Our Civil Rights

There are quite a lot of us here who seem to be coping really well and I wondered if between us we had the strength to pull together some sort of campaign for better treatment by society.

If we could agree on what we wanted and could find a way to communicate it easily then why wouldn't non Autistic people want to help us improve the way we engage with the world.

I think the first thing we need to do is have a clear identity that we own, that does not divide us and does not allow others on that identity alone to judge our abilities, limitations or needs. I would say that we all have an Autistic Profile or that we identify as a person with Autistic Traits.

The language of Autism should be autistic friendly, there should be no muddling of traits and general terms they tell us nothing apart from nobody has actually can properly explain what they are talking about. Poor language creates anxiety whilst clear language creates control.

The issues around Autism Denial need to be treated as a hate crime, our use of language should be such that nobody can defend their actions when they treat an autistic person in an abusive way. We already have protections under the Law but we do not make it easy to engage those protections, we need to be clear about who we are and what we need. 

Design a resource to provide specific coping techniques for individual traits, face to face training.

Just getting a few ideas really, but I'm keen to start the discussion about what would be really helpful for us.

Parents
  • Poor language creates anxiety whilst clear language creates control.

    Control is a difficult word with multiple meanings. I would suggest replacing it with Agency or Responsibility, which would be responded to better. Anxiety is also difficult as it's something NTs also struggle with and when "why should I help you when I can barely help myself' is a massive issue for most, then a word which suggests everyone wins is sometimes better received. For instance, "Lazy use of language will cause You frustration." But that would need to be presented like ear candy not harsh Autie-Speak.

    A dilemma I run up against all the time with communication is that (and even just today with a GP) I need to say the same thing several different ways as most simply operate on a sub-conscious level extremely indirect. And they don't know it. Some are being genuine. But I do have a deep dark judge-y resentment toward NTs who attempt to redirect or misrepresent a conversation or ignore a question and just "blanket" back at me with small talk or unrelated talk. I don't want to be cruel but we all have our dark sides... LOL

    *literally made up blanket. I don't know what else to call this. 

    If all of society were to engage in useful personal questions like "am I presuming to understand this person, I don't want to be arrogant in my response." "I wonder if this individual perceives life different than I do?" Especially when someone isn't being harmful... Or even ask themselves "How can I be more respectful?" Then we may not even have need of these advocacy groups. This is the sort of information everyone used to get every Sunday (for the most part) when at least pretending to have charitable attitudes was approved of. While yes, a myriad of other problems came with that, getting humans to be more responsible with their perceptions, to be more reasonable with their interactions, to be less lazy with their pragmatics - it's idealistic. But we'd have to shift away from this consumer-based plot twist in history. 

    If I'm too poetic I apologise. Trouble accessing words myself today...

  • f all of society were to engage in useful personal questions like "am I presuming to understand this person, I don't want to be arrogant in my response." "I wonder if this individual perceives life different than I do?" Especially when someone isn't being harmful... Or even ask themselves "How can I be more respectful?" Then we may not even have need of these advocacy groups.

    I think you're right. Perhaps just a better understanding and respect of differences in general would go a long way. I think it should be a two way thing about getting to know the individual regardless of whether theyre on the spectrum or "NT". "We" get to know "them" and "they" get to know "we".

    I also have a problem with "we". It's a spectrum and one person's difficulties or differences might be completely different to someone else's.

  • There is more that we have in common than separates us, the spectrum idea is all about disability, if you ignore the people who successfully manage their Autism you lose the benefit of their experience, if you don't use your experience to help people who can't cope as well as you then what does that make you. 

    It's not a spectrum its a collection of traits and another collection of ways to manage those traits, look at someone like Gretta Thunberg what changed between the schoolgirl who decided to sit outside on a Friday and the girl who sailed across an ocean to address the UN.

    That isn't a spectrum that is a selection of traits that have been perfectly managed to allow her to do something very important.

Reply
  • There is more that we have in common than separates us, the spectrum idea is all about disability, if you ignore the people who successfully manage their Autism you lose the benefit of their experience, if you don't use your experience to help people who can't cope as well as you then what does that make you. 

    It's not a spectrum its a collection of traits and another collection of ways to manage those traits, look at someone like Gretta Thunberg what changed between the schoolgirl who decided to sit outside on a Friday and the girl who sailed across an ocean to address the UN.

    That isn't a spectrum that is a selection of traits that have been perfectly managed to allow her to do something very important.

Children
No Data