Is It Really Cosplay Harassment? Or Just Neuroatypical Behavior?

[VaporWare]

You are not a disease. You have a disease.

You seem to associate stating you have a disease with denying that there's no cure.

You're also assuming that your experiences mirror those of all people with autism.

And you're accepting an unproven evolutionary psychology theory because it's something you want to believe.

There's three reasons why your account is not very useful in understanding autism.

Setting aside my earlier ranty and highly generalized tone, as far as the evolutionary psychology theory I don't accept it because I 'want' to believe I have a more primitively optimized version of human neurology with possible but poorly understood modern applications, I accept it because it is consonant with both my own experiences as an autist and those of other autists I interact with. At this time, it is, like any other I use, simply the best framework I currently have that fits the evidence I have to work with on the subject it concerns.

I don't recall speaking about my personal experiences being a mirror of 'all those with autism' (please don't mistake speaking broadly for speaking absolutely), only that my current hypothesis is the best one we ('we' here referring primarily to those autists I have associated with and whom have helped refine the model) seem to have to work from for the purpose of understanding our experiences and fitting them into the world we inhabit in a functional way. I didn't touch on it very deeply or in detail here because I was (and am) speaking to a very general, open audience.

Nnn-ot sure I entirely followed your second line, but I /am/ saying that a 'cure' for autism in the sense of altering our brains to function as neurotypical is not necessary even if it becomes possible. This is because most of the genuinely pathological expressions appear to be the result of trauma or other conditions acting in tandem with 'being autistic in the modern world' to produce an unusually high rate of dysfunction in environments where autistic tendencies are suboptimal (e.g.: most of the developed world). As such, I do not believe that even if one did 'cure' a severely impaired autist of autism that it would result in a functional neurotypical individual: the damage is already done, and in most cases already is by the time you can even make the diagnosis, or is the result of other conditions occurring in tandem anyway.

Certainly, I am also emphatically saying that the /attempts/ to cure autism have, thus far, unilaterally done more harm than good by vast leaps.

Lastly, I am autistic. You consider autism a disease. You are calling me, my brain, my experiences, and so forth...diseased. I am not convinced that my autism is a separable issue here. While I can't deny that I /have/ psychological issues of genuinely pathological nature, they do not flow from my autism alone.

They flow from daily trying to contend with people like you who seem to feel that I, as an autist, shouldn't be, and that my feedback on the matter /as/ an autist is irrelevant.

Now I think I'm going to take a break from that for a bit and do something nice. I suspect we've already reached the part of the conversation where we've become intractable to each other, but here's some question for you anyway: why do you seem to prefer to believe that autism is an incurable disease? Is it just a cynical sense of realism? How certain are you in your position? Why?

What makes your understanding of autism better than that of functioning autists engaged in serious introspection and investigation of their state as they attempt to seek better ways to /be/ functional for themselves and others on the spectrum?

Again, thank you for your time, and have a pleasant evening. *smile*

 

[insanelich]

~snip~

Lastly, I am autistic. You consider autism a disease. You are calling me, my brain, my experiences, and so forth...diseased. I am not convinced that my autism is a separable issue here. While I can't deny that I /have/ psychological issues of genuinely pathological nature, they do not flow from my autism alone.

They flow from daily trying to contend with people like you who seem to feel that I, as an autist, shouldn't be, and that my feedback on the matter /as/ an autist is irrelevant.

Now I think I'm going to take a break from that for a bit and do something nice. I suspect we've already reached the part of the conversation where we've become intractable to each other, but here's some question for you anyway: why do you seem to prefer to believe that autism is an incurable disease? Is it just a cynical sense of realism? How certain are you in your position? Why?

What makes your understanding of autism better than that of functioning autists engaged in serious introspection and investigation of their state as they attempt to seek better ways to /be/ functional for themselves and others on the spectrum?

Again, thank you for your time, and have a pleasant evening. *smile*

You can try to blame attitudes like mine for your problems. You're wrong, and blaming things isn't going to change anything. You can try to redefine the disease as "not a disease", and you can try to redefine the sky as "not blue".

But all that anger, all that desperation, all that wishing to rationalize your disease as something else, as something controlled by someone, as something you can blame someone for, as something - anything - meaningful... well, it's neither rare or surprising. It's something most autistic people seem to experience.

A whim of fate robs autistic people of something extremely precious, and there's nobody to blame and nothing to be done. And it will, almost inevitably, cause great suffering and the autistic person themselves getting the blame. Anger is certainly a natural reaction. It's just not useful, and it's not going to change the facts.

It is a cynical sense of realism, backed with a wealth of scientific knowledge.

You're diseased. It ain't fair. But you have to play with the cards you have, not the cards you wish you had.

 

[hentropy]

On one hand I can kinda see the general point here, on the other hand even the milder forms of autism don't exactly make people love the touchy-feelies. The account seemed more reminiscent of someone who was simply unfamiliar with social conventions, rather than someone who was straight-up autistic. This whole "immediately equate social awkwardness with autism" trend really needs to fucking die yesterday. Grr angry.

On yet another hand (foot I guess), I can see how the situation may have been escalated unnecessarily. It didn't really appear to be a predatory act in which the person in question was trying to feel someone up for some kind of gratification. On the other foot, being someone familiar with cosplay at conventions, I know that it's somewhat of a sorry state when anyone cosplaying for a number of years can expect something weird/uncomfortable to happen, and that it can put a damper on an otherwise fun experience.

 

[the_real_seebs]

You can try to blame attitudes like mine for your problems. You're wrong, and blaming things isn't going to change anything. You can try to redefine the disease as "not a disease", and you can try to redefine the sky as "not blue".

Okay, see, you have a lot of angry ranting here. What you don't have is a response to a very direct and straightforward question you were asked:

"What makes your understanding of autism better than that of functioning autists engaged in serious introspection and investigation of their state as they attempt to seek better ways to /be/ functional for themselves and others on the spectrum?"

And it's sort of interesting that you completely ignored that question. Because in so doing, you highlight one of the things often pointed out as a significant gap in cognitive function between the autistic population and the non-autistic population. When a topic is powerfully emotional to you, as this one obviously is, you can't just respond to a factual question like that.

That said... I think you're missing a key point in your understanding of autism, and why it would or would not be a "disease".

Consider, if you will, a society dominated by people like VaporWare, or me; a society in which "non-autistic" people are a tiny minority. Could such a society function? Certainly. It'd be different from ours, but it'd be able to work. But in that society, would that tiny minority be regarded as obviously superior, or would people view them as disabled, and less functional than "normal"? I would argue that it'd be the latter. Sure, there's things non-autistics are good at that "normal" people wouldn't be... But then, there's things autistics are good at that most people aren't. But with a society built around the needs and nature of a different set of people, the people "tuned" for this society would be regarded as disabled, with their pathological need for constant social reassurances, their difficulty thinking clearly or accurately about emotional things, and so on.

With the things that we regard as unambiguously "diseases", if 90% of people had them, and 10% of people don't, everyone would think those 10% were unambiguously better off.

But all that anger, all that desperation, all that wishing to rationalize your disease as something else, as something controlled by someone, as something you can blame someone for, as something - anything - meaningful... well, it's neither rare or surprising. It's something most autistic people seem to experience.

This is a fascinating example of projection. I spend a lot of time talking to autistics, and I've basically never seen responses I would call "anger" or "desparation". You're assuming that, since you would be "angry" if you thought a "problem" was someone else's fault, everyone else would be that way. But that's not true for autistics, who have different emotional responses.

Most importantly, I don't have all the usual problems. I got lucky; I was generally in an environment full of people who treated me in ways I could deal well with. So I've got nothing to be angry about. I like existing. I am not unhappy with what I am.

Why do you feel it's your place to be unhappy with what I am, anyway?

A whim of fate robs autistic people of something extremely precious, and there's nobody to blame and nothing to be done.

What exactly is it that you think I've been robbed of? Please be specific, and explain exactly what it is that I lack, and why I should be sad about it.

Also, while you're at it, please show your work on your implied assumption that I don't have anything precious that you don't have. I have known a lot of people, autistic and otherwise, and so far as I can tell, there is a fierce joy that autistic people can derive from the things that interest them which is simply unavailable to people who can't focus like that. And maybe you don't miss it, but then, I apparently don't miss whatever it is that you think I've been "robbed" of.

The difference is, I'm okay with you existing and being happy the way you are. I don't feel that I need to prove that the way I am is the only good way and is objectively superior and people unlike me should be "fixed". Because I have been "robbed" of a completely dysfunctional way of evaluating self-worth. Poor me. I am so sad not to be completely obsessed with other people being like me enough.

And it will, almost inevitably, cause great suffering and the autistic person themselves getting the blame. Anger is certainly a natural reaction. It's just not useful, and it's not going to change the facts.

Again, I don't think you know what you're talking about here. I'm not suffering. The people around me aren't suffering. Well, I mean. Not from autism per se. They do suffer from the puns. But the only person here showing anger is you. You're the one writing a lot of heavily loaded emotional language; VaporWare's been calm and rational. Which is, after all, what we expect to happen.

It is a cynical sense of realism, backed with a wealth of scientific knowledge.

So far, you have shown a grand total of zero "scientific knowledge" on this topic, though. You've even bragged about not actually listening to or caring about autistic experiences. And your comparison with "not learning about cancer from cancer patients" is highly disingenuous. You could talk to cancer patients and find out whether or not they are happy. You could find out whether having cancer was making their lives unpleasant. And you know what? They all hate it. A lot.

But if you talk to autistics, you get a much broader range of answers. Why are you so sure that you have to disregard those answers?

You talk about your wealth of knowledge. Where did you get your psych degree?

You're diseased. It ain't fair. But you have to play with the cards you have, not the cards you wish you had.

You keep asserting this, and honestly, the real question is: What personal tragedy informs you? Because the way you're talking, no one talks like that about autism unless they've got a personal tragedy. The researchers in the field doing the real research, the psychologists working with autistic patients, don't use that kind of extreme and vehement language. They aren't so quick to diagnose all autistics as being "angry and desperate". So. Where's that really coming from?

 

[the_real_seebs]

Okay, see, you have a lot of angry ranting here. What you don't have is a response to a very direct and straightforward question you were asked:

"What makes your understanding of autism better than that of functioning autists engaged in serious introspection and investigation of their state as they attempt to seek better ways to /be/ functional for themselves and others on the spectrum?"

And it's sort of interesting that you completely ignored that question.

Can we get someone with a degree on this subject in here? Or at least some cited sources? Everyone is making all sorts of claims, but nobody is backing them up with evidence.

I have a psych degree. Also I'm autistic, and I've spent a great deal of my time working with other autistics on finding out how to adapt well to the world around them. My obsessive special interest, in general, is human cognition, both normal and abnormal.

Consider, if you will, a society dominated by people like VaporWare, or me; a society in which "non-autistic" people are a tiny minority. Could such a society function? Certainly. It'd be different from ours, but it'd be able to work. But in that society, would that tiny minority be regarded as obviously superior, or would people view them as disabled, and less functional than "normal"? I would argue that it'd be the latter. Sure, there's things non-autistics are good at that "normal" people wouldn't be... But then, there's things autistics are good at that most people aren't. But with a society built around the needs and nature of a different set of people, the people "tuned" for this society would be regarded as disabled, with their pathological need for constant social reassurances, their difficulty thinking clearly or accurately about emotional things, and so on.

I dunno, I would think that the non-autistic people would all group together, use their innate social skills to overpower and control those scattered throughout the wilderness. A unified civilization has a lot more strength than an individual.

You're right, a unified civilization has lots of strength. And autistics can, in fact, organize socially just fine. The thing is... Lacking "innate" social skills doesn't mean "lacking social skills". It means that you have to be explicitly taught those skills, yes. But that doesn't mean you can't use them. It means that you can use them consciously.

One of the things most non-autistic don't ever realize is how often their "innate" social skills steer them wrong. Because, for the most part, non-autistics require significant training to be able to distinguish between things they know to be true, and things their social skills have told them are true but which might not be. So there's a lot of hilarious miscommunications that come about because the participants in a conversation have unquestioned assumptions which are out of sync, and no one notices until things have gone horribly wrong.

A society in which autistics were the norm wouldn't be a bunch of isolated loners refusing to cooperate under any circumstances. It would just rely a *lot* less on guesswork, and a lot more on explicit statements of intent.

Seriously, just think about what you said here. Why on earth would you assume that the autistics, when I've already said "a society", would all be isolated loners not cooperating? I mean, haven't you noticed that this thread contains multiple people who are autistic, and who are apparently able to survive in a society well enough to have Internet access and computers? We're not some kind of totally alien life form that no one could ever recognize as self-aware or human. We're people with different preferences. Of course we would have a society, even if we were the majority, because society is really useful. It's just that we'd probably have a society in which you were much less likely to be denied a job because you didn't magically guess which of eight fashion standards to adhere to for this field of work.

 

[JoJo]

~snip~

No word about disease in my simple dictionary check.

...

Please stop talking about autism altogether.
Also, your lack of knowledge about dictionary definitions is disappointing. And that doesn't include the fact that you should look at a diagnostic manual and not at a dictionary for a good definition.

Autism is an incorrectly functioning system of the body.

I am aware there's a widespread movement to try to redefine autism as a different shade of normal. There's also a widespread movement blaming vaccinations for autism.

I would advocate for curing autistic people, except there's no cure.

Hi, I'm autistic and I very much don't want to be "cured". If you could remap my brain so I understand non-verbal language better then I guess that would be useful, but the rest is fine as it is. You'll find many of us get defensive when neurotypical people suggest eliminating autism because this isn't like cancer or diabetes, our autism literally makes up a large component of who we are as people. Me without autism wouldn't be me any-more. A "cure" for autism would in effect be wiping people who think like me off the face of the Earth, I won't mince words, that's effectively genocide. Having a diversity of mindsets in the human race benefits everyone, so let's not rush to medicalise those who don't fit into the usual boxes.

 

[Hagi]

If we're going to compare non-verbal communication to foreign language you should see it as a language having the exact same words in exactly the same structures as the one you speak except sometimes, but not all the time, it means something else entirely.

Soooo regional slang?

There's no demand. There's just confusion.

Then ask.

And what if you're not in doubt?

Then you[footnote]rhetorical "you"[/footnote] obviously didn't think. Did you get permission? Y/N? Its not complicated. Did you ask and they answer yes? Then go right ahead and do whatever. There isn't doubt there as long as the question was relevant. Did you ask and they answer no? Then don't do whatever. There's no doubt there either. Did you not ask? Then it is in doubt, so simply refrain.

And both questions and answers are given in many different forms and shapes.

So ask for an answer in yes or no form. This is a useful trait to pick up by the way, helps cull miscommunications in pretty much any venue.

Those boxers probably didn't sigh a formal contract before hand or explicitly ask each other if they were allowed to start punching each other. There was the ring, there were the gloves, they probably asked the other if they were ready and then they started.

Uh, not quite how it works. You do require some sort of affirmative consent.

Again, you're assuming that the person in question knows in advance they're on the wrong track or at least has a suspicion they are. That's not nearly always the case.

And I'm sorry but it's completely unnatural to explicitly ask about literally every single social interaction even if you're sure about them. That's not how normal interactions function which is exactly what most autistic people are striving for, to have normal interactions with other people as much as possible.

You're essentially saying, just give up. Don't bother. Act in a way that makes it abundantly clear that you're not part of normal social dynamics rather than trying your best and making the occasional awkward mistake that, assuming reasonable people who don't jump to conclusions won't cause any lasting harm.

I'm sorry but at least speaking for myself I'd much rather end up in the occasional awkward, potentially inappropriate, situation for which I can sincerely apologise, learn from and explain myself rather than resigning myself to constant stigmatization and being excluded by asking explicit permission for every social interaction just because I happen to have a certain diagnosis that makes me more prone to social misunderstandings.

I mean hell, even perfectly normal socially capable people occasionally make mistakes, have misunderstandings and unintentionally end up in inappropriate situations at times. There's no expectations there to ask explicit permission for every single social interaction regardless of whether or not you feel sure the non-verbal signals are there, that's just making completely normal situations horribly awkward.

Certainly, you should ask explicitly if you're uncertain whether or not something is inappropriate or not. But to ask about everything, even if you feel sure just isn't realistic at all.
When someone does something you feel is inappropriate, awkward or otherwise uncalled for then let them know but don't immediately jump to conclusions and judgment, give them a chance to apologise, explain and let you know where they're coming from.

If everyone just tries their best to act with consideration towards others, within reason, I believe things'll work out just fine. There'll be awkwardness at times certainly but I'd say that much better than excluding an entire group of people from normal social interactions just because they make mistakes more often.

 

[insanelich]

You can try to blame attitudes like mine for your problems. You're wrong, and blaming things isn't going to change anything. You can try to redefine the disease as "not a disease", and you can try to redefine the sky as "not blue".

Okay, see, you have a lot of angry ranting here. What you don't have is a response to a very direct and straightforward question you were asked:

~snip~

You keep asserting this, and honestly, the real question is: What personal tragedy informs you? Because the way you're talking, no one talks like that about autism unless they've got a personal tragedy. The researchers in the field doing the real research, the psychologists working with autistic patients, don't use that kind of extreme and vehement language. They aren't so quick to diagnose all autistics as being "angry and desperate". So. Where's that really coming from?

I answered the question. And your post is a perfect illustration to the why people with knowledge generally don't bother answering questions about autism. To be exact, it's a long-winded rant, filled with accusations, emotion and unfounded assumptions, one impossible to answer, and even if you tried it'd just be followed by another.

Yes, people working with people with autism generally want to make sure their language doesn't cause emotional states that are difficult to deal with - it tends to be distracting from whatever the subject of treatment or research is.

 

[Qizx]

~snip~

No word about disease in my simple dictionary check.

...

Please stop talking about autism altogether.
Also, your lack of knowledge about dictionary definitions is disappointing. And that doesn't include the fact that you should look at a diagnostic manual and not at a dictionary for a good definition.

Autism is an incorrectly functioning system of the body.

I am aware there's a widespread movement to try to redefine autism as a different shade of normal. There's also a widespread movement blaming vaccinations for autism.

I would advocate for curing autistic people, except there's no cure.

Ok so I have to stop you with simply calling anything that "incorrectly functions" as a disease. That's not how medicine works. As the other person pointed out there are a number of different words, disorder, syndrome, etc... Which are used, and are used because they have different meanings.

Disease =/= not perfectly functioning body.

I have dry skin. It's not a disease, it's a disorder.

Not sure where you're pulling in vaccines and autism from or why.

 

[insanelich]

Can we get someone with a degree on this subject in here? Or at least some cited sources? Everyone is making all sorts of claims, but nobody is backing them up with evidence.

In short, no. Nobody sane would present their credentials on an internet argument about autism, and the sources don't actually matter. For all the blathering about science and rationality, it's as meaningless as it's in any internet argument.

The secret to the sauce is alexithymia. Autistic people still have emotions and are affected by them, and in an emotionally-charged topic like this, they're always in play. The problem is that autistic people are unable to identify their own emotions, which leads to heavily emotionally charged replies - and no, the autistic people genuinely think it's not angry ranting, but instead they feel like it's a calm rational reply.

This tendency to fly off the handle into a tantrum at the drop of the hat while insisting - and genuinely thinking - they're not being emotional tends to be incredibly crippling socially for obvious reasons. While autistic people can be taught skills to manage their own emotions despite not being able to internally perceive them, these skills will not really be useful until the frontal lobe is done cookin'.

It robs them of their youth and their only chance to have normal social development. A heavily traumatized wreck is the default outcome. Some overcome it, but it's up to luck. Much like it's up to luck to ever have autism in the first place.

It's a very sad situation, but if it makes it feel better, you're doing everything you can by doing nothing.

 

[WindKnight]

White knighting... what does that mean and why is that person in the wrong?

Like pretty much every phrase born of the internet, it means different things to different people.

But as I understand it, it's basically any guy who considers himself a feminist 'ally', hates MRAs and PUAs and all that sort of stuff, but still treats women as if they need him to rush to their defense whenever anyone looks at them wrong.

They frequently get accused of basically just doing this to score brownie points with girls so they can get laid.

As to why this guy was in the wrong, well, again, up for debate. If I was with a female friend and some stranger ran up and hugged her and she was clearly not liking it, I'd have zero problem stepping in and helping. I'm not going to challenge the guy to a duel or anything, but I'd expect anyone who is a friend to do the same.

So is it supposed to just relate to anyone trying to help out anyone else? Its such a weird thing to use as an insult.

People usually invoke it as a way of getting out of the fact their being an arsehole, and the specific implications of whiteknight is 'your only being nice to women to get laid' is meant to put the person receiving off balance, and make them look as if their being sexist or dishonest in their own way. Also indicates the person may consider the only reason someone would be nice to a woman is because they wanted to get laid.

 

[Hagi]

Again, you're arguing entirely from a perspective where a person either knows or doubts that the action they're about to take is the correct one and therefore can reasonably be expected to know they should ask first.

If someone is convinced that the action they're about to take isn't inappropriate but perfectly fine ( even though it isn't ) then when in doubt, ask isn't going to fix anything.

That doesn't mean it's bad advice. That doesn't mean it's somehow okay to take said action. It's still good advice. It's still wrong to hug someone without asking even if you thought it was okay for whatever reason.

But it means the solution is more complex.

Because autism is also more complex than something that can either be negated entirely ( it can't ) or something that can't be negated at all like an amputation. And therefore it requires more complex solutions than you suggest.

Asking when in doubt and affirmative consent are excellent and absolutely required first steps. But they're not going to completely stop and prevent any and all unintentional awkward and/or inappropriate interactions.

Because there's going to be times when you think you've got the body language down, you think you've asked for and received permission and it turns out you were wrong. And yes, you can learn from that. And learning will make it better, it's just never going to take the problem away entirely. You can't negate it entirely, it's also much more dynamic and adaptable than missing a hand. Because it's not like autistic people don't understand body language and non-verbal communication at all, they do. They just have a higher tendency to make mistakes about it. It's not a binary can or can't. It's a much more complex gradient.

The autism spectrum is an incredibly complex disorder with a very wide range and simply laying down some basic rules and saying when in doubt ask, whilst definitely a good thing, isn't a magical fix-all.

I'm arguing that autistic people should be held to exactly the same consequences as everybody else and that the consequences for everybody should at all times take into account a person's state of mind, reasoning and be able to account for misunderstandings and mistakes.

I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of the subject at hand and simply saying "just ask" is a misrepresentation of the the problem.

 

[the_real_seebs]

Lacking "innate" social skills doesn't mean "lacking social skills". It means that you have to be explicitly taught those skills, yes.

Who's going to teach them?

Okay, I'm really thinking that you are very confused about how social skills work. I mean, for one thing, autistics can in fact learn the skills without being taught, it's just slow and annoying. But past that? Autistics who have learned social skills can teach them. And, in fact, can teach them well.

So, interesting trivia. Research has of course been done on educating kids about social skills. As you might expect, if you have autistic and non-autistic kids, teaching the autistic kids social skills helps them.

You know what helps them more? Teaching the non-autistic kids social skills, so they can use them on purpose and analyze failures.

Look at the posts from I Am Totally An Expert. Do you seriously think they treat people that way face to face? Of course not. But they can't use their "innate social skills" when they are dealing with text and can't see facial expressions and body language.

Seriously, just think about what you said here. Why on earth would you assume that the autistics, when I've already said "a society", would all be isolated loners not cooperating?

Because Vapor's original rant dealt with loners surviving in the wilderness.

That was an example of a situation in which autistics thrive and other people have a great deal of difficulty; that doesn't mean it's the only thing autistics can ever do.

We're sapient life. We can learn and adapt.

 

[Schadrach]

White knighting... what does that mean and why is that person in the wrong?

Like pretty much every phrase born of the internet, it means different things to different people.

But as I understand it, it's basically any guy who considers himself a feminist 'ally', hates MRAs and PUAs and all that sort of stuff, but still treats women as if they need him to rush to their defense whenever anyone looks at them wrong.

They frequently get accused of basically just doing this to score brownie points with girls so they can get laid.

As to why this guy was in the wrong, well, again, up for debate. If I was with a female friend and some stranger ran up and hugged her and she was clearly not liking it, I'd have zero problem stepping in and helping. I'm not going to challenge the guy to a duel or anything, but I'd expect anyone who is a friend to do the same.

So is it supposed to just relate to anyone trying to help out anyone else? Its such a weird thing to use as an insult.

Specifically men who help out specifically women unbidden and with somewhat...excessive zeal. The usual implication (as pointed out by Ihateregistering1) is that they are doing it to score brownie points with women. They generally immediately come out of the woodwork if the person causing offense is male, they tend to be more...careful about it if it involves an issue between two women (unless others have established that said woman isn't a "real" woman for any number of reasons, including not having the political views that women are supposed to collectively have [which I find particularly hilarious]).

 

[the_real_seebs]

I answered the question.

I don't see any answer to that question.

And your post is a perfect illustration to the why people with knowledge generally don't bother answering questions about autism. To be exact, it's a long-winded rant, filled with accusations, emotion and unfounded assumptions, one impossible to answer, and even if you tried it'd just be followed by another.

I believe the word you're looking for is "projection". What are the unfounded assumptions?

I note you're doing a thing here generally called "deflecting". You haven't said why your opinions are necessarily more valuable than those of people who have direct experience. You haven't said what your qualifications are. Instead, you've made up complaints about the post so you can declare it not-worth-answering. That's called "deflection", and it's a thing people do when they know they're wrong but they have an ego investment in not looking wrong. A problem rarely experienced by autistics.

Yes, people working with people with autism generally want to make sure their language doesn't cause emotional states that are difficult to deal with - it tends to be distracting from whatever the subject of treatment or research is.

Which makes it even more suspicious that you keep using emotionally-loaded language that is pretty much exactly calculated to inspire distress and anger in people. You're dismissive, you're rude, you use insulting language, and you consistently refuse to even acknowledge that other people have a right to have opinions about their own lives.

It's almost as though you're trying to prevent a productive discussion.

You've done a great job of dehumanizing autistics, but you haven't show yourself to be competent or educated.