Is autism a disability?

Autism is many things.  It can be disabling but it is not JUST disabling. It also depends on the individual.  I have never seen Autism as a net positive in my life.

I always ask myself; does my being autistic in this scenario diminish my ability to do the thing in front of me? If the answer is yes, then I confirm the disability.

Not sure if that's right to do, but it's how I choose to assess things snyway

VLD said:

t is difficult for me to see my Autism as a disability when it has been my strength and the reason I have been so successful in life.

Statements like that make me seriously question why some people seek a diagnosis. There's a wealth of difference between a very successful person like such as yourself and a person like me . I have no F2F friends. I never went to university. I never had a job. I have a fair amount  of support that lets  me live a reasonably healthy, but somewhat basic lifestyle. Without that support I'd really struggle.

It is difficult for me to see my Autism as a disability when it has been my strength and the reason I have been so successful in life. (Although, I  am well aware that for some it is debilitating.) What is disabling is how Autistic children and adults are treated. Children are foced to tolerate noisy and busy schools with stuff dancing from classroom ceilongs. Adults have to interview for jobs where we are critised for not looking poeple in the eye. Trying to fit in and appear "normal" is exhausting. Also, we are constantly critised for not conforming which eats at our self esteem. Meanwhile, employers miss out on or inventiveness,  our work ethic, our honesty and our empathy. 

For General Information:

From:  House Of Commons Library:

           Disability Discrimination --- https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9061/CBP-9061.pdf

extracted from above link --- Types of Discrimination:

It is unlawful to discriminate against any person “because of” the protected characteristic of disability. This can extend to protect people associated with disabled people (e.g. carers).

It is also unlawful indirectly to discriminate against disabled people. Indirect discrimination occurs when, for example, a policy is applied generally but it unjustifiably puts disabled people at a particular disadvantage.

Additionally, if a disabled person is treated unfavorably because of something arising in consequence of their disability (rather than their disability itself) and this cannot be justified, it will be unlawful.

Being unable to socialize---for whatever reason---is part of normal day to day activities and effects your mental well-being. This should be an adequate reason

that impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities'

Being unable to socialize---for whatever reason---is part of normal day to day activities and effects your mental well-being and in itself should be adequate reason.

Thank you for taking the time to explain that. I understand the difference now. 

You're not being thick, I didn't explain well.

There are two models of disability. The medical model compares a person to a "normal" or "ideal" human and, if they significantly deviate from that model, they are seen as disabled.

The social model sees disability as not inherent in a person's biology, but in society. A person is disabled inasmuch as society doesn't help them to function like other people. This model is often preferred to the medical one in the disability rights movement (which is how I came across it).

So, if someone had both their legs amputated, the medical model would say, "They have no legs, they can't walk, they are disabled" whereas the social model would say it depends on society. If society provides a wheelchair and wheelchair access then they might not be disabled, but if buildings and public transport are inaccessible to them, then that is a disability caused by society.

With regard to mental illness or neurological difference, as you indicate, I feel the social model breaks down here, as things can be disabling without any social "cause" or any social "cure" being possible. When I suffered from depression, I felt, well, depressed, and that was an innate feeling, it wasn't because society was stopping me (or at least not helping me) from doing things I wanted to do.

Similarly with autism, while there are definitely things that society could make easier for me (No muzak! No omnipresent video screens!), I definitely struggle with things I would like to do simply because of the way my brain is "wired" e.g. trouble understanding my own emotions, difficulty changing tasks and multitasking. I see this a "medical model" form of disability, not a "social model" one, as it's about my inherent biological abilities not whether society provides adaptions for me or not.

As for why I said it's not popular, I've encountered a lot of autistic people (here and elsewhere) who believe very strongly in the social model of disability and argue that autistics are not disabled and could function just as well as allistics (non-autistics) if society adapted to us. As I said, I don't think this is entirely true, certainly not in my case, but I know some people get very angry about this, so I wanted to acknowledge that I know my opinion isn't the only one here.

Thank you.

I think that's true and is why we are unable to obtain a universal  'official' yes...

This is really what I meant about it being political. Governments (national and local) are always looking to save money, so defining as many people as possible as "not disabled" becomes an aim, even if this ends up with inconsistencies in other areas.

I haven’t mentioned any members, or specific threads so I’m not sure how you would know what they were suggesting… And unfortunately no, it didn’t come across that way at all. 

quote: 'I’ve seen a few posts lately where members have said if you don’t want to work, then don’t. It's not really that simple though is it...'

The members you mention here have not even remotely suggested that not working is at all simple. I think they are probably acutely aware of the complexities of managing finances whilst disabled! 

I see my autism as a disability in the same way that I see my height as a disability. If everyone was like me and the world was designed for us, it wouldn't be a problem. As it is, I have to climb the shelves at the supermarket every week, carry something to rest my feet on as I can't reach the ground when sitting in a chair, accept that I can't fully participate in conversations with tall people when we're standing in a noisy environment, accept water damage when I have a plumbing problem as the stopcock in my flat can't be reached by standing on furniture, and be careful around physically large people as they could easily hurt me and there's nothing I could do about it. I similarly need to carry earplugs and ear defenders to manage my sensory needs in loud public places, ask for alternatives to phone calls because I can't process what's being said, and take a lot of time out between activities to recover from being an autistic person in a neurotypical would. These are all tall/NT-created difficulties, not something inherent to me.

I’ve seen a few posts lately where members have said if you don’t want to work, then don’t. It’s not really that simple though is it.

No it isn't ...

I think the whole benefits system in place for disabilities is a complete minefield anyway, even if you have a clearly labelled disability rather than autism or mental health which definitely are grey areas. So it makes sense that a disability card that has no monetary value would be a lot easier to obtain. Though they wanted my doctors address, phone number and I had to tick a box that said I was happy for them to contact them - so  I’m not very hopeful of getting one. 

But going back to the benefits for disabilities, the whole thing completely confuses me. I’ve seen a few posts lately where members have said if you don’t want to work, then don’t. It’s not really that simple though is it. I have struggled my entire life both working for others and myself. I’ve never even thought of trying to get help financially because I’m pretty certain I wouldn’t be able to word or show how much my entire life is affected.  It’s not a matter of just not wanting to work. I don’t even think I relayed everything in my assessment as although I talked far too much, I can never get my head in order and say the correct thing at the right time. So although my diagnosis says I scored highly in most areas, I feel it doesn’t include the real issues that I struggle with every single day, more it covers areas that I have removed myself from. 

Joe said:

Also Autism is listed under A5 here:

It is thanks, but see A4 above, where it is once again qualified:

A4. Whether a person is disabled for the purposes of the Act is generally determined by reference to the effect that an impairment has on that person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

I guess I kind of take it that they mean just having an autism diagnosis isn’t seen as a disability, but if the diagnosis means you have an impairment, then it does. 

Thanks.

According to that definition then, I probably wouldn't be classed as disabled as I do those things, but they cause me stress.

It's a very grey area I think.

There are however some things I don't do because they would just be too much.

I think it probably comes down the quote above 'the effect that an impairment has on that person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities'.

With regard to my council providing a disabled person's card for discounts, as we are on a spectrum, I assume it was simpler just to allow all autistic people to have one ie not to make a distinction with regard to impairment.

However, perhaps for something more financially valuable, you would need to show proof of:

'the effect that an impairment has on that person’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities'.

Perhaps, by showing receipt of a financial benefit from the government?

Maybe then *we are sometimes classed as disabled and sometimes not (for different purposes). 

*Also, is the 'we' here those who have been given a level 1 or a 'high functioning' label?

Debbie did you see the examples on the citizens advice link? 

I guess I kind of take it that they mean just having an autism diagnosis isn’t seen as a disability, but if the diagnosis means you have an impairment, then it does. 

‘

Example

Ahmed is autistic. He finds the world overwhelming and this causes him considerable anxiety. He also has difficulty communicating and interacting with other people.

Ahmed doesn’t think he’s disabled as he’s not physically impaired. However, he has an impairment because the effect of his condition means he can't do some day-to-day activities - like going to the shops alone and socialising.

I think it is. This page defo says it is:

www.autism.org.uk/.../autistic-adults

Also Autism is listed under A5 here:

www.gov.uk/.../disability-equality-act-2010-guidance-on-matters-to-be-taken-into-account-in-determining-questions-relating-to-the-definition-of-disability-html

Thanks for the replies so far.

I think I need to clarify that I'm looking for an 'official' answer.

This I think is where the problem lies.

So, according to my council, I'm disabled but according to discrimination legislation, I'm not.

I wish it was black and white - either I (we) am officially classed as disabled because of autism or I'm not.

I do, however, realise it's complicated as, for example, physical impairment would be required for benefits and a blue badge for parking ...