The Choice

I live in a village where there is this lad, roughly 17. He is autistic, but to a much greater degree than me. He dresses as a Jedi to go outside and i often see him in the street practicing with his light sabre. 

Many people laugh at him or pretend he doesnt exist. The first time i saw him i walked right up to him and said 'dude that is the coolest thing i have seen all year'. 

He looked at me and simply said 'thank you.' 

Given a choice i am always my quirky self. Let the people laugh or ignore me. That way i know that the people that talk to me are not hostile. 

Encouraging him was probably the most evil thing you have ever done in your life. He needed guidance on how to blend in and interact with society, not the contrary.

Why would that be? Why should everyone blend in. 

You have a very small minded view. I dont blend in. I dont want to. Neither does he. 

🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:

Blimey it's not that difficult a concept that Autism is it's own thing,

That is where you are making the mistake - at least in the context of this discussion.

We are discussing the comparability of autists to gays - that is the essence of the arguement here, not the textbook definition of autis.

Look at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum

It is now known that autism is a highly variable neurodevelopmental disorder

The spectrum model should not be understood as a continuum running from mild to severe, but instead means that autism can present very differently in each person. How a person presents can depend on context, and may vary over time.

Look at how autism is diagnosed - we are given a score on a range of tests and the arbitary value was assigned by which a higher score = autism. It is a flawed classification system.

Judge Dredd was being shot down for saying that gays (a group with a single, identifiable trait) are much more numerous than autists.

I pointed out that autists have no single identifiable trait, even within their own lifetimes they change in their traits and the intensity of them.

This means to have an equivelant comparison of a group of autists with the same traits you woud have a much smaller number, and hence the arguement about representation holds.

I suspect you are arguing about something different and not the subject here.

They can, I know when my mask has accidentally slipped with strangers, either with curiosity or distrust I can see a subtle change in their faces (I learned to be a face reader even though I don't have the allistic autopilot for it) and the look on their faces is like they have just seen a cat say woof.

Iain said:

Bees (they/them) said:

The "single trait" is still autism, even when autism is on a spectrum.

Then explain to me what the single identifiable trait of all autists is?

Being Autistic. Blimey it's not that difficult a concept that Autism is it's own thing, if we were just a set of symptoms unlabled we'd never be diagnosed with anything, the GPs would just say I diagnose you as not being able to walk, to which a patient would say  "well no 5h17 Sherlock". You're even on the forum for the National Autistic Society, not the National Anything Not Neurotypical Society.

Iain said:

Do you want to discuss the fundamentals of this or does it not suit your agenda?

I don't wish to fall out with you, but accusing me of having an agenda (agenda of what? warning against belief in unsubstantiable claims, wow how evil of me)  when I have tried my best to put the fundamentals in laymans terms is incredibly cruel and perverse. I have written in plain English, if you cannot understand because it's gone over your head then fine, it is not a moral failing and I don't consider you any lesser, but either way if you cannot or refuse to understand me for your own reasons that is not my fault at this point.

🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:

The "single trait" is still autism, even when autism is on a spectrum.

Then explain to me what the single identifiable trait of all autists is?

You can't because there isn't one. We hare a group of people with a wide range of behaviours / traits that are hugely diverse and sometimes contradictory.

That seems to be what our disagreement boils down to.

Do you want to discuss the fundamentals of this or does it not suit your agenda?

🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:

If you can't or refuse to discuss what I'm actually saying then please do not bother, I'm too busy this weekend for bothering going back and forth with anyone set on miscontrueing me no matter what I say.

Been there... 

I'm reading a really interesting book on Autism right now, but I've still got 350 pages to do, I'll wait until I finish it, but it DOES seem to show a commonality that cuts across the Autism spectrum. 

The bloody normies can smell it from about 10 yards...

Iain said:

Autists do not fall into one identifiable group of people in the same way that gays do - there is no single trait or characteristic that you can say makes them obvious. Instead we use an abritary number of characteristics from a wide spectrum of such characteristics to meet a threshold and thus qualify for the label.

We lack an identity in the public eye this way - some of us can't stand crowds whild some love them. Some hate loud noises and some are concert going metalheads. Some go mute when nervous while some cannot stop talking.

I really do not see how you can say that with any seriousness. Autistic is autistic, you are not "more" or "less autistic" because you are not on the same place on the spectrum as another autistic person. The "single trait" is still autism, even when autism is on a spectrum.

Iain said:

Comparing the numbers of one group who have a sexual preference to others of the same gender with those who have selective mutism

Again you should read what I say because I literally never did that. Only you have mentioned selective mutism in this chat between us and as selective mutism is not autism that is a strawman argument and moving the goal post of the original point that was being made.

If you can't or refuse to discuss what I'm actually saying then please do not bother, I'm too busy this weekend for bothering going back and forth with anyone set on miscontrueing me no matter what I say.

🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:

Please read what I say very carefully

Fair point, but this is an internet discussion forum, not a court case so there are likely to be disagreemnets and a lack of attention at times.

The reason I quoted back was that your statement of "thats not true" implied a binary  situation of true and false when in fact different, respectable information sources do not agree with one another.

Autists do not fall into one identifiable group of people in the same way that gays do - there is no single trait or characteristic that you can say makes them obvious. Instead we use an abritary number of characteristics from a wide spectrum of such characteristics to meet a threshold and thus qualify for the label.

We lack an identity in the public eye this way - some of us can't stand crowds whild some love them. Some hate loud noises and some are concert going metalheads. Some go mute when nervous while some cannot stop talking.

So to compare gays with autistics with particular identifiable characteristics, the original point is spot on. Comparing the numbers of one group who have a sexual preference to others of the same gender with those who have selective mutism will be a huge mismatch.

Taking all autistic traits and compaing this disparate group of people to another group of people with one very selective trait is not a fair comparison so would need to be considered as lots of smaller groups instead - confirming the arguement.

That is the angle I was approaching the discussion to use your technique of plain speaking.

Not really, my point is the true number is unknowable and the discrepancy of statistics from one source to the next prove lack of definitive data collection, or error in the data collection, to which the result is the same conclusion, the true number is unknown ergo "there are way more homosexuals than aspies" is an unreliable and unproven statement. The satistics I provided were examples of statistics, to illustrate the issue which I already explained in my last reply.
The links should have been read because they explain the problem with how their data was collected re the census and autism diagnosis numbers: "Around 3.6 million people (7.5%) did not answer the question on sexual orientation, while 2.9 million (6.0%) chose not to disclose their gender identity." " The new study, based on school records that usually underestimate the actual proportion of children who meet diagnostic criteria, shows a considerable increase in the autism prevalence in England. The researchers say the increase is likely to be because autism has become better recognised by both parents and schools in recent years."
This is important because statistics rely on people taking part A in the first place, and B the data input without error. And since we know autism diagnosis is still improving. It would be near imposible to say what the real number is when the reality is not fully reported into the data sets to form those statistics. Statistics are interesting, but they are not gospel. That's not to say you should never share statistics, but you must be aware of the unreliability of them. And at any rate I don't even have reason to think Judge's statement was anything over than opinion, as not even he cited a source for his claim.

TBH when the response to my point about statistics not being definitive is to post more statistics showing different results which proves my own point I'm inclined to believe you didn't really read what I said, made some assumptions about what I meant, and just reactionarily went NOPE on it because "reasons". Please read what I say very carefully, I do try my best not to mince words and use plain speak whenever possible so it shouldn't be that difficult to understand my meaning.

🐝 Bees 🐝 (they/them) Autism resources in bio #stoptheshock #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs said:

That's actually not true.
Gay and lesbian (census) population is 1.5%

The office for national statistics has that figure at 3.1%

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2020

The same site you used shows just over 1% of the UK population is autistic:

https://www.beyondautism.org.uk/about-autism/understanding-autism/statistics/

That would support Judge Dredds case.

To be clear, my drive is not to educate, but rather to set up a procedure in which I am most-efficient..

This sounds like a loud thing, like you stated above, but really it just translates to things like: Not expecting me to sing in the company choir or collect coffee for the team when I go to the toilet.
Change for me is not-being questioned and challenged on why I don’t adhere to the unwritten rules, change for me is being allowed to adapt my personal-bubble to expel the sensory chaos around me, it is having a means of communicating with others in a way that I am comfortable. 
Social change for me, is anything but an additional element to the chaos, it is a reprieve from the chaos..

I believe that NTs believe it is a big thing to give one a free-pass from the chaos, and I believe it is for another’s ego, but I thing that autistic change is anything but loud and inconvenient. It is inefficient to appease the status-quo against the pursuit of individual efficiency. It doesn’t take manpower to help autistic people, I feel, it simply takes a nod.. ‘the blue badge of the employment world’..

Judge Dredd said:

There are way more homosexuals than aspies

.

That's actually not true*.
Gay and lesbian (census) population is 1.5% https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64184736
Autistic (diagnosed) population (just the kids, not including adults) is 1.7% https://www.ncl.ac.uk/press/articles/archive/2021/03/autismratesincrease/

It's not a true* statement because the true population of autistic and lesbian and gay people is throttled back by fear of being outed to homophobic family when completing the census for those that live at home, and the lack of diagnosis of autism due to wait times, high maskers that never get assessed, underfunded NHS, and assessors that innacurately misdiagnose autistic girls as other things. Therefor the true statistics are currently unknowable.

For clarity true here being used by definition as accurate, reliable and trustworthy.

DeSpereaux said:

But I would say that it doesn’t matter how close to normal you try to be, the group will always see through your camouflage, even if it’s as you try to catch your breath. So I would say that it’s a recipe for misery to pursue others’ ideals

Yes. The only way is to pursue your own. It seems impossible unless you comprehend what it means. I found it very hard to get there though, I have to say. 

1) There are way more homosexuals than aspies

2) There is way more support for homosexuals than for aspies

3) Homosexuals tend to be way more functional than the average aspie

Iain said:

I'm inclined to agree with Judge Dredd on this issue - we are in such a small minority that expecting society to change is not realistic in meaningful timescales.

I'm not sugesting we have a riot but in 1969 the homosexuals had the stonewall riots. The next year they were having gay pride marches. 4 years later the american doctors removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. A year after a presure group in the uk was formed and 10 years after that gay sex was legalised in scotland.

minorites can change things. If they make themselves too loud to be ignored.

DeSpereaux said:

Efficient for who?

I'm inclined to agree with Judge Dredd on this issue - we are in such a small minority that expecting society to change is not realistic in meaningful timescales.

If we want to interact or live a life that involves interacting with others to do the things we want then it is more efficient to mask if you want to do the things you need to do.

It sucks that it comes to this but it is incredibly hard to live a life of not interacting and often too traumatising to be fully authentic in out interactions. So whether it is just holding back on out stims or responding to small talk - we all end up doing some masking.

DeSpereaux said:

If you’re not aiming to change things for the better are you efficient at all?

This is an unequal comparison. You can still do what it takes to conclude some social interaction that gets your job done faster (as an example) but this cannot be equated with educating everyone at the company and all future employees about autism and hoping they will get it.

Efficiency is about least expenditure of energy to achieve an outcome - clearly masking to get the job done is more efficient than a crusade to educate the company. At least in the short to mid term.

Long term to make things easier for us (ie improve efficiency for us by lowering resistance) will require a willingness for the companies to engage in understanding and accommodating us. This is likely only ever going to be achieved by legislation or massice social change.

I don't think social change is going to cut is as there are so many special interest groups competing for what little capacity society has to adopt a needy minority group - we are just not interesting enough to them.

mate, that's just not realistic. ASD are about 4% of the populace, even less. There is just not enough clout and manpower to influence society as a whole.

Efficient for who? I’ve masked the most I have ever masked before, it seems to me that I was a battery for the situation prescribed, when I was depleted I was cast aside. Seven years later, here I am completely unproductive and traumatised, where employment and relationships are concerned, where’s the efficiency in that..?

If I’d spend that time trying to move mountains for my employment and relationships, at least I would’ve been honing my confidence and competence in those things, I suppose it begs the question: If you’re not aiming to change things for the better are you efficient at all?

DeSpereaux said:

I don’t believe that is a hard standard to achieve.

It is. It's way more efficient to learn to mask better, rather than trying to change all society.

I honestly have never been happier when just having a stress free interaction with an unguarded person.

I’ll try to pick the pips out of this and bite into the point you’re making, the individual must play the prescribed game to survive, as the community represents the sea in which we all swim. 
But I would say that it doesn’t matter how close to normal you try to be, the group will always see through your camouflage, even if it’s as you try to catch your breath. So I would say that it’s a recipe for misery to pursue others’ ideals.

The others may have been laughing but the two in that interaction weren’t. Perhaps instead of punishing people because society doesn’t make room for them, by asking them to conform, we should ask society to make reservation for the neurodivergent. I don’t believe that is a hard standard to achieve.
Just like one NT person shouldn’t argue with another over one disabled parking space, they should both ask society to make other space, everybody should have access and everyone’s focus should be on increasing capacity not fighting over what is available.

I mean by what right do equals bestow mercy upon one another, the fight should be aimed at that tyranny I feel, not accepting a self-proclaimed overlord and adjusting accordingly..

No because you are speaking a whole lot of nonsense. Bye

No because you are speaking a whole lot of nonsense. Bye