Recently, Lenny Schafer made a post to the Evidence of Harm (EoH) maillist in which he helpfully prepared a FAQ on the NeuroDiversity movement. Unfortunately, he made several errors as one would expect from someone uninterested in accuracy and more interested in scoring points. I’ll seek to address them here. Please bear in mind that these are _my_ views of Neurodiversity. I’m not a spokesman, these are _my_ opinions having been ‘part’ of the Neurodiversity movement ever since my daughters needs and Mr Shafers bigotry drove me to become vocal.
How is “neuro” in NeuroDiversity (ND) defined medically?
It is not clinically, measurably defined. It would appear to self- apply to people who display neurologically based behavior that deviates from the norm (the NeuroTypical), but mostly applies to those who are high functioning. It mostly does not include those whose behavior is disabling as the result of treatable or curable medical disorder or disease.
1) It does not mostly apply to the ‘high functioning’ except insofar as that group so far make up the majority of ‘members’. Members of the Neurodiversity movement consider everyone, regardless of level of functionality to be diverse and to be valued as such.
2) It most certainly does include those ‘whose behaviour is disabling’. The belittling and lessening of the impact of those autistics who are not classed as ‘low functioning’ by Mr Schafer is both well documented and incorrect from a moral and medical perspective.
How does autism fit in?
ND campaigners promote a revised definition of autism that includes most high-functioning neuro-diverse behavior, regardless of actual diagnosis. However, its embrace excludes extreme disabling behaviors that are a result of medical pathology or developmental disorders. This ironically would exclude clinical autism, while including most of the rest of the autism spectrum, and any other-than-neurotypical high function behavior. This autism is a natural part of the normal
neurological landscape, is their argument. To treat or attempt to remedy that which is only different, but not pathological, is seen as a demeaning, if not a bigoted diminishing of the intended victim’s humanity. We can for the moment call this “autism-oranges”, to distinguish it from clinical autism, which we’ll call “autism-apples”.
But clinical autism, autism-apples, is not disabling as a result of social oppression and intolerance, although such attitudes certainly can add to it. Here autism is defined and measured by functional disability. Seeking remedy to the disabilities of autism is no more immoral than the desire to have the blind’s vision returned.
Autism-oranges excludes functional disability. Behavioral “differences” do not require remedial treatment and cures, only
acceptance and assistance.
Autism-apples is clinically defined by disability (DSM-IV). Treatment that leads to the restoration of ability is a rational and moral goal. Such treatment may also include social acceptance and assistance.
The NDs do not always acknowledge that their definition of autism has components opposite to the clinical definition. This definition shell game is employed to convert parents who express a humane desire to alleviate their children’s disability, autism-apples, into heartless, selfish intolerant monsters whose bigotry keeps them from accepting their children for who they are: autistic-oranges.
1) ‘ND’ proponents do not ‘promote a revised definition of autism’. In fact they promote the factual definition of autism as defined by various diagnostic criteria. Schafer – as ever – tries to make two things out of what is one – autism is autism.
2) Its embrace does not exclude anyone whos neurology differs from ‘the norm’. Including what Schafer refers to as ‘clinical autism’ by which he probably means ‘classical’ or Kanners autism.
3) What Schafer refers to as medical pathologies are probably what the medical world calls ‘comorbidities’ – these being the non-standard behaviours/conditions that sometimes occur to autistics such as lack of speech or ADHD or gastric problems. These things do not indicate a separate type of autism as they form no part of any diagnostic criteria. This is because they cannot be used to define or diagnose autism because they do not occur to all autistics unlike the differences covered by the triad of differences. Proponents of neurodiversity both accept and promote humane and non-dangerous methods of treatment to aid autistics in their struggle with their sometime very debilitating comorbidities. Out of the two communities (neurodiversity and the Schafer represented community) neither group states that treating comorbidities is unacceptable and only one seeks to repeat that error as fact.
4) Proponents of Neurodiversity have never, to my knowledge, labeled anyone as heartless for trying to alleviate the disabling comorbidities that their children may have. As a parent myself whos classically autistic daughter undergoes PECS and speech therapy I’ve never been castigated as ‘selfish’ or ‘a selfish intolerant monster’. On the other hand, I have been told by some parents who support Mr Schafer’s position, some of who are members of the EoH list, some of whom are Rescue Angels and some of whom identify with the goals of these groups that I and parents like me are child abusers, that may daughter is ‘a retard’ who should be ‘put down’, that I am scum, that I am an idiot, that I am stupid, that I have a psychological disorder, that I am evil, that I will go to hell, that I am a cunt, that I can ‘go fuck myself’, that I should ‘sit next to the nearest Arab with a rucksack’ (which I assume is a racist based wish that I become victim to a suicide bomber), that I am in the pay of ‘Big Pharma’, that I part of a loose association of lawyers protecting the interests of Pharma companies’…I could go on. I get lots of hate mail. Most of it comes from people with incredibly similar writing styles to those who populate the EoH maillist. My blog has been signed up to porn spam, corporate spam, software spam and at least three people have attempted to perform DOS (denial of service) attacks on my site.
What is the ND Agenda?
The group vitriol against parents is so pronounced, I find it difficult to believe that it is the welfare of my child that is at the
core of their agenda. Altruism has no such rage. I suspect we are but stand-in proxies for their own parents who they may hold responsible for bringing them into such an unfriendly world for autistic-oranges. The agenda seems more about revenge, than reform.
1) Even if that were true (which I can assure you it is not) how does one explain the many *parents* who believe in and follow the Neurodiversity credo? I can think of at least 10 parents who post comments to this blog who do not wish to treat their kids with dangerous treatments and who wish the world to change for the better of their kids rather than meekly accepting the worlds intolerance for the sort of people our kids are.
Overall Mr Schafer, your FAQ was not a FAQ but a ‘FAQ on a mission’. You again promote your singular and totally unsubstantiated and error strewn definition of autism and then expect everything else to fall from that.
Recently, people with more tolerance and wisdom than you have attempted to find ways to reconcile neurodiversity and biomed proponents. These people seem to have no axe to grind, no diagnostic criteria to mangle and no politics to push. I would strongly suggest you step back and allow them to have their time. Your group is evolving into places you cannot seem to go.
Left Brain Right Brain 
Recent Comments