Is It Really Cosplay Harassment? Or Just Neuroatypical Behavior?

[the_real_seebs]

Okay, so, I have a fair bit of experience, and a lot more indirect experience and anecdata on the topic.

And here's the thing: Sometimes, people misunderstand social rules or protocols, such that they genuinely do not believe there is an ambiguity or uncertainty, but they get the rule totally wrong. And this is true of all people, whether or not they are autistic. Does anyone seriously think that all the construction workers catcalling people are autistic? I don't.

No, but this isn't about not knowing a rule. That is defiance of the rule. Cat callers know how other people feel and they simply don't give a shit. That or they see somebody react poorly and deny the truth because its inconvenient to their worldview in some way or another. The rule is outlined - look, don't touch. Thats the rule for cosplay. This is the rule that people are told at conventions through various means. This isn't ignorance of social convention or the law. Not only is "don't touch people without their permission" a rule that most people, autistic or not, should've learned by the time they've reached convention age. Given the Cosplay Is Not Consent push in recent memory and the fact that some conventions actually make people acknowledge this rule there quite often is simply not room to make a mistake.

Not to call you out specifically, but while I'm posting I might as well point out how I'm seeing the "but they did it too" excuse. They doesn't fly. That doesn't fly when a teenager gets pinched for smoking or drinking underage, it doesn't fly when people start looting stores during a riot, it doesn't fly when a bully is provoking you, and so on and so on. Somebody else not following the rules doesn't mean its suddenly okay for you to not follow the rules. There are circumstances when you see other people breaking the rules and its reasonable to do so as well. Those circumstances don't include touching somebody who is in a fancy costume because you're interested in the outfit. They're usually more serious events along the lines of entire cities being flooded. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina] I don't see what is so complicated that if you're told a rule, and then break that rule that you get in trouble. Unless one of the convention managers or somebody who is otherwise an authority said that such behaviour was okay when it wasn't, which is a miscommunication whose responsibility falls upon the staff, there really isn't any excuse for breaking the rule after you've been told it. It isn't ignorance, it isn't being misled, its defiance, and defiance of established rules isn't a consequence of the effects autism has.

I basically agree, except that, in the specific case of catcalling, I am given to understand that a significant number of the offenders appear genuinely surprised when told that their behavior is offensive. They appear to not understand the rule. And while that seems very strange to me, and more than a little surprising, it does appear that they genuinely have no clue.

I would, however, absolutely agree that this doesn't apply to the cosplay harassment thing; there, the people doing it clearly do know that they are breaking a rule, and are doing it on purpose as a show of dominance.

 

[silver wolf009]

~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.

Hi, I'm a paraplegic, and I very much don't want to be "fixed". If you could rework my nerves so that I can feel sensation in my legs again, that would be useful, but the rest is fine as it is. You'll find many of us get defensive when people with legs suggest eliminating paraplegia, because this isn't like cancer or diabetes, our paraplegia literally makes up a large component of who we are as people. Me with typical control of my legs wouldn't be me anymore. A fix for parapelgia would in effect be wiping out a group of people like me from the face of the Earth, I won't mince words, that's effectively genocide. Having a diversity of perspectives in the human race benefits everyone, so let's not rush to surgically alter those who can't stand on the usual ground.

Maybe I'm a prick, maybe I'm tactless, maybe I'm treating this too simply, but I could make that same paragraph work for deafness, dysphasia, blindness, and so on.

Autism impresses onto people difficulties in many aspects of life, chiefly social interactions. People with autism who life their lives around or with the disease should be commended for living in the face of difficulties, but not treated as if they don't have very real difficulties that affect their lives, broadly speaking, negatively.

The first person, or group of people, who can safely, humanely, and painlessly wipe autism off the face of the Earth should, and hopefully will, be heralded for one of the greatest medical accomplishments in recent history.

 

[the_real_seebs]

Hi, I'm a paraplegic, and I very much don't want to be "fixed". If you could rework my nerves so that I can feel sensation in my legs again, that would be useful, but the rest is fine as it is. You'll find many of us get defensive when people with legs suggest eliminating paraplegia, because this isn't like cancer or diabetes, our paraplegia literally makes up a large component of who we are as people. Me with typical control of my legs wouldn't be me anymore. A fix for parapelgia would in effect be wiping out a group of people like me from the face of the Earth, I won't mince words, that's effectively genocide. Having a diversity of perspectives in the human race benefits everyone, so let's not rush to surgically alter those who can't stand on the usual ground.

Maybe I'm a prick, maybe I'm tactless, maybe I'm treating this too simply, but I could make that same paragraph work for deafness, dysphasia, blindness, and so on.

I don't think you really could, though, because it doesn't entirely make sense. And to be fair, there is a sizeable Deaf community who don't want to change. But I think you should ask a key question:

How commonly do paraplegics report feeling like they would rather be unable to walk than be able to walk? Is that common at all?

Do you know of any lines of work in which it is widely accepted that paraplegics have significant advantages over non-paraplegics in doing the work?

And that's where your analogy breaks down. Badly. There are benefits to autism. Not just for autistics, but for everyone else. And you haven't even acknowledged those benefits, let alone shown that the costs exceed them.

Autism impresses onto people difficulties in many aspects of life, chiefly social interactions. People with autism who life their lives around or with the disease should be commended for living in the face of difficulties, but not treated as if they don't have very real difficulties that affect their lives, broadly speaking, negatively.

You know what? People who think that I'm not entitled to an opinion about my own quality of life, who feel that they are more qualified to interpret my experiences than I am, and who insist on using insulting language after being politely asked not to, are a much bigger problem for me than any "innate" difficulties.

And that's one of the biggest things we've learned from the last few decades of autism research; many of the "difficulties" are primarily a result of people trying to smash square pegs into round holes. Sure, I have slightly more trouble with spoken language than a non-autistic person of my intelligence... And generally a lot less trouble with written language than a non-autistic person of my general level of intelligence. It turns out that, in general, 90% of the "problems" autistics have in social interaction can be resolved by the simple step of having people say what they mean when talking with autistic friends.

The first person, or group of people, who can safely, humanely, and painlessly wipe autism off the face of the Earth should, and hopefully will, be heralded for one of the greatest medical accomplishments in recent history.

You say this, but... why, exactly? What's so bad about my existence that the mere fact of me existing is such a tragedy that wiping me out would be a "great medical accomplishment"? What makes you so sure? Do you actually know anything about autism, really?

What is it about this topic that draws people out of the woodwork who think that the only problem with eugenics programs was that they were targeting the wrong people, and this time for sure we've found the right group of people to eradicate from our species?

 

[silver wolf009]

Giga

Snip

I'll confess I could do with an itemized list, although asking for one might be seen as tempting fate; what are the benefits of autism, both on an individual and societal level?

And of course you're entitled to your own opinion to your standings in life, in the same way that a man from 1845 would proclaim himself to be enjoying the best experience mankind has ever offered. Meanwhile, he could have no standing on the quality of life of a man 5000 miles away, or 150 years from then. A similar disconnect is what faces the people in this thread right now.
In the end, we're both similar to that man, convinced our outlook on life is the better way, but unlike that hypothetical man in the 1840's, we can try and articulate our opinions to each other. Broadly speaking, I'm asserting that the condition of autism often gets in the way of people living their lives to the fullest or most productive and enjoyable. To the best of my ability to deduce, your assertion is that autism is not only not a hindrance to your achieving potential, but is in fact central to the way you feel you can live to the fullest. Before we go any fruther, am I wrong here?

Additionally, it was very kind of you to assert that my opinion must be based either in ignorance to the subject matter, or some form of genocidal hatred towards autistic people. As previously stated above, by another user, it's not your existence, it's your affliction's existence that I feel needs to be removed. I think I can safely say that no one here would wish anything but the best for you, the difference just seems to be that your idea of the best and other's diverge.

 

[the_real_seebs]

I'll confess I could do with an itemized list, although asking for one might be seen as tempting fate; what are the benefits of autism, both on an individual and societal level?

Okay, let me ask you a much simpler question:

If you haven't already researched this, why on earth do you think it makes sense for you to advocate passionately for the eradication of a significant hunk of the human population? Shouldn't you have started by researching the topic?

Anyway, the most obvious thing is that there's a ton of systematic biases in human cognition, such as framing errors, which are very significantly reduced in autistics. Autistics tend to be significantly better at a whole lot of pure-logic or systemization tasks; for instance, the incidence of autistic traits in successful programmers is several times higher than in the non-programmer population. In general, things that rely on exploiting the way humans process emotional data from other people don't work well on autistics, providing some significant resistance to some kinds of scams or trickery.

And really, lots of traits have unexpected benefits. Some of the traits associated with psychopathy are also useful and fairly common in, say, brain surgeons. If you'd be terrified of screwing up during surgery, that makes you less able to stay calm and focused.

There is a lot of writing about this, already out there. You're welcome to read it if you feel like it.

For a more concrete, personal, example: I am basically free of innate empathic response. People who are distressed or in pain don't upset me. So I have a hobby; I talk to people. I have an open ask box on my tumblr, and I talk to people about anything. Abuse? Sure. Sexual assault? Sure. Suicidal thoughts? Sure. And I know what kind of toll that takes on non-autistic people (and even on some autistics). But it doesn't hurt me. I can just calmly listen to people describing their parents doing things to them that violate the Geneva Conventions, and then give them relevant, practical, advice.

Net result: I can't even remotely keep count, but I would guess I prevent 2-3 people a year from committing suicide, and more like 6-10 a year get out of abusive situations, finish school that they were about to flunk out of, or otherwise get their lives in order. Because I don't have that "precious" empathic response. And most non-autistics could maybe do a little of that, with training, but they would be devastated trying to deal with the sheer volume of horror I am dealing with as a recreation. Because, hey, I think it's sorta fun and interesting.

And of course you're entitled to your own opinion to your standings in life, in the same way that a man from 1845 would proclaim himself to be enjoying the best experience mankind has ever offered. Meanwhile, he could have no standing on the quality of life of a man 5000 miles away, or 150 years from then. A similar disconnect is what faces the people in this thread right now.
In the end, we're both similar to that man, convinced our outlook on life is the better way, but unlike that hypothetical man in the 1840's, we can try and articulate our opinions to each other.

Yes. And like that man, you simply started by asserting that your way is so obviously better that "fixing" anyone who doesn't live that way should be regarded as a great and laudable achievement, even though you had never paid any attention to what the people who live another way were saying.

Broadly speaking, I'm asserting that the condition of autism often gets in the way of people living their lives to the fullest or most productive and enjoyable. To the best of my ability to deduce, your assertion is that autism is not only not a hindrance to your achieving potential, but is in fact central to the way you feel you can live to the fullest. Before we go any fruther, am I wrong here?

Sort of. Part of it is... Say that being different in some way would give me "increased" potential. That might be nice... But if it would make me someone else, I might legitimately prefer not to change that way. I also think that, at a societal level, that diversity is very valuable to us.

The other point where I'd dispute your position is that I think the problem is often more "other people's hostile behavior" rather than autism in and of itself.

Additionally, it was very kind of you to assert that my opinion must be based either in ignorance to the subject matter, or some form of genocidal hatred towards autistic people.

It wasn't intended to be kind, or unkind. It was intended to be factual. And that you simply cannot conceive of that is why I maintain that, if autism were the norm, non-autistics would be regarded as tragically disabled, and people would be arguing that it would be better for everyone if we got rid of them.

As previously stated above, by another user, it's not your existence, it's your affliction's existence that I feel needs to be removed.

Yes, and as previously stated, you have not shown at all that it is actually an "affliction", and your assertions about why you think it's an affliction indicate that you have no idea what you're even talking about.

I think I can safely say that no one here would wish anything but the best for you, the difference just seems to be that your idea of the best and other's diverge.

That's a really inaccurate description, though. I think that people who aren't like me should nonetheless be allowed to make thir own choices, but you think that people who aren't like you are so horrible and defective that their preferences shouldn't even be acknowledged or talked about. That's the real difference; it's not about what we think is best, it's about whether we think people are entitled to different personal feelings about what they want.

I mean, your argument here works just as well for the people who want to "cure" homosexuality, or left-handedness. A guy I knew some years back had his left hand dipped in boiling water, repeatedly, when he was a kid. No one wanted anything but the best for him, but they were convinced that being right-handed would be the best for him.

Are you married? If not, why not? I assure you, being married is excellent. Obviously, you can see that societally, we should be ensuring that you are correctly married, to a person of the gender and age society deems best for you, because that would be better, right? I mean, you don't want to not have what's best for you, right? Obviously, we can simply declare that everyone should be married. People who say they "don't want to be married" are, of course, objectively wrong. We should act to eliminate this scourge, denying so many people happy lives as happily married people who start raising children when they turn 25, because that's the "best".

... Oh, but wait. We actually usually think that people should be entitled to "the pursuit of happiness", meaning, they get to decide what they want to pursue. And we stick with that until someone who has no idea what it's like to be autistic wants to declare that it's obviously very bad and unpleasant and no one should have to put up with it, or indeed, be allowed to put up with it if we can stop them.

I guess what I'm mostly arguing here is: Before declaring that a thing is horrible and should be eradicated, maybe do some basic research and be familiar with the current state of the art? We're a long time from the days when "autism" meant "total inability to communicate with other people". Autistics have lives, and they may not be the lives you'd want, but then, your life probably isn't what they want, either.

I know that people like to talk about autistics being bad at empathy, but really, do I need to walk you through the thought experiment by hand? Okay, let's do it. Think about what it would be like if any time someone mentioned people who aren't as good at formal logic, mathematics, and computer science as they are, there was a discussion about how we need to find what's wrong with people that moves so much of their grey matter towards stupid stuff like facial recognition, or mirroring emotional states observed in others, and prevents them from thinking clearly. And just sort of cheerfully ignored anything you said about how you like your experiences, because obviously you are not living a full and rewarding life, because you aren't having the specific kind of fun they are.

Can you see how that might be a problem? If so, why does anyone need to tell you this?

 

[silver wolf009]

Giga

Snip

I was going to try and do more of a play by play, but I think it might be easier and more productive to take a step back, and try to reword my argument.

Presently, there exists no treatment or technology to change someone from autistic to neurotypical. In my opinon, that's a bad thing, while in your opinion that's a good thing. I believe that people living with autism would generally be better off if they didn't have to live with autism. You assert that living with autism is necessary for you to be you. Without knowing the ins and outs of your life, I can't say with certainty that not having autism would improve your life, but taking what I know and have seen involving people with autism at different levels of competency and severity and extrapolating that, I would be willing to make that guess. Maybe that's narcissism, maybe that's ableism, but based on what I know, which you wholeheartedly purport to be absolutely nothing, that is the likeliest outcome.

Sadly, I'm worried that it doesn't really matter now, and that you've retreated down a comfortable path by ascribing me qualities like genocidal and ignorant. I don't want to hurt, kill, or erase the memory of autistic, I want to see future peoples grow up in a world where the walls and challenges it throws up in front of them aren't ever a problem. Cling to it, claim it makes you you, claim it makes you better. You're glad you have it, which I suppose is the best that can be made of the situation. Good on 'ya.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I was going to try and do more of a play by play, but I think it might be easier and more productive to take a step back, and try to reword my argument.

Presently, there exists no treatment or technology to change someone from autistic to neurotypical. In my opinon, that's a bad thing, while in your opinion that's a good thing. I believe that people living with autism would generally be better off if they didn't have to live with autism. You assert that living with autism is necessary for you to be you. Without knowing the ins and outs of your life, I can't say with certainty that not having autism would improve your life, but taking what I know and have seen involving people with autism at different levels of competency and severity and extrapolating that, I would be willing to make that guess. Maybe that's narcissism, maybe that's ableism, but based on what I know, which you wholeheartedly purport to be absolutely nothing, that is the likeliest outcome.

Sadly, I'm worried that it doesn't really matter now, and that you've retreated down a comfortable path by ascribing me qualities like genocidal and ignorant. I don't want to hurt, kill, or erase the memory of autistic, I want to see future peoples grow up in a world where the walls and challenges it throws up in front of them aren't ever a problem. Cling to it, claim it makes you you, claim it makes you better. You're glad you have it, which I suppose is the best that can be made of the situation. Good on 'ya.

Supposing that tomorrow being autistic was a great advantage in our society. Would you like to be "cured" of being neurotypical? Should society pressure, coerce or force this cure upon you if you don't want it?

 

[silver wolf009]

I was going to try and do more of a play by play, but I think it might be easier and more productive to take a step back, and try to reword my argument.

Presently, there exists no treatment or technology to change someone from autistic to neurotypical. In my opinon, that's a bad thing, while in your opinion that's a good thing. I believe that people living with autism would generally be better off if they didn't have to live with autism. You assert that living with autism is necessary for you to be you. Without knowing the ins and outs of your life, I can't say with certainty that not having autism would improve your life, but taking what I know and have seen involving people with autism at different levels of competency and severity and extrapolating that, I would be willing to make that guess. Maybe that's narcissism, maybe that's ableism, but based on what I know, which you wholeheartedly purport to be absolutely nothing, that is the likeliest outcome.

Sadly, I'm worried that it doesn't really matter now, and that you've retreated down a comfortable path by ascribing me qualities like genocidal and ignorant. I don't want to hurt, kill, or erase the memory of autistic, I want to see future peoples grow up in a world where the walls and challenges it throws up in front of them aren't ever a problem. Cling to it, claim it makes you you, claim it makes you better. You're glad you have it, which I suppose is the best that can be made of the situation. Good on 'ya.

Supposing that tomorrow being autistic was a great advantage in our society. Would you like to be "cured" of being neurotypical? Should society pressure, coerce or force this cure upon you if you don't want it?

No, and looking back I can see an error in my wording. Curing is a grayer ethical area compared to preventing. I should've made it clear that was the ideal that should be the goal.

Though, in my defense, it wasn't a willful omission, I just didn't draw a firm enough distinction between the concepts of curing autistics, and curing autism. If that makes sense.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No, and looking back I can see an error in my wording. Curing is a grayer ethical area compared to preventing. I should've made it clear that was the ideal that should be the goal.

Though, in my defense, it wasn't a willful omission, I just didn't draw a firm enough distinction between the concepts of curing autistics, and curing autism. If that makes sense.

Sure, that's a common mistake, but it's a real problem. This is hardly the first time where the idea of curing autism has been met with horror by people with autism, while neurotypical people cannot (or will not) see the problem.

TBH, "preventing" isn't that much better, it's still based on the assumption that the way to deal with people with autism is not to have them in society anymore, an assumption which frightens many people.

By comparison, if there was a vaccination which could be given to babies to ensure they'd be cishet, that's stop them from experiencing trans or homophobia. But the idea is quite frightening to many people.

 

[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.

Hi, I'm a paraplegic, and I very much don't want to be "fixed". If you could rework my nerves so that I can feel sensation in my legs again, that would be useful, but the rest is fine as it is. You'll find many of us get defensive when people with legs suggest eliminating paraplegia, because this isn't like cancer or diabetes, our paraplegia literally makes up a large component of who we are as people. Me with typical control of my legs wouldn't be me anymore. A fix for parapelgia would in effect be wiping out a group of people like me from the face of the Earth, I won't mince words, that's effectively genocide. Having a diversity of perspectives in the human race benefits everyone, so let's not rush to surgically alter those who can't stand on the usual ground.

Maybe I'm a prick, maybe I'm tactless, maybe I'm treating this too simply, but I could make that same paragraph work for deafness, dysphasia, blindness, and so on.

Autism impresses onto people difficulties in many aspects of life, chiefly social interactions. People with autism who life their lives around or with the disease should be commended for living in the face of difficulties, but not treated as if they don't have very real difficulties that affect their lives, broadly speaking, negatively.

The first person, or group of people, who can safely, humanely, and painlessly wipe autism off the face of the Earth should, and hopefully will, be heralded for one of the greatest medical accomplishments in recent history.

Hey. Seebs has already done a good point-by-point reply to you so I'll try to avoid repeating his post. What I will say though is that your comparison breaks down as you are contrasting a mental state with a physical one. You, me or a paraplegic could have our brains transplanted into a robot and we'd still be the same person, just in a different body.

I can use myself as an example here actually, as I also have a purely physical ailment, coeliac disease. Now if someone offered me a cure to that I would snap it up in a heart beat, as it wouldn't change who I am as a person, it would just allow me to eat a greater variety of food. To "cure" me of autism would be to change a whole bunch of strengths and flaws in my personality, to alter my whole way of thinking. That's a whole different kettle of fish.

Furthermore, I've never heard of a paraplegic person who wants to stay in that condition. Maybe there is one or two, you can always find someone out there. As you've found from this thread though, there is a significant proportion of autistic people who wish to stay like this. Who are the neurotypical majority to tell us otherwise, that they know living with autism better than people like me who are actually living it?

Prevention of autistic people being born may happen in the future, I accept that, but I feel it would be a great loss for humanity. Diversity of thought is a strength, not a weakness. I don't want to Godwin this because I know you mean well, but can you understand how uncomfortable talk of "cures" makes us feel? It's not pleasant being a member of a tiny powerless minority group and having members of the overwhelming majority talking openly about how it would be a great achievement if everyone like us was wiped from the face of the Earth.

 

[Viking]

The first person, or group of people, who can safely, humanely, and painlessly wipe autism off the face of the Earth should, and hopefully will, be heralded for one of the greatest medical accomplishments in recent history.

As an actually autistic person, i support this. For all of it's benefits, and all of the human rights, autism is mental suffering.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Prevention of autistic people being born may happen in the future, I accept that, but I feel it would be a great loss for humanity. Diversity of thought is a strength, not a weakness. I don't want to Godwin this because I know you mean well, but can you understand how uncomfortable talk of "cures" makes us feel? It's not pleasant being a member of a tiny powerless minority group and having members of the overwhelming majority talking openly about how it would be a great achievement if everyone like us was wiped from the face of the Earth.

Can we stop talking like we're going to kill people off?

Who is "we"? There are lots of people who'd want to kill people with autism off. There's a larger number of people who'd not actively support killing, but would prefer people with autism to not exist, or to conveniently disappear. The distinction can seem a bit vague.

 

[the_real_seebs]

I was going to try and do more of a play by play, but I think it might be easier and more productive to take a step back, and try to reword my argument.

This isn't a reword, though. It's a change.

Presently, there exists no treatment or technology to change someone from autistic to neurotypical. In my opinon, that's a bad thing, while in your opinion that's a good thing. I believe that people living with autism would generally be better off if they didn't have to live with autism. You assert that living with autism is necessary for you to be you. Without knowing the ins and outs of your life, I can't say with certainty that not having autism would improve your life, but taking what I know and have seen involving people with autism at different levels of competency and severity and extrapolating that, I would be willing to make that guess. Maybe that's narcissism, maybe that's ableism, but based on what I know, which you wholeheartedly purport to be absolutely nothing, that is the likeliest outcome.

This is a huge change in your position, though, because what you previously said was that it would be good to completely and totally eradicate all autism everywhere. You're now apparently advocating for having it be possible for individual people to make the choice. That's very different!

Also, you're talking very vaguely about what you "know", and ignoring the very significant fact that the overwhelming majority of autistics do not want to be changed.

I don't think it would be a bad thing, necessarily, for it to be possible for people who did not enjoy being autistic to be able to change that. My big concern is that everything we know suggests that such a thing would be by nature preemptive and non-consensual, and would likely result in a net autistic population of zero. And I think that would substantially harm our species and culture.

Sadly, I'm worried that it doesn't really matter now, and that you've retreated down a comfortable path by ascribing me qualities like genocidal and ignorant. I don't want to hurt, kill, or erase the memory of autistic, I want to see future peoples grow up in a world where the walls and challenges it throws up in front of them aren't ever a problem. Cling to it, claim it makes you you, claim it makes you better. You're glad you have it, which I suppose is the best that can be made of the situation. Good on 'ya.

You are by definition genocidal, since you want an entire category of people not to be allowed to exist. That's what the word means. Similarly, you have said yourself that you are ignorant, because you have no idea whatsoever what benefits autistic people might experience.

What confuses me is that, given this lack of information, you are comfortable advocating strongly for a social policy which you cannot possibly have enough information to evaluate. But then, that's sort of the non-autistic thing in a nutshell; it is simply inconceivable to you that difference might not be a bad thing.

 

[the_real_seebs]

So is the brain off-limits when it comes to things that are broken or can be fixed? Is only the body allowed to be healed, because the body "isn't you"?

Consider what would happen if you were to offer a "cure" for "having black skin". There's similar issues.

Why isn't that a part of who you are? Why aren't you defined by your gluten allergy, and why hasn't your very identity been shaped by not being able to eat gluten? Haven't you made great friends and formed strong bonds in the gluten-free aisle of the supermarket? Hasn't your dietary caution bled over to other areas in your life, causing you to be more mindful of others? Why, removing this from you could change a whole bunch of things about your personality and alter your whole way of thinking!

The simple answer to "why isn't that a part of who you are" is mostly "because I don't experience it to be one".

Yes, I'm doing the same bit to demonstrate that you can make the same case about anything. Who can really say what defines you?

Well, we have two answers on offer here:

1. I get to say what defines me, you get to say what defines you. We are allowed to make that decision for ourselves.
2. You get to say what defines everyone, because you're a Proper Person and they're Defective and don't count and aren't fully human anyway.

Can you see any reason for which people might consider the latter position less desireable? Possibly because they're not you?

Weren't you the one who asked for someone with a degree to show up? I would have thought that implied that you might at least consider the possibility that, when I showed up, it might be worth listening to what I said instead of trying to misrepresent it and then ignoring the serious argument I made with a dismissive remark about how it would be a good wargame.

For a more thorough discussion: Different things have very different effects on what it is to be you. Some of the changes are much more fundamental than others. You can have a cold, and having a cold changes your life immensely, but it doesn't change who you are; you can tell this by experiencing those changes. Other changes really do change who you are. And the general consensus among most autistics is that being autistic fundamentally changes who they are, and that a person "like this, only non-autistic" would be a different person. And some of us enjoy existing, and do not want to be killed to make way for someone else.

Explanations have been offered, but the jury is still out, because there is no jury, and because everyone is just arguing with anecdotal accounts and conjecture.

The problem, I think, is your belief that you are entitled to an opinion on whether or not other people can live.

Can we stop talking like we're going to kill people off?

No, we can't, because eliminating people from the species is killing them off, whether you do it through shooting them, or preventing them from being born, or whatever else. It's still eradication of a population, and the methodology doesn't change that.

 

[the_real_seebs]

The first person, or group of people, who can safely, humanely, and painlessly wipe autism off the face of the Earth should, and hopefully will, be heralded for one of the greatest medical accomplishments in recent history.

As an actually autistic person, i support this. For all of it's benefits, and all of the human rights, autism is mental suffering.

It isn't for me. I recognize that some people might want a cure, but "wipe autism off the face of the Earth" means I don't get a chance to exist either.

I also think you're massively underestimating the harm to society of losing the autistic population.

 

[insanelich]

The first person, or group of people, who can safely, humanely, and painlessly wipe autism off the face of the Earth should, and hopefully will, be heralded for one of the greatest medical accomplishments in recent history.

As an actually autistic person, i support this. For all of it's benefits, and all of the human rights, autism is mental suffering.

As an actually autistic person, this is the right time to reveal that and show just how misguided the_real_seebs is.

 

[the_real_seebs]

The first person, or group of people, who can safely, humanely, and painlessly wipe autism off the face of the Earth should, and hopefully will, be heralded for one of the greatest medical accomplishments in recent history.

As an actually autistic person, i support this. For all of it's benefits, and all of the human rights, autism is mental suffering.

As an actually autistic person, this is the right time to reveal that and show just how misguided the_real_seebs is.

So experiences count only if they agree with you? That's fascinating. I didn't realize that autistics were required to all have exactly the same experiences. I mean, I know lots of people who have very different experiences. I also know that some of the people who once felt that way stopped feeling that way when they got out of a toxic environment.

EDIT: Thinking about it more, you were previously stating that you don't listen to or talk to autistics, because it'd be like talking to cancer patients to learn more about cancer. It's fascinating how quickly this "principle" disappears as soon as you find an autistic who is willing to agree with you on something.

BTW, I wanted to get back to you on alexithymia, because you were sorta misrepresenting that, too, and I thought I should point out:

Alexithymia is not, in general, a total inability to recognize own emotional states. It's any reduction in ability to do so. Something like 84% of autistics show some such traits, and about half of those are "severe", but that doesn't get us anywhere near your claim that autistics, in general, are categorically incapable of being aware of their own emotional states.