Archive | Neurodiversity RSS feed for this section

Autism is a trait

6 Oct

Tyrin RencherDriving yesterday evening, I passed a bus stop with a United Way advertisement with the slogan, “Autism is a trait, not a debilitation.” Obviously, when I made my way back online, I tried to find out a bit more about this United Way Campaign.

Through Google, I found a link to the campaign on the United Way website. Unfortunately, when I tried the link I received a 404 error. Hopefully it comes back up soon.

There was also a link to a story in the Belleville (Illinois) News-Democrat about the spokesman of the campaign, Tyrin Rencher (pictured at right).

He is on posters, pamphlets and television screens all around the St. Louis region as one of the many faces of the United Way fundraising campaign this season.

Most people probably recognize Tyrin Rencher as the smiling young man in a red apron standing in the kitchen at Pasta Fare in Fairview Heights beneath the slogan: “Autism is a trait, not a debilitation.”

Rencher, 27, of East St. Louis, has autism. He was diagnosed with autism at 2 1/2 years old and was enrolled in the Illinois Center for Autism in Fairview Heights when he was 3. He still receives services through the organization and was selected as a spokesman for the United Way campaign this year and as a spokesman for the Illinois Center for Autism.

The article also gives a bit of bit of Tyrin’s history and what he’s up to today (besides being a “celebrity”):

He is currently a junior at the University of Missouri St. Louis, where he is working toward a degree in business administration.

When talking to Rencher, a person quickly learns that he’s a man determined to fulfill his dreams, in spite of the autism, and he is an example of the slogan over his head on the United Way posters.

“A lot of the stuff I planned is coming true and I’m speechless that it is all happening,” he said. “I want to open up a restaurant with my degree. Something small, like (Pasta Fare.)”

He is thankful the Illinois Center of Autism was around when he was diagnosed when he was a toddler.

“Without them, I would be lost,” he said. “I really wouldn’t be in a position to go to college right now.”

He is learning to live on his own for the first time, something that he sometimes finds difficult.

“But I’m learning, it’s tough, but I’m trying to adjust to living on my own,” Rencher said. “One of the things my family has taught me is perseverance, and I do that every day.”

I love to see “good news” stories about autism, and this is one of the “goodest” I’ve seen in a while: it shows an autistic adult making his way in the world, it shows that an autistic person’s dreams and life aspirations are just like the rest of ours, and it shows an organization dedicated to helping people make their way in the world AS THEY ARE instead of trying to fundamentally change them.

Cultural Mitigation

14 Sep

Recently, I had a conversation on another blog with an autistic single mother who was concerned about meeting the needs of her more social child.  She wrote that there was a whole lot of social stuff she didn’t connect with, or even notice, and that having to hand her child off to other people who could do a better job of teaching the child about social expectations bothered her.

I replied that children always differ from their parents in some ways, that being able to recognize and accommodate her child’s differences meant she was a responsible parent, and that the arrangements she made for her child’s social activities were similar to a parent with no interest in sports handing off an athletic child to a coach for regular practices and games.

Another parent pointed out that raising an autistic child, when there are no other family members who are autistic, also requires a significant amount of interaction with professionals and others who may have a better understanding of the child’s needs.

She wrote that, while she appreciated the encouragement, she thought that her lack of conventional social behavior might be detrimental because her child would model her ways of interacting, without being aware that society did not accept such ways.  In this regard, she felt that her situation was unlike that of a non-autistic parent raising an autistic child.  Also, it was unlike that of a married autistic parent because, she wrote, the non-autistic parent could mitigate any detriment from the autistic parent’s social differences.

I had to agree that there was a significant cultural issue here.  When parents raise their children in a minority culture—whether we’re talking about autistic families or any other culturally distinct group—the children are likely to have a harder time learning the ways of the majority.  However, the existence of minority groups contributes to the richness of the mainstream culture.  Different perspectives, behaviors, and cultural expectations are vital to the healthy functioning of a modern democracy.

This was a hard burden to place on a child, she commented.

Yes, and it always has been hard, I thought, for all the minority groups over the years that have had to decide how much of their culture they should sacrifice for the sake of fitting in.

Non, je ne regrette rien

13 Jun

Right. This is it. Absolutely the last time this subject gets raised on this blog. Comments will not be enabled on this post.

It’s the last time because I’m sick to death of hearing about it, thinking about it and discussing it. If anybody else wants to carry on discussing it – be my guest. But you won’t do it here.

First and foremost is that you understand that I regret absolutely nothing. I retract absolutely nothing. I apologise for none of my words and actions. I meant every single one of them and stand by them.

It was made clear to me by Larry that I wasn’t welcome in what he thinks of as neurodiversity. That’s fine, I can live with that. What he failed to specify, other than insults and vague allegations was _why_ I, and a loose group of people referred to as ‘the parents’ weren’t welcome. We sought no leadership. We sought no setting of the agenda. We just wanted to do our bit.

I asked calmly and politely – at first – what it was we – I – had done specifically. No answer, but more snideness. Eventually I realised that nothing of any substance would come from Larry. I retreated after speaking my mind about what I thought about Larry. It wasn’t good but it was accurate. It was my opinion.

After a week, I came back to my blog and explained my thoughts on the whole matter. Things were calming down. I avoided Larry. I didn’t seek out his comments, thoughts or opinions. Then yesterday I come back to my blog on a thread that is indeed heated but respectful and what do I find? Three long comments from – you guessed it – Larry. More of the same insults, murky accusations and pompous posturing. I let him have both barrels. He deserved it.

So – bullying. One ‘Donna’ who’d been on this blog many times and doesn’t like me or what I have to say accuses me of bullying poor poor Larry. Let me remind people who was ‘chasing’ who. I want to have no interaction with Larry if I can possibly avoid it. He sought it out and left three long, whiny, disrespectful comments. I’m not easily provoked but that did it. If anyone wants to avoid bullying I’d suggest to them that chasing after the ‘bully’ bleating ‘please notice me’ is not a great idea. I’d also like to offer a tip to would-be bullies: it seems that you don’t have to do any chasing these days. Apparently people coming in to your turf and running their mouths off, making empty accusations and calling you names is OK but if you respond in kind, they can cry about what a nasty bully you are.

As I said in my previous post – I’ve been used as Larry’s punch bag already. Not any more. If Larry – or anyone else – comes to my blog looking for a fight then they _will_ get one.

Humour. Its a personal thing. Some people don’t like other peoples humour. That I can understand. But suggesting that someone elses sense of what’s funny is inherently wrong because they don’t share it? Forget it.

First I’m told what I can and can’t blog about. Now I’m told what I can and can’t laugh about. What’s next? Anyone want to let me know where my black shirt is? Double plus ungood.

I really am beginning to wonder if the whole idea of _some_ autistic people wanting allies is true. We had a chance to start something great here. As far as I’m personally concerned, that’s dead in the water. Do you want perfect parents? We might not be perfect but we’re better than CAN parents. You had a chance to work with us. Make us better. Instead you’ve driven this one away for no better reason than one suspicious man couldn’t reign in his ego.

At least 20 people have emailed me to tell me that Larry has been like this since forever. They think he is jealous of the fact that I and other parents have been interviewed. He confirms this by stating that autistic people should be interviewed, not parents. He’s right, they should.

In early April this year I was contacted by a journalist from The Observer in the UK. She wanted to speak to someone connected with the autism advocacy movement. I told her she’s be best speaking to autistic people in the UK. I told her I would mail her details to a few UK autistic people I knew so they could speak their piece. True advocacy, right from the horses mouth. One of those I contacted was Larry.

He never replied to me and he never contacted the journalist. I know this as she contacted me increasingly desperately as no one had contacted her. She didn’t want to hear my voice, she wanted to hear from autistic people about autism advocacy. Nobody, including Larry, could be bothered.

Remember this next time you hear Larry banging on about rights and agendas. He’s full of hot air.

And that is that.

From now on I blog about what I want to blog about. That will mostly be about autism related quackery. Larry is banned from commenting on this blog. Any comment that touches on Larry in any way or on any of these discussions will be deleted.

I don’t consider myself part of neurodiversity, although I am clearly neurodiverse. I will gladly stand with autistic allies – both autistic people, their parents and professionals – who want nothing to do with a cure and who want rights for autistic people to come first in autism advocacy. I will not stand with anyone at all who wants to accuse me of wrong doing without any substance to their claims or who wants to dictate what I should and shouldn’t talk about.

On being different

10 Jun

I think a lot of people operate under the misconception that there is this group called ‘NT’ and this group called ‘ND’ and that all in the ‘ND’ group are the same as each other. Not so. The way I was taught to think about neurodiversity is that it is comprised of a group of people with differing neurologies. So to me, anyone who’s difference is primarily stemming from a neurological difference belongs in that wider grouping. Autism. Schizophrenia. Learning Disabilities (retardation in US-speak). Tourettes. OCD. Bipolar. Blindness (where the blindness originates from the optic nerve). Down Syndrome. Epilepsy. Dyscalculia. A hundred more I can’t think of right now.

Autism is not the most or the least of these subgroups encompassed by neurodiversity. It’s simply one amongst many.

This is what I was taught about neurodiversity and this is what I hope it is about. If it isn’t then I have misled an awful lot of people over the last 3 years, including myself.

I carry one of the diagnosis’ listed above. I have type 1 rapid cycling bipolar disorder (Wikipedia). The first time I can remember feeling that I was decidedly different in outlook, thought patterns, behaviour and generally _being_ was when I was about 9 – 10 years old. However, I have not carried an official diagnosis anywhere _near_ as long as that. I’m nearly 40 now. 25 – 30 years ago, just as with autism, there weren’t the same amount of diagnostic specialists who knew the signs and symptoms. Meh. Such is life. It’s well managed now which is a massive relief.

I don’t want to wallow in myself too much but I want to provide some context for how I feel about neurodiversity and how I felt last week when everything kicked off.

Occasionally – and not very often – I may need to take a neuroleptic. These are serious drugs, administered (hopefully) with great care. There are very good reasons why they should be prescribed as an absolute last resort to autistic people.

That said, for people with _my_ neurology they are sometimes necessary.

I had an email exchange last week with someone who put forward the idea that the continued use of neuroleptics to autistic people was an issue of great importance that needed to be discussed. This is something I entirely agree with. My own medication is carefully reviewed every 2 months. I hate taking pills and the less I have to take, the better.

In the course of this exchange, the phrase ‘brain damaged’ was used in a way that seemed to indicate to me that those who may have to use neuroleptics have damaged brains. I was somewhat taken aback by this. My immediate association was the idiotic null comparisons of John Best of autistic people having ‘rotting brains’. It seemed to me that using overly inflammatory and denigrating language such as this was not a good way to promote the idea of neurodiversity. I fully accept that neuroleptics are far from ideal and that there is good emerging science to indicate chronic overprescription of neuroleptics to autistic people but the use of the phrase ‘brain damaged’ was a step too far. Was this really how this person saw me?

I don’t think that this person meant to be offensive in any way. But let me tell you a story.

My grandad (now dead) served in WWII and had a British Asian man in his regiment. My grandad used to refer to him as ‘Chinky Charlie’ until one day I asked him why he was called that – it was then I learnt that ‘Chinky Charlie’ was of Chinese descent. His other nickname was ‘Yellow Charlie’ apparently. I was really shocked and told my grandad that I considered that racism. I asked him what ‘Chinky Charlie’s’ real name was – he couldn’t remember. But he said ‘he didn’t mind – he laughed it off’. I’ll bet he did. What option did he have?

My grandad didn’t _mean_ to be racist. He wasn’t intentionally trying to denigrate his fellow soldier in terms of his race. He also told me what a deep respect this man carried amongst the regiment. However, the intention – or lack of it – is irrelevant. He _was_ being racist. He was characterising someone on their race. He couldn’t even remember this guys actual name!

I hope my point is clear. Words matter. Their intent may not be to offend (its easy to tell when someone is purposefully being offensive) but if neurodiversity truly is an umbrella community for a wide variety of differing neurologies as I thought it was then care is needed. We don’t have to tip-toe around each other (that would just become a PC nightmare) but the willingness to not generalise and not use comparisons that a truly ignorant man like John Best would use are not only necessary but vital.

Nothing is decided here

3 Jun

I’ve done a lot of thinking over the last couple of days. I’m trying to get my head around the events and make some kind of sense out of them before I make any decisions on my own future association with neurodiversity and in particular the Hub.

I’ve read and re-read a lot of the threads and comments that preceded and also followed mine and I have come to a few conclusions that have not made me happy in any way but I intend to speak my mind.

The first conclusion that I have come to is that Larry is a pseudo intellectual poseur. I’ve looked carefully at what he has written both now and in the past and applied his own criteria to his words and actions. I find him duplicitous – dishonest and narcissistic.

This does matter. Larry makes some strong allegations. It is these allegations and his subsequent behaviour that led me to my conclusions about him.

A prime example of Larry’s purposeful misinterpretation lies in this comment in which Larry berates me thusly:

…the battle is not being fought or won on the scientific front it is a political battle, and economic one, about education, welfare, employment rights, housing, you name it. Scientists are a small cog in a much larger machine and the media is where the battlefield lies. NT’s are not the heroes in this battle either.

I was very puzzled by these words as the post Larry was referencing made no claim that the science of autism was ‘the battle’. I also found his comment that ‘NT’s are not the heroes in this battle either’ bizarre as I don’t think I’d even brought neurology into the post. Larry had built himself a couple of strawmen which he could make himself look clever with by taking down. This was just needless narcissism.

Next, Larry made a post on his own blog in which he states:

…I am becoming critical of a lot of posting in the autism hub itself, because I believe in the reasoning behind the slogan “nothing about us without us”

I have to say it, but the problem is that important though it is to disabuse the public of the notions that mercury poisoning = autism (which nobody much believes in the UK as we are still too busy blaming MMR) , important though that is, that is not where the main fight is, and that is to realise that autism is for life, and because most of us spend more of our lives as adults than children, that there we must have proper recognition and a place in society.

Furthermore, that although there are ‘good parents’ who agree with that and want it as an aim for there as yet young children, the message has to come primarily from us not them. If the parents continue to evoke that old line “but you can speak for yourself my child cannot” they run the risk of effectively taking our voice away, because we are the ones with the condition?

I tried to engage Larry on his blog about why I believed he was right and wrong (something I still believe). He is right that there should be ‘nothing about them without them’. He then infers that there is a problem associated with this statement originating from some parent blogs in the Hub. He then goes on to expand on his comment on my blog about how vaccines/mercury/science is not the main fight. He closes by saying that ‘the message’ should come from ‘us’ not ‘them’ (parents).

All of this was couched in Larry’s usual pontificating prose style. At no point did Larry ever mention any specific examples of these parent blogs he was so concerned about. He makes no explanation or examples of blogs in the Hub that abuse the notion of ‘nothing about us without us’.

I was concerned about this enough to want to write my own blog entry about it and try and get as many views as possible, particularly from autistic people.

During the course of the comments I read some of the statements Larry had made on Steve’s blog – a harmless enough post Steve had made promoting a few of the things going on. This was Larry’s first comment:

I happen to believe in the promotion of the case of autism from an autistic viewpoint contra mundum and in spite of everybody. This is Cosa Nostra, our thing, autism advocacy will only ever be advanced by ourselves speaking for ourselves and so I don’t go a bundle on NT’s even if they are on our side, being promoted to hero status.

Again, Larry seems to be building strawmen for himself to knock down. No where in Steve’s post did he advance an opinion that promoting the case of autism should _not_ be made primarily by autistic people. Nowhere did Steve refer to anyone as a hero.

I left that whole post taken aback by the use of the phrase ‘cosa nostra, our thing’. It seemed to me that Larry was claiming that Neurodiversity was solely the province of autistic people. This opinion was reinforced when Larry followed up his first comment on Steve’s blog with this:

Your blog which I have commented on talks about parents, it seems to me that neurodiversity has been hijacked.

Now I was genuinely alarmed. Firstly by the thought that autistic people might think that parents on the Hub was hijacking the issue of neurodiversity but even more so by Larry’s obvious and growing inference that neurodiversity was strictly something to do with autistic people and no one else.

That bothered me a lot. It is most certainly not what I thought neurodiversity was and most certainly not how I had had neurodiversity explained to me.

It was at this point that I first began to suspect that there was considerably less to Larry than I had ever thought. However, I asked in my next comment if autistic people would tell me their thoughts. They were pretty much in line with my thinking. Four commenters who are autistic essentially said that autistic people should lead but they were very happy with how the Hub worked.

So now I was perplexed. What was _really_ going on here?

Larry’s next few comments were about his personal history with the disability movement and how it evolved. They seemed to be an exercise in meaningless verbiage.

I still had no idea why Larry felt that neurodiversity was solely something that belonged to autistic people or what specific thing(s) had happened to make him think parents were taking over the agenda. The opinions of the other autistic people who had posted seemed to reflect my bewilderment. In short, everybody agreed – as they always had – that the agenda of autism advocacy should be set by autistic people.

Larry’s next comment simply added to the strawmen.

What is worrying is when the outside world, the press will seek out non autistic representatives of this blog world to represent what neurodiversity is about.

The autism hub is not the be all and the end all of neurodiversity anymore than the aut-advo list is the sum total of autistic self advocacy.

Again, it is clear from the first quote that Larry firmly believes that neurodiversity is the sole province of autistic people. His second quote is a total strawman – who ever claimed that the Hub was the be all and end all of neurodiversity?

By this point I was getting frustrated and increasingly annoyed at Larry’s evasion. His further comments only served to increase that annoyance:

As far as neurodiversity not being an autistic only thing, that is a comment I have been making for sometime with my dyslexic hat on.

This is at direct odds with Larry’s previous statements such as : _”What is worrying is when the outside world, the press will seek out *non autistic representatives of this blog world to represent what neurodiversity is about*.”_

It was becoming increasingly clear to me that Larry was being evasive and dishonest when representing his own opinions. I had made the point numerous times by this time that Larry was failing to take into account the fact that neurodiversity was _not_ solely about autism, that there were lots of other ways of not being NT and also that there were plenty of bloggers on the Hub that were both autistic _and_ parents.

All in all, I asked Larry about eight times to provide examples of what he was talking about e.g. where bloggers on the Hub that he knew were definitely NT were trying to wrest the agenda away from autistic people. He never did.

There was plenty more bloviating passages of prose about the history of the disability movement but that was about it. There was – after I pinned him down – an admission that:

neurodiversity does not belong exclusively to autistics it is an evolving culture

Which was a great relief to hear.

However, I’d reached a pretty firm conclusion by this time on what Larry’s motivations were based on his words and deeds. He is an attention seeker who is annoyed that he isn’t the story. Throughout this entire episode he has made accusations that he is unable to backup, he has switched positions when exposed in his illogic and has demonstrated a nasty tendency to turn neurodiversity into The Larry Arnold Show.

The final straw for me was when he told me that the work that some of us had done with mercury/vaccines was actually misrepresenting autistic people and/or neurodiversity.

Since than I have been inundated with email, primarily from autistic people, telling me that my suspicions are correct. Larry like to ensure that Larry is the show. These are people who have known Larry online I’ve also heard from one person that Larry comes from a philosophical perspective that likes to blow things up and then see whats still standing to work with. That isn’t a philosophical perspective, thats just stupid.

Lets boil down Larry’s actions and words into a nutshell. He invented a problem and then couldn’t back up his claims. The guiding principles of the Hub are laid out on its homepage. If Larry or anyone else can show me where there is a growing cadre of parents abusing those ideals then we can act. Until then, the only issue is how Larry deals with his tendency to overblow nothings into somethings in order to bask in the attention.

Think I’m being too harsh? Well, I’m just emulating Larry and trying his trick of pretending everything is a pseudo-intellectual exercise in destructive philosophy.

Larry once said:

As for what people consider people to be, the evidence is in the actions not the protestations of innocence.

Which I’m guessing is his way of saying ‘actions speak louder than words’.

This parent blogged about the Judge Rotenberg Center.
This parent blogged every time an autistic child was murdered.
This parent blogged when quacks abused autistic people.
This parent blogged when autism was misrepresented in the media.

Those were this parents actions. I’m not sure what Larry’s were.

NT Parents cannot be leaders when it comes to autism advocacy. Did they ever want to be? Were they trying to be? No. I’ve seen nothing that would indicate they were.

The events of the last few days will have an impact. This was played out – and will continue to be so played out – against the backdrop of the web. The web was the enabler that brought autistic people and the parents of autistic people together. As this plays out, the web will record everything. Parents who ‘found’ neurodiversity via the web will find this too.

Right now we stand at a crossroads of opportunity. Right. Now.

Autistic people have had a horrendous time in the past. I know as much from reading the emails and blogs of those who survived it. They have been let down by parent organisations time and again.

But that was the past. At some point autistic people who do not trust parents are going to have to start. We are not those same people who let you down. We came to autism advocacy via the words of autistic people. We did not come via parent led organisations. You call the shots. We get it. Continually harping on what parents have done to you in the past is pointless in this respect. A non-autistic parent being interviewed about a website he created is not a threat to you or your autonomy. Please stop living in the past and try to see the opportunity of right now. Again, we do not want to lead you, we want to support you.

What do you want? An opportunity to wield the power of both autistic and non-autistic people? Or do you want to carry on putting your hands over your eyes, ears and mouths and reminiscing about ‘the bad old days’? Has it really got so bad that now you actually have the opportunity to use this power that you have to invent factions where none exist in order to escape the responsibility of using it? Now that you are very close to getting what you say you’ve always wanted from parents are you worried about accepting the mantle?

Parents are not perfect. We are much newer to this than you. Even those of us who, like me, are not NT but are not autistic either, and who have fought our own battles through the decades are not spat out of an allies-factory somewhere, ready made with all the right answers and actions. We *will* screw up. We *will* get it wrong. We need you to guide us in these times. If you want to lead, then act like leaders.

And the last thing we need is vainglorious challenges to our non-existent actions when you are unable to point out exactly what it is we’ve apparently done. This world we cohabit in is difficult enough without having phantoms to fight.

I would also urge some of you autistic people to be very careful of your own neurobigotry. One person has said that my actions are a total overreaction. Maybe. However, my own neurology makes this impossible for me to avoid sometimes. Would this person be happy with me if I said that their actions were totally antisocial? Or if I said that their inability to perceive a differing neurology indicates their lack of theory of mind? Or would I be accused of ableism? This person also said I should make every effort to separate the message from the personalities involved. I have. My neurological make up makes that very, very difficult to do but if I want to try and pass as normal I can sometimes do it. However, I was surprised to hear such encouragement to assume normalcy from someone I always considered a strong advocate for being who you are at all times.

This entry will solve nothing. Its not intended to. Its merely me letting off steam. I still have no idea about what neurodiversity is anymore or my role (if any) in that movement. I still have no idea what to do with the Hub. However people can rest assured Larry will have no role in deciding its future.

Father knows best?

31 May

Larry made a couple of comments on my last but one post regarding the vaccine/autism link that puzzled me a bit. I thought at the time that he’d missed the point.

Larry is not quite as enamoured of science as I am – fair enough – although he sees the dangers of the anti-vaccine lot he sees a wider picture. Thats what he was trying to get at.

Trouble is, of course, that blogging is not a great medium for seeing a wider picture. Blogs of all kinds tend to hone in over time on a very particular idea. For this blog, its become the poor science sometimes associated with autism. This is inevitable as a blog ‘ages’. I write about this as I feel it is vital to expose the end result of autism related quackery. Injury, abuse and death.

Around the same time, there was a brief flurry about an article concerning Sigourney Weaver’s take on autism, which is refreshingly positive.

I was going to blog this article myself a few times but there was something bothering me about it that prevented me. I click on to what it was yesterday after thinking about Larry’s comments. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

The movement has a strong Web presence at such sites as Neurodiversity.com, Left Brain/Right Brain, Autism Diva and The Autism Acceptance Project, http://www.taaproject.com

So what’s wrong with that? Its great to get a mention, of course it is. But what bothers me about it is that, of the four sites listed, only _one_ is owned and run by an autistic person.

That isn’t right. That’s wrong. Something has gone wrong when the web presence of ‘the movement’ is painted as being mainly non-autistic.

Larry wrote a piece yesterday that elaborated on his thinking.

I am there for the same reasons as I am becoming critical of a lot of posting in the autism hub itself, because I believe in the reasoning behind the slogan “nothing about us without us”

I have to say it, but the problem is that important though it is to disabuse the public of the notions that mercury poisoning = autism (which nobody much believes in the UK as we are still too busy blaming MMR) , important though that is, that is not where the main fight is, and that is to realise that autism is for life, and because most of us spend more of our lives as adults than children, that there we must have proper recognition and a place in society.

Furthermore, that although there are ‘good parents’ who agree with that and want it as an aim for there as yet young children, the message has to come primarily from us not them. If the parents continue to evoke that old line “but you can speak for yourself my child cannot” they run the risk of effectively taking our voice away, because we are the ones with the condition?

I’ll be frank, it took me aback to think that Larry though that way about the Hub. However, he does and it needs addressing. And as much as I might want to take the easy way out and pooh-pooh it, my mind keeps coming back to that article listing the web presence of ‘the movement’ as mainly non-autistic.

This is not to say I agree 100% with Larry as I do not. I do not think that ‘the message’ should come primarily from autistic people, not parents. I believe it should come from both, equally. However, I believe that the message should be formed by autistic people and those of us who are not autistic should support that message. I also know that Larry’s assessment of the situation in the UK regarding mercury is sadly wrong. It is getting worse, not better and it needs to be actively challenged and fought.

However, I _do_ agree that the science/medical issues are very much secondary to the fight as Larry defines it. I _do_ agree that no parent who claims to be an ally of autistic people should be using the line “but you can speak for yourself my child cannot” and I would be horrified to think that any parent on the Hub _has_ used that line or any equivalent of that line. I _do_ agree with the adage (to paraphrase) “nothing about them without them”.

So what do we do? I cannot ignore this, but at the same time I will not stop blogging about what _I_ care about.

What needs to change? I think the Hub needs some addressing. I have a loose system in place wherein any entry I’m unsure about I refer to two other people, at least one of whom must be autistic for their decisions. If it requires a casting vote then I do that.

Maybe the Hub requires more direct control from its autistic members? How would that happen?

Any other ideas? What else can happen to address concerns like Larry’s?

On media, neurodiversity and science

29 May

Opinions vary as to why I, and many of my online friends believe what we do. The answers cannot be easily encapsulated but an indication is given by the source of the two links I’ve just linked to.

The first group believe autism is not just a disability, that it is both more and less than that and that whatever the aetiology of ‘it’ is, it is likely to not have a single cause and further, if it does or if it doesn’t, the fact that people are autistic is a state of being (a property of their personhood) that is deserving of respect and tolerance. After all, if we can tolerate difference between sexes enough to think of a toilet seat that raises or lowers as a natural aspect of functional life then we really should be able to make the minor adjustments necessary to accommodate the needs and requirements of autistic people.

The second group believe in the scientific method. They believe that in matters of science, that the rules of science should be applied.

There is some major overlap between the position of these two groups. There are a number of bloggers on the Autism Hub and an even larger number of readers of blogs on the Autism Hub who are bloggers on Science Blogs and/or readers of Science Blogs’. A number of bloggers who have autistic children are scientists of various disciplines.

It is worth noting however that these two groups are not synonymous. I know of a few people who believe in the basic essence of neurodiversity who also think vaccines damaged them or their children. This is because they know that even if vaccines did do damage, they or their kids are still deserving of respect. Conversely, I expect there are a few science bloggers who would not agree with the standpoint of neurodiversity and would ferociously chase a cure.

But these people are the exception. By and large these are two groups who share a mutual opinion that the only way to progress our knowledge of the science of autism is to use the scientific method. Science is now, thankfully, beginning to catch on to the idea that the best way to get knowledge that may help autistic people is to listen to autistic people.

At MIT Amanda Baggs has been working with the science team there in ways that will result in positive and scientifically valid ways of helping autistic (and other) people.

Estée also gave a presentation at MIT (the second talk was fuller than this one) and she also noted Michelle Dawson’s ongoing role at the University of Montreal.

This is all good progress. It’s exciting to watch these things develop and to see the possibilities that might spring forth from these alliances and how they might benefit my daughter and autistic people generally.

I believe in the scientific method. I believe science has done more than anything else to take us closer to understanding the universe within us and around us. I believe that the naturally occurring alliance that is being forged between autistic people, their allies and science is absolutely the correct way to go. Neither side is seeking to change or alter the other but to understand each other and benefit from the union.

If I want to see an example of how _not_ to do things, I need look no further than (you guessed it) the mercury militia/malicia. These are people who have taken the polar opposite view. They eye science with distrust. They refuse to accept that the results of studies that disagree with their stance can be correct to the extent that they threaten those scientists with violence, or they ignore science and instead disagree with the wording of press releases about science. In fact, this is Lenny Schafer’s view (from a past SAR):

Myself and other autism activists believe there is enough evidence to support a causative relationship between mercury and autism in a court of law, in front of a jury, where standards of evidence are different than that of the narrow focus of scientific findings. And if you can convince a jury, you can convince the public.

Make no mistake, by ‘different’ Schafer (correctly) means looser, way, way looser. He does not want scientific standards to come to play in determining the vaccine/autism connection. The reason why is absurdly obvious.

The scientist and author Michael Crichton once gave a speech about environmental issues that may as well have applied to the autism/vaccine issue:

…Proponents are pressing their views with more PR than scientific data. Indeed, we have allowed the whole issue to be politicized—red vs blue, Republican vs Democrat. This is in my view absurd. Data aren’t political. Data are data. Politics leads you in the direction of a belief. Data, if you follow them, lead you to truth.

On the EoH group where Lenny Schafer is kingpin, there is currently something of a growing schism between Lenny, John Best (e.g. the more hardcore loony element) who believe that Aspergers Syndrome is not a disability and is not part of the spectrum and hence is not autism and a lot of other people who quite obviously have AS kids and are disagreeing very strongly with Lenny’s extremeism. As part of that debate, Lenny made the following statement:

I would like to think of what we do here is public debate, not “fighting”.

This illustrates perfectly the kind of denialism that exists amongst Lenny and his members. The Yahoo EoH group is a closed access list. You can only access the group if you join up and are accepted as a member, which is what I did back in 2005. Yet Lenny really believes that this closed access list is public debate. He _has_ to believe this as he is a firm believer (as we have seen) of political and legal definitions of autism and autism aetiology. In his world view, you need to _manage_ the PR. You need to nudge it in the right direction, much as Lenny’s colleagues from the NAA did when they lied about Paul Shattuck as they disagreed with his results.

By contrast, the Autism Hub bloggers operate openly. Their opinions are challengeable directly on their blogs. Good science is challengeable. It can be challenged by using the scientific method. There is no ‘management’ of information going on here. No one flip-flops between crucial elements of their beliefs and hopes no one notices (such as Brad Handley has done).

The interviews I have done (and am doing now) have been to periodicals that concern science or touch on the science of autism from a parents perspective. I noted with no small amusement this morning that ‘the other side’ are resorting to interviewing each other – Erik Nansteils Autism Media site carries an interview of David Kirby interviewing Katie Wright. I bet that’s an in-depth and truth revealing interview.

I believe that promoting connections between autistic people and science is the absolute best way to get good science regarding autism. I hope to do my bit in making the web work _for_ the promotion of these connections. I hope that our growing community never gets sucked into the tarpit of closed access lists that crow about the achievement of ‘converting’ celebrities and media persons. This is why I set up the Autism Hub and the Autism Parents Forum. So that we can grow as a community and come closer together. I hope to do more of this in the future. I want my email contact list to be full of the names of autistic people, scientists, responsible authors such as Arthur Allen and Brian Deer and parents that, like me, want to benefit from this growing relationship. I couldn’t care less if I never get Lou Diamond Phillips or Don Imus’ email address.

Media and politics or science? When it comes to understanding the science of autism, which will yield better results? Bear this in mind as you consider your choice – science is amoral. You cannot hide, distort or disfigure scientific achievement forever. If something is scientifically accurate, its truth is self evident. No matter how many politicians you have in your pocket, no matter how many media contacts you have, gravity will always be a force of attraction. The power of repulsion belongs to those who would deny that.

Lenny Schafer’s Delicious Cheap Shot

24 May

It’s no secret that I don’t think much of either the reasoning powers, nor general behaviour, of the collection of individuals that populate David Kirby’s ‘Evidence of Harm’ Yahoo Group. Every time I think they can’t surprise and disgust me more, they manage it.

This is the group of people from which sprung an anonymous email referring to Megan as a ‘little bitch’. This is the group of email who have attacked autistic people viciously and repeatedly. It beggars belief that a group of people who are parents to autistic people could be so disrespectful to autistic people when they claim to be ‘the autism community’. But then, how could anyone expect anything better from parents who refer to their own children as ‘dull witted’.

A member of the EoH group has compared my daughter to a monkey when i described how well she was progressing. This same member later said on his own blog:
….My wife bought too many bananas so I’ll send some for your daughter …..

and followed that up with

…Perhaps you can teach your daughter to swing from tree to tree…

This is ample evidence of the sort of people who infest this particular corner of Yahoo.

However, if more proof were needed, today Lenny Schafer, creator of the EoH Yahoo Group established once and for all the level of disregard for children that the EoH group has.

Schafer posted this story to the EoH list today. It concerns a scumbag who has over 100,000 images of child porn in their posession. As part of this scumbags defence, he is claiming he is autistic. Take a place in line behind Cho, scumbag.

Schafer, however, altered the headline so it read:

Prison Ordered for NeuroDiverse Man With More Than 100,000 Child Porn Pictures

and offered this commentary, accompined with a link to this site:

OK, so I added “ND” to the headline to make it more politically correct for all those mercury apologist ghosts lurking on our list. The ND sword cuts both ways. Sometimes you just can’t pass up a delicious cheap shot. Lenny

A delicious cheap shot.

I’m so very happy that Lenny Schafer finds the idea of utilising the torture, rape and suffering of children as an opportunity for a delicious cheap shot as in any way an acceptable thing to do. Schafer doesn’t like neurodiversity. Thats his right. He should campaign against it as hard as he likes. However to utilise the suffering of children in his demonisation is beyond sick.

Lenny Schafer might want to look to the top right hand corner of this website. In it he will find a picture of four year old Madeline McCann, a baby girl who was abducted from her holiday home three weeks ago. That picture has been on my site for almost a fortnight now. Its on the website of many UK residents.

No doubt Lenny Schafer and the antivaccinationist ignorati who surrounds himself with will pat themselves mightily on the back for getting under my skin so much. Because they have. I don’t think you should ever make light of the abduction, rape and torture of children.

I put up that picture of Maddy in the hopes that maybe – a slim hope – someone who knows something might see it and do something which would mean she was returned to the arms of her parents.

I have also colluded with people Lenny Schafer considers friends in the relatively recent past after it was made known to me that an author of an autism book who was friends with a DAN! doctor was a paedophile. I did this to ensure no children would fall into these people’s clutches.

You made your cheap shot Mr Schafer. I hope you found it ‘delicious’.

New: Autism Parents Forum

25 Mar

I’m launching a new project today primarily for parents of autistic children (of any age) which I’ve called Autism Parents.

I wanted to set up a forum where parents of autistic people who weren’t necessarily interested in the idea of cure could get together and swap hints/tips on parenting in an easier format than a blog could allow.

Its got boards for education, medical, officialdom where you can ask questions or answer questions from other parents just like you and me as well as boards for discussing books/movies/TV programmes and news stories etc related to autism.

Please go and signup, get posting and please – spread the word!

Harold L Doherty – at it again

26 Feb

Harold Doherty last week built himself an army of strawmen in order to demoinse the neurodiversity movement. I and many people left comments that were never published so I wrote the above linked post to demonstrate to Mr Doherty how illogical, ill-thought out and just plain old wrong his points were. He never responded but it seems Mr Doherty is never one to let a little thing like accuracy cloud his opinions.

Today I see a post entitled ‘Is The Neurodiversity Movement Ashamed of Lower Functioning Autistic Persons?’ to which the short answer is ‘uhhh, no – whatever gave you that idea?’

Luckily Mr Doherty proceeds to tell us what gave him that idea. Strawmen ++

It seems at times that the Neurodiversity Movement is ashamed of the lower functioning members of the autism world. Autism is defined by the ND movement as simply another natural variation of human wiring.

No it isn’t. That is one _aspect_ of what autism is.

“Autistic intelligence” is defined as a different, perhaps even a superior form of intelligence.

Might be. There seems to be good evidence for extraordinary mental skills in some autistic people.

Doubt is cast on whether lower functioning autistic persons even exist by the more strident ND’ers.

Really? Where? Who says that?

Even autistic persons who have demonstrated no communication skills, engage in seriously and repetitively self injurious and dangerous behavior should not be treated or cured in the view of the ND movement.

Ditto. At some point Mr Doherty you’re going to have to start _providing some sources_ – all this alarmist arm waving is mildly entertaining but ultimately just silly and self defeating.

Recently CNN’s Dr. Gupta featured the story of Amanda Baggs, diagnosed as being a low functioning autistic person, but clearly very intelligent and, with the aid of technology, an excellent communicator. The implied message – even low functioning autistic persons are really quite intelligent and do not need a cure or treatment.

Nothing at all was implied. It seemed quite clear to me. Amanda does not need a cure. I believe she has had some treatments of mixed efficacy at various points in her life. Your implication seems to be – and feel free to turn up and correct me if I’m wrong – that silly old Amanda can’t possibly know what’s good for her and she can have no empathy with other low functioning autistic people, whereas the Great Mr Doherty knows all. He knows for example that silly old Amanda doesn’t know what’s good for her.

Unfortunately Dr. Gupta played into this denial of the existence of truly low functioning autistic persons by continuing a long history of media focus on autistic savants and other high functioning autistic persons while ignoring the sometimes brutal realities which confront low functioning, seriously disabled, autistic persons.

Yeah, or maybe we could discard the conspiracy theory and conclude that this particular piece wasn’t about that aspect of autism?

My autistic son, Conor, is a low functioning autistic person who brings me great joy. I delight in talking about how happy he makes me every single day. But, unlike members of the Neurodiversity I am not ashamed to admit the severe challenges he faces in life and I am not afraid to talk about them publicly.

I wonder how Conor feels about that and whether Mr Doherty would care?

Anyway, the point is that no one I know is ashamed to admit the severe challenges autistic people face in life. In fact, that’s kind of the point. To highlight these kind of things. Here I’ll say it in the plain English that I reserve exclusively for people incapable of appreciating shades of grey:

Autistic people face severe challenges in life. I am not ashamed to admit this publicly. I am however, afraid to talk about them publicly because when I did, various people who wanted to cure their kids were vicious about her. So now I and my wife talk about her in a private closed access blog which is open to friends and family only.

Unless such public discussion takes place there will be no improvements for Conor and other autistic persons like him. Of course that is exactly why the Neurodiversity movement attempts to censor such discussion.

I love accusations of censorship that come from men like Mr Doherty who actively censor their own blogs and refuse to participate in debate. Its always good for a chuckle.

I _think_ Mr Doherty is alluding to the revulsion some of us have for Autism Speaks and their one sided propaganda piece ‘Autism Every day’. We don’t want to censor it Mr Doherty. We (all 748 – so far – of us) want to expand it to truly reflect the reality of ‘Autism Every day’. Not just the self pity bits. If you don’t want these parts included then I think you need to carefully look at how that holds up against your accusations of censorship.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →