Content Warning: This is a post detailing arguing with a friend about ND rights. It’s probably going to cover topics of discrimination, eugenics, conversion therapy/ABA and other serious topics.
Hey. So I have this friend, let’s call him Woof, who I’m close to. Like, close in an almost-dating-but-its-complicated way. I find it difficult to find new friends, so basically he was the only real person I could lean on and confide in as a friend.
Due to various things, I’ve kinda gotten emotionally invested in the whole neurodivergence movement thing recently. The idea that things like autism should be treated as diversity rather than disability.
Woof… Doesn’t see the same way. He works as an ambulance driver and as such has seen a lot of people who have all sorts of difficulties… My understanding is that he thinks the whole ND movement thing is a bit naive and ignores some people who really need help and support.
It’s something we’ve butted heads about before, but it’s gotten really bad the past two weeks. I just… Think there’s something we’re miscommunicating and misunderstanding. What he’s saying sounds logically sound, but feels uncomfortable to me…
I know I probably shouldn’t rant about this stuff to the internet, but I could really use some comments by a neutral party. Especially since it feels like I’m strawmanning him super hard and projecting some of my own uncertainties onto him. Or maybe I’m avoiding uncomfortable truths? Or maybe I’m overlooking something and will make a fool of myself (which happens every time I talk about politics…). Again, just looking for extra views and thoughts.
The crux of his thoughts are that some people really suffer. There are autistic people that have severe problems, like intense hypersensitivity, weak cognitive ability, inability to communicate. Those kinds of things.
Outwardly at least, I personally don’t have much issues. I have a job (for the time being - my quality of work has been slipping due to mental health), I can travel around unaided and I can communicate to people decently well. I have a lot of mental fuckery and problems, but that doesn’t stop me getting the coveted title of “high functioning”.
So I can’t really say that I have experienced the hardships faced by everyone. There are a number of people that will never be able to adapt and fit into society. Or those that are constantly overwhelmed by the world and have severe trouble coping. They have my sympathies, but I’m not them.
Given that, am I forcing my views on people where I shouldn’t? Am I assuming people are generally like me, and so I ignore the voices of those who have greater difficulties?
Are we all like that here? Most people here are adults who can articulate their thoughts and desires clearly enough and can function “okay” enough in society.
Can we truly advocate for people with more severe versions of the same symptoms? I think so; it’s similar to how bi people can advocate for gay rights despite being able to have “normal” relationships. Woof doesn’t think the same way for ND though. Different severities of conditions might require different allowances and support, which can get overlooked by people fighting just for themselves.
I was going to go into specific cases about specific events, but that’s probably not going to be useful. We’ve argued about a lot of the main controversial autism things, so I’ll try to give a summary.
My stance is usually on the “pro-ND” side. I think regardless of neurotype, everyone should get the support and not feel the need to change who they are. That even those with severe difficulties deserve to live their lives as best they can and be who they are.
Woof’s stance seems to be usually on the “pro-change” side. That if there was a way to remove people’s neurodivergence without causing harm, it should be offered to them. And that for those that are truly suffering, it should be the choice that is encouraged.
… I guess his stance also reacts with my anxiety beast in a bad way… I would consider myself as someone who has suffered my entire life. Would it be better if I were someone else? Would Woof prefer me if I were someone else? Do I have a moral obligation to prevent people like me from existing? Do I deserve to live? Blegh.
But yeah, sorry for rambling. It’s all been stuck in my head and I’d appreciate some different viewpoints. Even if it’s just to tell me that I’m wrong. If you’ve made it this far, I appreciate you reading it.
It sounds superficialy benign, but keep in mind that “removing” behavior basically always ends up with shaming and manipulating people into masking, causing “hidden” harm.
Also, which suffering is intrinsic and which is caused by intolerance and ignorance of others is - empirically - impossible for others to know.
So, I find this way of thinking really scary.
It depends on whether someone is talking about the tools available right now, like ABA. Or, if they are talking about some magical hypothetical thought experiment “cure” that could reduce certain negative behaviours harmlessly.
Yeah I get that. But I also have seen “harmless cures” for homophilia. They work according to the people pushing them. And have no ill effects according to the same people. And they probably believe it. In reality it’s social control, shaming, manipulation and repression techniques.
I do not trust the people deciding whether an autism cure is working and harmless.
I think that’s my main issue… It sounds good on paper, but in practice it kind of falls apart.
Woof doesn’t seem to have the “historical context” for most of this. Which is fair, he’s not neurodivergent and lives in a country with kinda backwards views on mental health.
We spent ages arguing about a “cure” for autism, but it turns out that he considers therapy, social support, counselling, allowances and so on as to mean a “cure”. He just… Doesn’t seem to have context behind why I feel the way I do.
I honestly don’t know if he’s, intentionally or otherwise, going to make a bad call if he finds himself in a situation where he has to decide treatment for someone. Or if the only reason he’d make a good call is because he’s friends with me.
But “hidden harm” is a good way of putting it, thanks.