Published on 12, July, 2020
All her life my daughter has fought the stigma that being Autistic was defined as, first a "learning disabilty" and now a "disability". It has destroyed her life, made her feel inferior and sapped her self confidence. Then to see the BBC describe autism as a "lifelong disability" made me furious. Then to find that the source of this bigotry is the definition on the NAS website makes me incandescent with rage. I too am Autistic. The NAS does not represent me or my daughter. The challenges which Autistic poeple face are not what we are but how we are misunderstood. For the NAS to insist on perpetuating these myths makes you part of the problem. I can only presume your definition of Autism was written and approved by a bunch of, perhaps well-meaning, poeple who suffer from Autism Deficiency Syndrome and who lack the flexibility of thought that Autism gives us and we, in turn, have given the world the technology which I am using to write this.
Being classed as disabled gives an autistic person important and fundamental rights under disability discrimination laws, such as the Equality Act 2010. They are essential in order for us to be able to function in a world that is not designed for us. For example reasonable adjustments which are necessary in order to be able to function in the workplace.
A definition of disability (from Wikipedia):
"Disability is the experience of any condition that makes it more difficult for a person to do certain activities or have equitable access within a given society."
The challenges that autistic people face mean that we certainly find some things more difficult and can be discriminated against at every stage in life. It is lifelong. So many people wrongly believe that autism is something that only affects children. I even had a GP say that once
I'm all for the social model of autism, as opposed to the pathological one, but I'm not convinced that different is any less stigmatizing than disabled. Until the social model gains enough traction we need that protection against discrimination.
I hope that in the future being neurodivergent will become a specific protected characteristic under discrimination laws. Maybe that's the kind of thing NAS could be campaigning for. In the meantime we have to make the best of what exists now.
What really annoyed me was that NAS concentrate on the negative aspects of Autism. Surely they could highlight the positive traits that autistic poeple have. As is said elsewhere, the real problem is employment. Employers are really missing out on excellent staff because they think job interviews will tell them something about whether the candidate can do the job. What they actually get is poeple who like to gossip all day.
BTW
I just had to fill in a DWP form labelled "Capability for Work Assessment" which only asked what we can't do. In fact the questions were identical to those on earlier forms for "Incapacity".
I agree with you that there should be a lot more focus on the positives. Employers consistently advertise for 'team players' and 'strong communicators' and what they get is employees who spend their days gossiping. All we ask is a quiet place to just get on with our work. The shockingly low numbers of autistic people in work suggests that even that is poorly recognised.
I find the NAS website in general (aside from this forum) quite unwieldy and hard to navigate. Much of it doesn't appear to have been updated in years. The Autistica charity seem to do a lot more in terms of research and active campaigns to improve autistic lives. Much of it by researchers who are autistic themselves.
One other thing which has occurred to me is that I do not know if it was actually NAS who first started using the term 'developmental disability'. It is also used in other countries (such as USA and Canada) and there does need to be some consistency in how autism is viewed across the world .
Fair enough. NAS can describe autism however they like and probably have their own reasons for doing so. It doesn’t mean you or I have to use the term. I used to say I had Asperger’s but these days I just say I’m autistic although it does confuse a few people whose idea of autism is more Kanner type autism than Asperger type autism and don’t appear to have grasped the idea of a spectrum.
I can’t actually remember to be honest (although I don’t think so - it was more their corporate culture) and I’m out of time to bring a claim anyway. I was asked to give an example of using different communication styles during the interview and thinking “what the hell is a communication style?” When they then clarified what they meant I was able to give one but they then used this and “they didn’t think I’d be enough of a team player” as their grounds for not giving me the job which I was over-qualified for. They were careful though and got an agency they used to tell me their grounds in a phonecall so although I think they definitely were discriminating against me on grounds of my disability it would have been difficult to prove. I’m in the fortunate position though that I’ve got enough savings that I don’t have to work for anybody who doesn’t want me to work for the, but it is annoying.
Yes developmental disability is how it is described.
Here on the NAS site:
https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/what-is-autism
"Autism is a lifelong developmental disability which affects how people communicate and interact with the world."
Here on a US site:
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/odep/program-areas/autism
"Autism is a neurological developmental disability with an estimated prevalence of one to two percent of the American and worldwide population."
Taltunes said:I would argue that asking for team players and strong communicators is dangerously close to disability discrimination
Did the job spec specified that this was required?