now in the hypothetical situation where you have two personalities each with an equal right to come to fore, but only one can, perhaps quality of life is one thing which could be used.

Now the list above is certainly up for debate. Those higher up on the spectrum can and do many of the things which a person with low-functioning autism cannot. Also being NT us absolutely no guarantee that a person will have relationships or care about others.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 7th, 2009
19:39:50

“There is no Encrinodiversity Movement.”

Not strictly true, as there are several organisations , including the Department of Health and equivilant government depertments, that specifically look into the rights of people with diabeties as those right relate to their diabeties. There are even National Service Frameworks (effectively government mandates) dealing with exactly these issues. Ditto for any other major physical condition or the major mental health ones.

We accept condition-related identity in physical conditions precisely because of the work of physiodiversity movements, and because allowing people to identify thier condition as an intrinsic part of how they have become who they consider themselves to be is no longer considered controversial.

The history of societies acceptance of people in wheelchairs, or without vision, or the hearing impaired , is exactly identical to what autism and the neurodiversity movement is undergoing right now. That is, people try to seperate the person and the condition, then people react by pointing out that the charateristics of the condition are seen as intergral to the person when they are displayed by a ‘typical’ person, and that attempting to seperate the person from the condtions is both dispossessing the person and disempowering them.

We only accept the right to self-determine in physical conditions because we (as a society) have already been through this arguement, with the physiodiversity movement(s) winning several key and rather stunning victories.

People with diabeties still try to seperate the social identity of diabeties from the self-identity. In respect to autism, there is no difference. Merely stating ‘they are different’ does not make it so, except in your personal definition.

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 7th, 2009
21:09:23

Yes, a person who is low-functioning would have a better quality of life if the disability was removed.

I don’t dispute that theoretical scenario. I do dispute the idea that it is the only or best way to achieve a better quality of life.

Like - Dislike
Mayfly
February 8th, 2009
17:55:00

Joseph, we can give people better quality of life by being kind and loving and respectful, however the limitations of the person with autism, that can only go so far. If one could lift those limitations and treat the person with kindness, love, and respect that person would have a better quality of life.

Those with fewer limitations are in less need of a cure.

Ed, it is not a prejudice, that a person who cannot take care of himself is not as well off as a person who can. It is not a prejudice to say a person with friends is better off than being alone. But wait, there are people with autism who have friends and live independently. That is a different form of autism then the one I know.

If your only separation from the NT world is that you think differently, how has that resulted in prejudice toward you. Can you give me an example?

Like - Dislike
Ed
February 8th, 2009
18:24:21

No I can’t and won’t attempt to answer a question so loaded.

I am more able and willing to attempt communication when I understand that what I see and can offer is what someone is interested in understanding.

Joseph is giving excellent examples and answers. If you are interested in learning, he’s your best bet.

Like - Dislike
Ivar T
February 8th, 2009
18:58:00

Being autistic first of all means being different – which is neutral in itself. I would be wary of applying more attributes to being autistic such as what it would mean to quality of life and a person’s “limits”. I believe these things are very dependent on the interaction with a person and the person’s environment, and I also believe that certain environments could favorize an autistic mindset over a neurotypical in many respects.

Like - Dislike
daedalus2u
February 8th, 2009
20:14:38

100 years ago, a person who was black would have a better quality of life if the “disability” of being black was removed. That is still true today in many places.

We didn’t know how to remove the “disability” of being black then, and still don’t. By changing society such that being black was not as much of a “disability”, people who are black now have a higher quality of life than blacks did 100 years ago.

We don’t know how to remove the “disability” of autism, but we do know how to change society such that people with autism will have a higher quality of life.

It seems so obvious to me, that we should do what we can do right now to improve the lives of people with autism, rather than wait for a “cure” that may never happen.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 8th, 2009
20:58:24

daedalus, that racial comparison is very offensive to me. There is no way to bring quality of life outside of elimination of mental disability. There’s nothing else to it. The only thing about society that causes the disability is the fact that others have the capability that the mentally disabled lack, and that society doesn’t do enough to prevent impairments from happening.

Basic abilities shouldn’t be held by some people while others are deprived of them. It’s not all about having basic needs of comfort and safety met, but about the dignity of not being deprived of the capabilites that others have.

Like - Dislike
Ivar T
February 8th, 2009
21:24:13

There is no way to bring quality of life outside of elimination of mental disability.

I would not sign this, it makes no sense to me. It could appear as if the author is defining quality of life as solely dependent on the mental disabilities of the individual.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 8th, 2009
22:01:05

Ivar, why don’t you want to discuss the merits of what I said?

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 8th, 2009
22:23:57

the limitations of the person with autism, that can only go so far.

With the limitations of any human being, quality of life can only go so far. If you go back one century, the limitations are even greater; which comes to show that society plays a crucial role in quality of life.

If you live in a desert island, you can have the greatest skills in the world and still have only a marginal quality of life.

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 8th, 2009
22:29:27

There is no way to bring quality of life outside of elimination of mental disability.

Bullcrap, Billy. Read about the quality of life changes of people with Down Syndrome. Read about the deinstitutionalization movement. Read about institutionalization in Kanner (1971) and Kanner (1972).

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 8th, 2009
22:39:32

That’s not enough Joseph. I don’t think enough quality of life has been attained if the impairments remain.

Like - Dislike
Ivar T
February 8th, 2009
22:46:32

Every saturday I get some candy, and it compliments my saturday mood. I see that as something that brings quality to my life.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 8th, 2009
23:03:29

“There is no way to bring quality of life outside of elimination of mental disability.”

Really? This would be a major surprise to professionals working in the health and social care fields, who use multiple measures of QoL that aren’t dependant on severity of symptoms.

“The only thing about society that causes the disability is the fact that others have the capability that the mentally disabled lack”

Well , in a way, because we all lack abilities that others have. It’s the cut off line between ‘accomodated difference’ and ‘unaccomodated difference’ that creates impairments. In autism, this cut off line is part of the diagnostic criteria.

“and that society doesn’t do enough to prevent impairments from happening”

Ah bingo, you’re nearly getting it.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 8th, 2009
23:06:47

“I don’t think enough quality of life has been attained if the impairments remain.”

Luckily for us (and our health budget) it’s not up to you. You really would do well to listen to Joseph.

Sorry, but I must ask – what area is your clinical, academic or practice experience in?

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 8th, 2009
23:15:07

BTW, daeadalus is correct in his analogy.

What mayfly said could be applied to a lot of things. If you can turn a black person into a white person, they will have better opportunities and thus a better quality of life. If you turn a woman into a man, they will tend to earn more. If you turn a gay person into a straight person, they will have better odds of marrying and lower odds of getting AIDS, etc.

All of those are true, but they are misguided approaches. They are also nonsensical to even consider as practical solutions.

BTW, the black race was seen at one time by some people as a kind of medical condition. It’s not difficult to find references. Let me quote a couple of passages from this (1864):

This premature union of the bones of the skull may give a clue to much of the mental inferiority which is seen in the Negro race…

And…

It has been found, however, that the grey substance of the brain of a Negro is of a darker color than that of the European, that the whole brain is of a smokey tint, and that the pia matter contains brown spots, which are never found in the brain of a European.

How do you explain this stuff? Clearly, it has to do with the social construction of race at the time, and social constructions change.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 8th, 2009
23:23:42

“Really? This would be a major surprise to professionals working in the health and social care fields” What do they care? Unaccommodated and accommodated “differences” don’t make any sense, and have nothing to do with impairments. It’s not fair for someone to have a useful ability while someone else doesn’t, especially basic abilities.

“Luckily for us (and our health budget) it’s not up to you. You really would do well to listen to Joseph.” Who is it up to then? Why shouldn’t it be up to me? What do you want done? I don’t want to listen to him and endure the oppression of his intentions.

“Sorry, but I must ask – what area is your clinical, academic or practice experience in?” None. I don’t need any of that to know the common sense about the way things are.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 8th, 2009
23:38:06

Being black, female, or gay, don’t bring lack of capability leading to disability. Societal chauvinism caused the lack success they achieved. Mental disability isn’t anything else besides mental disability. Society doesn’t cause it, nor can changes in societal attitudes eliminate it.

Phony racist science from over a century ago doesn’t call into question whether mental disability is a disability or not. There is no sensible way to think so. Disparities in success between mentally disabled and non-mentally disabled people, aren’t due to anything besides uneven distribution of abilities among people. Societal actions that don’t interfere with the capacity to learn can’t make it better.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 8th, 2009
23:40:38

Impairments are unaccomadated differences. You don’t have an impairment until you are unable to meet a demand for a ability you don’t have. Bear in mind, the style with which you display that ability is also part of the demand.

“I don’t want to listen to him and endure the oppression of his intentions”

Then there is no point you being here.

“None. I don’t need any of that to know the common sense about the way things are.”

Then get some. You will very quickly learn that your ‘common sense’ isn’t actually all that sensible, realistic or even applicable outside the attendant value system.

If you’re not willing to learn, and not willing to listen, then this discussion is nothing more than us watching you do the blog equivilant of putting your fingers in your ears.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 8th, 2009
23:42:52

“Being black, female, or gay, don’t bring lack of capability leading to disability.”

No, but the attitudes of the time did. That is the point.

“Societal chauvinism caused the lack success they achieved”

Well done

Now, let’s see if you can put the two points together…..

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 8th, 2009
23:52:17

“No, but the attitudes of the time did. That is the point.” No, attitudes can’t make someone disabled. Preventing someone from doing something doesn’t necessarily happen through removing their ability to do so.

Like - Dislike
daedalus2u
February 8th, 2009
23:56:16

It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do little – do what you can.

Sydney Smith

To rephrase it for those without enough imagination to understand what it means in this context:

It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing [for people with autism] because you can [not cure them and make them NT] – do what you can.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
00:01:30

Dedj, get someone outside of these forums to agree that what you say is true or realistic. What is an “unaccommodated difference”? How does a lack of an ability not directly lead to an impairment?

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 9th, 2009
01:14:02

“No, attitudes can’t make someone disabled.”

Total nonsense, we don’t operate in a vacuum. You really desperately need to listen to Joseph on this point.

“Preventing someone from doing something doesn’t necessarily happen through removing their ability to do so.”

Uh, being unable to do something that would be expected for your age, gender and culture is the very essence of ‘being disabled’. Note the word ‘culture’.

“Dedj, get someone outside of these forums to agree that what you say is true or realistic.”

Why? You haven’t, thus I’m working down at you level. Besides, it’s called the Social Model. Try looking it up one day.

“What is an “unaccommodated difference”? ”

Is this a serious question? It’s a difference in ability that is not accomodated – i.e. it lies outside societies tolerance, thus making it eligible to be an impairment.

“How does a lack of an ability not directly lead to an impairment?”

Because if there is no social obligation to have that ability, then lacking in that ability is accepted, thus there is no everyday situation in which one can be ‘impaired’. Again, one can only be impaired if there is a demand for that ability. Otherwise, you’re just different, not ‘disabled’.

I think you’re getting off of your main point, whatever that was to begin with.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
01:31:20

“Total nonsense, we don’t operate in a vacuum. You really desperately need to listen to Joseph on this point.” How can you prove your point?

“Uh, being unable to do something that would be expected for your age, gender and culture is the very essence of ‘being disabled’. Note the word ‘culture’.” I’m tired of you dodging what I’m saying. One can still be able to do something but be prevented from doing so by somebody. Not being allowed to do something isn’t the same thing as not being able to do it.

The social model isn’t valid and makes no sense at all. “Is this a serious question? It’s a difference in ability that is not accomodated – i.e. it lies outside societies tolerance, thus making it eligible to be an impairment.” Yes it was. Differences in ability cannot be accommodated. Tolerance doesn’t have anything to do with it, and has nothing to do with something being an impairment or not. There aren’t really any useful abilities that aren’t demanded.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 9th, 2009
02:13:41

“How can you prove your point?”

That we don’t operate in a vacuum? It would be an insult to you for me to presume that was your question.

“I’m tired of you dodging what I’m saying”

But I’m not, you’re describing the mechanism behind what I’m saying to a T, but you’re veering off at a tangent at the last second everytime. One could make my arguement using your descriptions of how society works and not notice a difference.

I will have to say again, wheter or not a inability to do something is important enough to warrent calling it an ‘impairment’, is dependant on the requirement to do it and do it in that style.

Disability is simply a social statement saying ‘you can’t do what we want you to’.

“Not being allowed to do something isn’t the same thing as not being able to do it”

Oh , but it is, if the way you do it isn’t ‘allowed’. Try following the history behind disability access for an example of this.

“Differences in ability cannot be accommodated”

But they already are, as part of how society functions. Again, the recommendations by Joseph would be very, very helpful for you here. I can not stress that enough.

I’m getting the feeling that you’ve either not presented this arguement to other people before, or that you haven’t listened to what they’ve said. Either way you appear to be sorely lacking in relevant education and experience.

I’m not going to sit here and hand out free education to someone who has stated a disinclination to learn. Especially not if I’m going to be accused of ‘dodging’ the very questions I’ve taken time out of my day to answer.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
02:37:24

“I will have to say again, wheter or not a inability to do something is important enough to warrent calling it an ‘impairment’, is dependant on the requirement to do it and do it in that style.” There aren’t many abilities that lack importance enough to not be impairments. What do you think about abilities that are important?

“Oh , but it is, if the way you do it isn’t ‘allowed’. Try following the history behind disability access for an example of this.” Someone still can do something even if they may not from someone keeping them from doing it in their own way. I doubt that such disallowing happens a lot.

“But they already are, as part of how society functions. Again, the recommendations by Joseph would be very, very helpful for you here.” How can mental disabilities be accommodated? What is so helpful about Joseph’s recommendations?

“Either way you appear to be sorely lacking in relevant education and experience” I don’t need your reeducation. I don’t need any other experience. You haven’t been straightforward with responses because of your mentioning of irrelevant situations.

Like - Dislike
daedalus2u
February 9th, 2009
02:45:19

Billy, what if the posters started posting in a language you didn’t understand and ignored your requests to post in a language you did understand?

Not understanding the language is a disability that can be accommodated by using a language that you do understand.

You are saying that the only solution is to teach you the language so that you are not disabled. Having everyone communicate in a language that you do understand isn’t good enough. Unless you understand every language that can possibly be used, you will always be disabled.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
02:55:38

daedalus, I’m not talking about different languages here. It’s not comparable.

Like - Dislike
daedalus2u
February 9th, 2009
03:19:10

Billy, according to your comment above it is directly comparable.

daedalus, that racial comparison is very offensive to me. There is no way to bring quality of life outside of elimination of mental disability. There’s nothing else to it. The only thing about society that causes the disability is the fact that others have the capability that the mentally disabled lack, and that society doesn’t do enough to prevent impairments from happening.

Basic abilities shouldn’t be held by some people while others are deprived of them. It’s not all about having basic needs of comfort and safety met, but about the dignity of not being deprived of the capabilites that others have.

daedalus, that racial comparison is very offensive to me. There is no way to bring quality of life outside of elimination of [language] disability. There’s nothing else to it. The only thing about society that causes the [language] disability is the fact that others have the capability [to speak the language] that the [language] disabled lack, and that society doesn’t do enough to prevent [language] impairments from happening.

Basic abilities [such as language] shouldn’t be held by some people while others are deprived of them. It’s not all about having basic needs of comfort and safety met, but about the dignity of not being deprived of the capabilites [to speak and understand language] that others have.

Not being able to speak a language means not being able to interact, have friends and be a participant in society. How is that not a disability? How is other people using language that the language disabled person can understand not an accomodation?

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
03:44:24

daedalus, I don’t think this is amusing how you twist around my words. Think about the people who lack capability to communicate with and understand any language because their brains are scrambled. Mental disability isn’t a joke. I’m not even going to explain the ridiculousness of what you just said and straighten it out, when you already know the answer.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 9th, 2009
03:47:54

“There aren’t many abilities that lack importance enough to not be impairments”

I can think of several, dependant on context. Swimming for example. Utterly unimportant in a urban setting, rather impairing in a fishing culture. Running in older people is another, great skill for kids, irrelevant in a care setting.

“I doubt that such disallowing happens a lot.”

Oh, holy f*ck. You really do need to read up on the history of disability. The only reason we have got to the state that we are in now with regards to disability access, is precisely because of people removing these ‘disallowances’ (a term you introduced by the way – there does not need to be active ‘disallowance’)

“How can mental disabilities be accommodated? ”

Go ask you local dyslexia teacher, or local autism service, or student services at your local college. There’s a wealth of information that you’ve obviously not bothered to tap into.

“I don’t need your reeducation. I don’t need any other experience.”

Evidently you do. Your arguements are painfully outdated, and rather limited in their concrete absoluteness. It’s embarrasing to remember when I used to make the exact same arguements.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 9th, 2009
03:53:01

“Think about the people who lack capability to communicate with and understand any language because their brains are scrambled.”

I deal with such people on a weekly basis.

You use another modaility, or accept that they can’t communicate and move on to what they can do. Bang, half the ‘impairment’ disappears through simply changing the demand for it.

daedauls is bang on with his language example.

But of course, knowing all this requires study and experience, two things you’ve stated you don’t have and don’t want.

There is no reason to debate further if you’re just going to be an self-important ass about it.

Goodbye.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
04:14:34

Dedj, nothing you say disproves that mental disability is inevitably horrible. Alternative ways of doing things, accommodations and crap, won’t get rid of the impairments. Accommodations don’t help enough and they don’t provide a way for the person to be able to do the thing to be done. Period.

“I deal with such people on a weekly basis.” I wish you didn’t.

“You use another modaility, or accept that they can’t communicate and move on to what they can do.” There is no other modality. Accepting that they can’t do it is unacceptable. There is no moving on.

His language example makes me sick. I have experienced real circumstances. I don’t need your pompous, unvalidated, and out of touch innuendos.

Like - Dislike
daedalus2u
February 9th, 2009
04:55:19

I am reminded of something I read many years ago, I looked for it but couldn’t find it. It was a story about a woman whose mother took thalidomide when she was in utero and she ended up not having any arms. That was her only disability, and she had nearly fully compensated for it by using her feet. Her feet and toes had the dexterity of hands and she used them as another would use hands. Because she had no arms, she would zip up her dress in front and then turn it around.

She was married, with a child and did the shopping. She wore sandals and would take her foot out of the sandal, pick up produce and put it in her cart.

One day the manager of the grocery store where she shopped came to her and said that some of the other customers were bothered by her using her feet to pick up produce, that they thought it was unsanitary. It wasn’t, she washed her feet as often as other people wash their hands. She was always very careful to only touch the pieces of produce that she was purchasing.

She could tell that the manager didn’t believe what he was saying, and that he felt terrible telling her that she couldn’t shop at his store, but she knew that he would lose customers if she continued to shop there, and it was a small local shop that couldn’t afford to lose customers.

I don’t remember much else from it, but here was a woman who had a disability (no arms), had compensated for that disability (by using her feet), but was prevented from participating because the store wouldn’t let her pick up things with her feet. She didn’t need artificial arms, what she needed was for people to not freak out when she used her feet to pick things up.

Like - Dislike
Ed
February 9th, 2009
05:21:30

I remember an interview on 60 minutes similar to that a long time ago. I couldn’t find that one.

This may be the one you were refering to in a video:

http://www.videosift.com/video.....s-shopping

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 9th, 2009
13:50:15

No, attitudes can’t make someone disabled.

You really like to say stuff that is obviously untrue, don’t you Billy? Countless examples have been cited showing that societal attitudes can and have disabled people.

Without any society whatsoever, you’d be severely disabled with little quality of life.

Like - Dislike
storkdok
February 9th, 2009
16:10:29

Daedalus, that is the best example I have ever read. If you don’t mind, may I borrow it?

Like - Dislike
daedalus2u
February 9th, 2009
18:01:36

Go ahead. It isn’t my example, I just remembered seeing it. It may have been 60 minutes that I saw it on.

The video only gave one example where a ticket taker at a movie wouldn’t take her ticket. It isn’t clear how she was supposed to see the movie she had aready paid for in that circumstance.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
18:10:11

“You really like to say stuff that is obviously untrue, don’t you Billy? Countless examples have been cited showing that societal attitudes can and have disabled people.” The examples didn’t prove it. Attitudes can’t weaken someone’s skills or ability to learn. Attitudes can’t weaken someone’s brain. It doesn’t make sense. You don’t define truth. There’s no logic to that attempt to make real mental disability seem like it’s no problem.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 9th, 2009
18:22:39

“Dedj, Alternative ways of doing things, accommodations and crap, won’t get rid of the impairments. Accommodations don’t help enough and they don’t provide a way for the person to be able to do the thing to be done. Period.”

Except a significant portion of our health and social care budgets do exactly that. Ditto for the education budget. I’ve seen and been responsible for putting exactly these things in place, and I’ve directly seen the effects. You really are talking crap here.

“There is no other modality. Accepting that they can’t do it is unacceptable. There is no moving on.”

Wow, that would sure be a surprise to people using ASL, BSL, makaton, Braille, Moon, signalong, writing, touch talking, FC, ACD’s, objects of reference, motoric communication….......I don’t need to go on.

Again, you are utterly clueless, and obviously inexperienced.

“His language example makes me sick. I have experienced real circumstances.”

Many of the people here have experienced disability personally, including myself, but your personal feelings are irrelevant to the arguement anyway.

Also I’ve told you exactly what my arguement is called, and even invited you to look it up yourself. I’ve even given you hints about who you can see locally about it. You’ve thus far made nothing but self-referential and self-important statements and statements of deliberate refusal to seek any outside source what so ever. For you to call me ‘unvalidated’ is an absolute laugh.

This is just getting sadder and sadder. I hope, but doubt, your next response is worth reading.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 9th, 2009
18:27:11

“Attitudes can’t weaken someone’s skills or ability to learn.”

Durrrr! Performance is affected by volition, wolition is directly affected by self-efficacy! Self-efficacy is affected by negative experiences! Attitudes contribute to experiences!

This is basic pysch and occupational science!

This shouldn’t be so hard for you to grasp!

What exactly don’t you get?

Have you even bothered to look any of this up anywhere? To ask anyone?

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
18:40:26

“Except a significant portion of our health and social care budgets do exactly that. Ditto for the education budget.” I doubt they have made any breakthroughs. They can’t get rid of many impairments.

“Wow, that would sure be a surprise to people using ASL, BSL, makaton, Braille, Moon, signalong, writing, touch talking, FC, ACD’s, objects of reference, motoric communication….......I don’t need to go on” Who that is mentally disabled would want to settle for that stuff, whichever of those things apply to the mentally disabled?

“Many of the people here have experienced disability personally, including myself, but your personal feelings are irrelevant to the arguement anyway.” I doubt many people here have experienced disability, much less mental disability. I know that I don’t matter when it comes to the way you want things to be.

How is self-efficacy undermined by negative experiences? How do lack of basic skills/abilities not inevitably lead to impairments/mental disability? I wouldn’t look these things up as I don’t expect to see such things taken seriously.

Like - Dislike
daedalus2u
February 9th, 2009
19:26:56

Billy, Why don’t your read this paper where they show exactly that, that exposure to attitudes does affect mental abilities, in this specific case math performance in women decreases when they are led to believe (falsely) that math ability is related to genes on the Y chromosome.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/.....4/5798/435

This is a specific example where “attitudes” (the idea that women are not good at math because genes for math are on the Y chromosome) “weaken someone’s skills” (those women’s ability at math).

Like - Dislike
Ed
February 9th, 2009
19:44:53

Sometimes a the marketing of a disabling attitude doesn’t require as much thought as it does just knowing how to demand from someone in need that they learn the habit of impulse buying.

Such as: We operate with categorical scarce resources when defending those who we may consider weak in order to preserve those resources for the already proven, deserving strong.

As long as won’t (or convincingly show that you can’t) speak for yourself, you can sell us your right to dignity and self-determination with your complacency.

If however you are able to define your needs in an what we determine as an overly articulate manner, we may determine that you are smart enough to not need any assistance at all and capable enough of committing the evils associated with deceit.

For being presumed deceitful in this way, your punishment will come in a different form (or at least with a different label) and you will again define yourself to us (and what we consider the rest of civilized society), as a dependent, obsolete, and an unnecessary element to “our” society.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
20:16:50

daedalus, removing someone’s motivation doesn’t decrease their ability to learn. Performance doesn’t always reflect ability. And that example doesn’t apply to many other things.

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 9th, 2009
21:07:57

removing someone’s motivation doesn’t decrease their ability to learn.

Are you for real? I don’t think you know the first thing about the factors involved in a person’s ability to learn. Heck, I’m no expert in that field, but I can easily see the above is nonsense.

Go to Google Scholar and look up “motivation and learning.”

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
21:24:06

Intelligence isn’t determined by motivation. If someone loses the motivation or the proclivities needed to learn, there isn’t a reason why those things can’t be restored so they can learn. This doesn’t apply to innate ability to learn. Mental deficiency doesn’t result from someone discouraging them to learn or perform. Basic abilities can’t be diminished by removing motivation.

Like - Dislike
Ed
February 9th, 2009
21:37:56

“Basic abilities can’t be diminished by removing motivation.”

What are basic abilities?

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 9th, 2009
21:55:13

This doesn’t apply to innate ability to learn.

Let’s assume this “innate ability to learn” construct exists, and it is fixed at birth for your entire lifetime.

Why does it matter that an action reduces your actual ability to learn and not your “innate” ability to learn? How is that relevant to what we’re discussing?

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
22:14:42

You shouldn’t act like innate ability to learn may not be true.
“Why does it matter that an action reduces your actual ability to learn and not your “innate” ability to learn? How is that relevant to what we’re discussing?” I don’t know. I wouldn’t consider such actions as decreasing “actual ability” to learn. It isn’t relevant to this discussion, and I didn’t want the topic of motivations/mindsets to learn to be brought up.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
22:23:50

Ed, don’t pretend you don’t know. Think about things like speaking, understanding how to use language, using basic home appliances, how to shop, remembering to do things, driving, reading, writing, etc. How would you like going without those abilities?

Like - Dislike
Ed
February 9th, 2009
22:30:26

I’m not pretending. I took the statement as your own definition and wanted you to clarify it. It is your own definition and it is filled with prejudice and assumption with no interest in understanding.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
22:34:39

Ed, it’s not filled with prejudice and assumption. Period. No sane person would dispute the definition that I just said.

Like - Dislike
Ed
February 9th, 2009
22:38:48

I dispute it. It’s false.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
22:55:07

Ed, no way it’s not. You wouldn’t dispute it to many other people, or in regards to your own wants.

Like - Dislike
Ed
February 9th, 2009
23:06:38

I’ve disputed it and proven it’s false for nearly 5 decades to everyone who has ever been in contact with me in any way.. So has have the rest of the population you claim to be advocating for.

Your insults are outrageous. You have no basis for what you claim and no interest in knowing. I assume that you’re lack of interest in learning here is an indication and the result of denying a lot of things for a long time.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
23:17:33

Ed, you haven’t proven anything false. Your pompous attitude doesn’t make what you say right. Quit disputing reality. I don’t want to be reeducated and indoctrinated into your oppressive nonsense. Nobody can dispute what basic abilities are or their importance.

You deserve any insult I wish to throw at you, and I haven’t thrown the insults at you that I’d like to. The insults of your arguments sicken me. I know what it’s like to be mentally disabled from enduring it for a long time, so I’m not denying anything fundamental.

Like - Dislike
Ed
February 9th, 2009
23:32:30

“Nobody can dispute what basic abilities are or their importance.”

My existence as well as that the entire population of mentally disabled people, proves that the validity of weather the impotence of these abilities is anything more than needless social demands. By that existence, we dispute “your” reality

Endure on.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 9th, 2009
23:49:24

Ed, it does not prove that. No way at all. Abilities aren’t needless social demands. It’s not fair to lack a basic ability, whether other people think that the person without that ability should have such an ability or not. If some other person is able to do something, why shouldn’t I get to be able to, especially if it’s something basic?

Who is that “we”? Where do you get off speaking on behalf of mentally disabled people? What justifies you in doing that? You won’t have the power to subjugate those like me forever.

Like - Dislike
Ed
February 10th, 2009
00:22:55

They are needless demands in that society needs to learn to respect for people without them rather than demanding we be fixed.

I think you should get to have what you want if others who can’t aren’t treated in disrespectful ways as a result.

I looked up subjugate. It said yoked. I’m not doing anything like that. Nor could or would I have ever.

“Where do you get off” represents to me a bad trend in communication. If there is nothing to be learned here for anyone, I’d prefer to drop it.

I’m speaking for myself about what I see and have seen and my interpretation of my experience.

We, who society considers disabled, represent a myriad of abilities and disabilities as does the rest of society. We want more just as they do.

Many of us are denied what is basic to life like food water and shelter as a result of how we are seen. Many with no “official” label. Our needs are denied mainly because of their (the rest or the dominate)demands on us. I have come to believe this through my experience.

You or anyone else getting over the fence won’t eliminate the fence, it will just make it stronger and appear more valid. No ones liberation needs to come at the expense of others. This is unnecessary oppression and abuse.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 10th, 2009
01:12:28

I think you are potentially controlling me because of how you undermine motivation for efforts to devise cures for the things I endure. I don’t like that disparities in ability between me, and you and others, are maintained. Even if society respects those without the “needless demands”, that’s not enough, because people don’t like it when others are very much more able than them.

“Many of us are denied what is basic to life like food water and shelter as a result of how we are seen. Many with no “official” label. Our needs are denied mainly because of their (the rest or the dominate)demands on us” The injustice of that doesn’t justify keeping the mentally disabled from getting cured of their disability.

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 10th, 2009
01:33:22

This thread has unfortunately deteriorated into an attempt to refute meaninglessness.

Let’s go back to basics for a minute. What is disability? Having a disability simply means that there’s something you can’t do that most people can do.

For example, if tomorrow everyone in the world suddenly grew wings, with the exception of Billy Cresp (who remains the same person he’s always been), then Billy Cresp would now be disabled. At that point we might see Billy grow fond of accomodation.

Like - Dislike
Ed
February 10th, 2009
01:42:26

“This thread has unfortunately deteriorated into an attempt to refute meaninglessness.”

What? That isn’t true. I refute that as meaningless.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 10th, 2009
01:42:31

Joseph, why would I be fond of accommodation in such a situation?

Like - Dislike
Ed
February 10th, 2009
01:50:02

I’ll leave but I didn’t describe what anyone said as meaningless and don’t like hearing it about me or anyone else.

Like - Dislike
mayfly
February 10th, 2009
02:28:42

Joseph, I have not read all the requirements. There is a difference in being held back by prejudice vs. being held back by inability.

The grand-parents of the 6 year-old boy who is almost completely mainstreamed now after nearly four years in special education are celebrating that because he has done it, despite his autism.

I read about wonderful accomplishments by young folks who have autism, but they are all about what an NT child would be doing anyway.

Does this mean the events are not worth celebrating. Off course not. They are fantastic events. They and the child are worth celebrating, but autism itself is not.

This is not to say that there are no autistic traits which can be helpful in problem solving, but when those traits become dominant, the traits can become a burden.

Obviously if the person has the capacity, they decide whether the burden should be lifted, and if they are burdened at all.

Like - Dislike
mayfly
February 10th, 2009
06:14:11

I wrote my last posting in haste. Joseph, companies do not have to make any special accommodations to employ people of different races. Also there is nothing which prevents a person of any race from doing any job.

People with physical handicaps are able to work in many cases because of accommodations. It would be insane to not employ someone in a wheelchair because there was no elevator to the second floor or no access to the building itself.

Physical handicaps can prevent a person from doing certain jobs. The person who could not interpret photographs could excel at writing software. He would be programmer who happens to be blind. The disability has nothing to do with the job.

When it comes to autism, I’m still not sure what accommodations need to be made and their costs. Certainly what can be done to aide those who are high-functioning enough to work. But companies are not welfare agencies and need a positive return on such an investment.

Like - Dislike
Epsilon Semi-Moron
February 10th, 2009
08:12:53

That’s why I’m calling myself Epsilon Semi-Moron this month, because obviously all our worth as humans depends on how productive we are.
/sarcasm.

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 10th, 2009
13:55:17

Joseph, why would I be fond of accommodation in such a situation?

If you don’t get that, you just don’t get it.

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 10th, 2009
13:56:57

I’ll leave but I didn’t describe what anyone said as meaningless and don’t like hearing it about me or anyone else.

FWIW, it wasn’t about you, Ed.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 10th, 2009
15:17:24

“I doubt they have made any breakthroughs. They can’t get rid of many impairments”

Sorry but if your definition of ‘basic abilities is this:

“Think about things like speaking, understanding how to use language, using basic home appliances, how to shop, remembering to do things, driving, reading, writing, etc.”

Then , yes , that’s exactly what adaptations and accomodations do. Try asking an OT or SaLT what they do for a living.

“Who that is mentally disabled would want to settle for that stuff, whichever of those things apply to the mentally disabled?”

We weren’t talking about ‘settling’ for it, you were talking about lack of availablilty of it. You dodged the point and not very well either. P.s. , they’re all very well known methods used, but you’d know that if you had experience.

“I wouldn’t look these things up as I don’t expect to see such things taken seriously.”

I’ve already told you the name of one of the models of disability. I’ve already told you some people locally who apply these methods noted above and this model in practice. You’ve been given several hints by others and have even been given direct references.

This has been heavily discussed in the literature. It is extremely niave of you to assume it hasn’t, and monstrously arrogant to assume you’ve managed to come up with something “commonsense” that hasn’t been debated about before.

You have stated a lack of knowledge, a lack of experience and a lack of desire to gain either. You are clearly lacking an understanding of social systems and a lack of very, very basic pscychology.

I’m not going to guide you by the hand through this, as you seem to be accustomed to and appear to be expecting. It’s downright rude of you to have proudly done bugger all research but still expect to be taken seriously.

I would ask for an apology for your behaviour, but that would be applying my value system to you – something your arguement demands cannot and does not happen.

Like - Dislike
Ed
February 10th, 2009
15:40:55

ooops, sorry for my dramatic exit, Joseph. I was in a defensive mood. Your point makes sense.

The exchange just before your comment was personal and there seemed to be a request that I show or prove qualifications of impairment and character as to why my view was relevant rather than on the merit of what I said. That was in part due to how I had gotten off track from the discussions content. I never see that as leading to a productive discussion. The points being made are worth pursuing without interfering personalities.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 10th, 2009
16:33:35

Yes, I believe we should clear the slate and go back to whatever initial point Billy was trying to make.

He’s obviously extremely confused, as evidenced by his constant switching of words and terms and irrelevant counter questions to responses.

A characteristic only becomes an impairment when that characteristic is in demand, the impairment only become a ‘disability’ if one would otherwise be expected to have that characteristic, and that characteristic is of importance.

Bear in mind – numerous examples of inabilitiies that are not also disabilities have been given. Examples of how context sets impairment have been given. References and examples of how adaptations, accomodations and attitudes can change demand and therefore definition of ‘disability’ and ‘impairment’ have been given.

Models of this mechanism have been referred to. Examples and mechanisms for attitudes affecting atributes, and thus impairments, thus disabilities, have been given.

Basically all of Billy’s concerns have been addressed, with examples given. Advice on further reading has been given repeatedly.

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 10th, 2009
21:13:45

“Sorry but if your definition of ‘basic abilities is this:

“Think about things like speaking, understanding how to use language, using basic home appliances, how to shop, remembering to do things, driving, reading, writing, etc.”

Then , yes , that’s exactly what adaptations and accomodations do. Try asking an OT or SaLT what they do for a living.”

Dedj, are such adaptations really effective at making those things possible? Seriously. I’d be amazed. I wonder how they work.

I don’t care what literature the social model of disability and such things can be found in. I don’t agree with it. I don’t necessarily have to adhere to whatever someone in the social sciences part of academia says, as there seldom is a consensus about what they claim and views put out by them don’t stay the same over time. What is so lacking in my understanding of social systems?

I’ve looked at some literature about the social model of disability before, and when I see different people talking about it like it’s solid fact, they don’t consistently use the same terminology when referring to the concepts that they mean. So I doubt there is a strong agreement about the validity of the social model among those professionals who would know about it.

“A characteristic only becomes an impairment when that characteristic is in demand, the impairment only become a ‘disability’ if one would otherwise be expected to have that characteristic, and that characteristic is of importance.” Lots of capabilities fit those criteria and aren’t to be ignored.

“Models of this mechanism have been referred to. Examples and mechanisms for attitudes affecting atributes, and thus impairments, thus disabilities, have been given.” None of them were valid.

Like - Dislike
Joseph
February 10th, 2009
21:35:58

I don’t agree with it.

You’re entitled to not agreeing with it, and you can even propose your own model of how things should be done if you’re so inclined. Certainly, no one said it’s a perfect model. But the reality is that the model is used and millions of people depend on it every day.

It’s kind of like not agreeing with education. Well, OK, what do you propose instead?

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 10th, 2009
21:48:17

I don’t know how many of the mentally disabled could depend on such a model, a model that originally came from activism by the physically disabled.

Like - Dislike
mayfly
February 10th, 2009
22:00:11

Interesting arguments. A person who has a single language is not as gifted linguistically as a person with two, but is infinitely more skilled than a person with none.

Arguments saying we all have limitations fail to recognize this.

There are those who will not acquire the necessary skills to live high-quality lives. I’ll never hold the record for the 100 meters. The two things are not comparable.

Like - Dislike
David N. Andrews M. Ed. (Distinction)
February 11th, 2009
01:04:28

Dedj (to Billy Cresp): “You have stated a lack of knowledge, a lack of experience and a lack of desire to gain either. You are clearly lacking an understanding of social systems and a lack of very, very basic psychology.

I’m not going to guide you by the hand through this, as you seem to be accustomed to and appear to be expecting. It’s downright rude of you to have proudly done bugger all research but still expect to be taken seriously.”

I’ve got a feeling that Billy Cresp is a concern troll: someone who puts forward ‘concerns’ but refuses to take on board anything put forward be others in the thread as information to answer or counter those ‘concerns’.

Such a person is likely to be wasting our time.

Like - Dislike
Dedj
February 11th, 2009
02:42:09

I have no doubt that Billy thinks his concerns are legitimate, but they require massive levels of incompetance and stupidity to be virtually endemic amongst our professionals, academics and health system(s).

If accomodations and adaptations don’t work, you’d think with all the people involved that someone would have noticed (although people do notice and debate over ABA etc). But no, Billy “doesn’t think so” so they must be idiots. No evidence, no arguement, just “doesn’t think so”.

Billys’ “I don’t agree with it” doesn’t cut it. We don’t want his clearly biased ‘opinion’ on what is out there, laughably dismissing refinement and development as some proof of lack of validity. He needs to start giving the ‘validation’ he selfishly demands of others but refuses to supply.

He has given no sign of ability to do this, and has even stated lack of experience, skill and desire to learn.

Concern troll is an accurate description.

I apologise to anyone who has had to sift through all this to get any good out of it. This could have become a decent debate over the core essence of disability, but it went south. For my part in that I must apologise again.
———————

Like - Dislike
Billy Cresp
February 11th, 2009
03:00:50

“Sorry but if your definition of ‘basic abilities is this:

“Think about things like speaking, understanding how to use language, using basic home appliances, how to shop, remembering to do things, driving, reading, writing, etc.”

Then , yes , that’s exactly what adaptations and accomodations do. Try asking an OT or SaLT what they do for a living.”

Again, Dedj, tell me how “adaptations” get rid of impairments in those skills. Tell me if they even do. I want such a massive possible claim of yours to be clarified. Tell me what adaptations are capable of achieving, instead of evading me with your arrogance.

Like - Dislike
Amanda
March 2nd, 2009
01:04:30

Okay, let’s see.

When I’ve been unable to communicate with most people through speech through speech but otherwise able to handle language in some respect, communication through writing has been extremely important.

When I’ve been unable to communicate with most people through language, the existence of people who are able to accurately interpret my thoughts for other people have been extremely important.

When I’ve been unable to walk, manual wheelchairs have been extremely important.

When I’ve been unable to get out of bed, motorized tilt-in-space wheelchairs, and computers with programs that allow the same sense of exploration that taking walks can create, have been extremely important.

Cats give me a level of friendship that only a few humans are even capable of providing, as the majority of humans are unable to interact with me on the same complex level that cats are.

(Most humans have brain programming that teaches them that I am someone other than I am. They don’t view that as a limitation, because most of them have it and it’s heavily accommodated to the point they don’t even notice it’s there. But I certainly notice it’s there, because it prevents their full social interaction with me, as much as any limitation of mine prevents full social interaction with them. Some humans aren’t like that, I welcome their contact as much as I do that of cats. But it’s only among cats that I can feel peaceful and interact meaningfully with a large group at once, which means that despite a severe cat allergy, I absolutely love spending time among large groups of cats.)

As far as cooking, eating, driving, and all those sorts of things, I don’t understand why it matters so much who does those things. When I’m capable of them, I do it. When I’m not, someone else does. I’m a client of a large service system that allows those adjustments to be made constantly based on the shifts in my own abilities.

People who just say it’s “obvious” that two total inabilities to do something are utterly and completely different from each other, tend to strike me as people who haven’t seen enough different societies to see how simple differences in what is automatically accommodated by a society affect what is seen as a severe disability and what is see as a simple and unremarkable difference between two people. I have seen enough different cultures to see so many ways of doing things that yes, it does matter. There are societies where to be what most people consider “retarded” means nothing. Some of my relatives come from such societies, some relatives of staff people who’ve worked for me come from such societies. One such person described her uncles in a village in Mexico who have families, jobs, and everything else, and are not considered disabled at all, despite the fact that in the USA they’d be called retarded and put in group homes and utterly prevented from having those things. You can’t truthfully say that cognitive impairments can’t be accommodated if you’ve seen that difference between two societies that treat them so differently.

And to me, what the “severe” in “severe disability” actually means, is the distance between how the person is built, and what the society they live in is willing to automatically accommodate (yes, I subscribe to something close to the social model of disability—seeing the differences I’ve seen between different societies, I can’t help it). That’s why a “severe disability” in one society can vanish in a society that treats that person’s particular version of human variation as normal.

This isn’t an academic game of words to me. I’ve seen it. And I’ve lived things my society views as congenital impairments, acquired impairments, progressive impairments, and things that sort of break the mold for all of those things. My level of happiness has varied throughout my life. So has the level of difference between my body’s functioning (this includes my mind) and the expected functioning of someone’s body in the society I live in. But these two things have absolutely no correlation with each other. There’s no direct correlation, and there’s no reverse correlation, there’s just plain no correlation.

So I can state from a position of experience (in all probability, of more experience than the commenters who believe otherwise than me on this) that with a tiny number of exceptions (that are almost undoubtedly not what people think they are, so don’t go there, it’s private) it is not how my body functions that determines how happy I am. There are many frequent commenters on this blog who know me personally and can back me up on this.

And one of my offline friends is (and prefers to call herself this, rather than any euphemisms) both autistic and retarded (and has multiple physical conditions as well, and has a speech impairment), and totally agrees with me on this matter—it is how other people treat her, and the level of accommodation she gets, that determine how happy she is, and what she has access to as well. She finds it as patronizing and outright nasty as I do to be told she just needs to be changed into a “normal” person in order to be happy, or to be told that she isn’t really very impaired if she’s as comfortable in her own skin as I am in mine and non-disabled people are in theirs.

Our existence is of course, very inconvenient to people who are dead certain that their own differences from the norm are what cause their unhappiness (and whose differences from the norm are quite often less extreme than ours, all of which completely fouls up their worldview on disability). But we’re going to keep on existing.

Like - Dislike