This BBC article is journalism and not science - exactly why it is "unsettling"...
So it sets it out as if defining autism is some sort of "culture war" of equal balance - instead of presenting it as one person versus a huge swathe of evidence. Diagnosis is based upon this - not just the evidence of a few social media "identity seekers"or the personal skepticism of those who for whatever reason can't recognise their own biases on this matter.
The article completely downplays the "allostatic load" of autism - that is to say the cumulative wear and tear on the brain and body that's the product of repeated and chronic stress associated with being autistic in a neurotypical dominated world.
Personally I find it upsetting because it completely downplays autistic burnout, systemic trauma etc. of the late diagnosed who lack support.
Pitting the spectrum against itself is really not helpful.
I think this is a media expression of the same sort of resistance I've personally experienced throughout my life.
The claim that it is "in depth" makes me want to swear too - it's tabloid journalism masquerading as analysis.
This BBC article is journalism and not science - exactly why it is "unsettling"...
So it sets it out as if defining autism is some sort of "culture war" of equal balance - instead of presenting it as one person versus a huge swathe of evidence. Diagnosis is based upon this - not just the evidence of a few social media "identity seekers"or the personal skepticism of those who for whatever reason can't recognise their own biases on this matter.
The article completely downplays the "allostatic load" of autism - that is to say the cumulative wear and tear on the brain and body that's the product of repeated and chronic stress associated with being autistic in a neurotypical dominated world.
Personally I find it upsetting because it completely downplays autistic burnout, systemic trauma etc. of the late diagnosed who lack support.
Pitting the spectrum against itself is really not helpful.
I think this is a media expression of the same sort of resistance I've personally experienced throughout my life.
The claim that it is "in depth" makes me want to swear too - it's tabloid journalism masquerading as analysis.
trying to present a massively documented public health crisis as a "culture war" is not a healthy way forward
rather than pitching one group of autistic people against another in the fight for resources - why not highlight that funding for all presentation profiles should be available in a wealthy nation?
why not give the numbers and evidence for the effect of allostatic load in order to highlight the need for funding for people who need it?
why not highlight that sub-typing protects all parts of the autistic spectrum?
So what lies behind it?
I'm increasingly worried about the institutional and political mecahnics that govern the BBC...
