40 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
User Gravatar
Ms Clark said in October 22nd, 2006 at 20:34

I went to the 2nd Life (I think that’s it) to see what you were talking about… maybe 3 months ago. I didn’t like it because everything looked so stereotypically “cool” or something. I would have liked to have seen someone like you or even someone a little less “perfect” and “plastic” being presented there.

My comment isn’t very deep, but I appreciate all the depth in your essay. The quote of the person saying that autistics needed to be rounded up and cured was horrific. It’s hard to believe someone could actually write that and mean it.

I remember someone wrote, maybe 2 years ago that if they could they’d get Frank Klein, maybe they were talking about kidnapping him in an abstract way… anyway they’d chelate him so he’d know what it was like to be normal.

That’s absolutely bizarre thinking, never mind that chelating him would do thing, it was about overriding Frank’s rights and totally dismissing his value as an autistic man… and about ten other ethical offenses…

User Gravatar
Moggy said in October 22nd, 2006 at 23:06

You quoted(linked to) your source for the “Down Syndrome” story when you used it in August:

http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/?p=185

(I remembered reading it, but found the link through Google. I’m not quite so wacky as to memorize the full contents of your blog. ;)

User Gravatar
HortenseDagle said in October 22nd, 2006 at 23:47

It’s interesting when you talk about the graph that charted your “well-being” being opposite to how you felt. A lot of people with Sensory Integration Disorder and other people on spectrum describe this a lot. The more “normal” they act, and the more they achieve on this end, the worse their bodies feel.
Some people don’t care how their bodies fare, they just want to be accepted and be thought of as NT. Why would anyone want to accepted by a group that has absurd values? Well, I know why. But it doesn’t make it right.
My son went through a couple of weeks in school last year in which he was “behaving well” and “making progress”. But he would come straight to bed and sleep for 3 hours every afternoon. (he was in kindergarten)
His immune system would drop too. Still does. I don’t want him to “try his hardest” to “fit in” if it means he gets sick or can’t enjoy himself.

~KimJ

User Gravatar
ballastexistenz said in October 23rd, 2006 at 6:02

The weird thing is, from what I can tell, it wasn’t even about how “normal” I acted. It was about my level of obedience.

Similarly, I once saw a classroom in which the teacher pointed out the “highest functioning” student — he also wasn’t the most able to pass, he was just the one most likely to do what the teacher said.

User Gravatar
Joseph said in October 23rd, 2006 at 9:43

ABA, incidentally, is more about compliance than about teaching life skills. “Do what I do” or “do what I say” is the basis of nearly all ABA trials.

User Gravatar
J said in October 23rd, 2006 at 10:03

Thank you so much for posting this.

I have a fairly simple and minor physical disability, and I count myself lucky that there’s not foreseeable prospect of a cure. There are bits of it I’d like to get rid of (it would be nice to walk two blocks without back pain or crutches), and if there was a magic wand that would make me physically normal, I would seriously consider it. Of course my ideal option would be to chose exactly what was changed.

But the prospect of people setting out to cure me frightens me. Because it wouldn’t be a magic wand, and I wouldn’t be able to decide what I did or didn’t want to change about myself. It would be doctors subjecting me to various medications, surgeries or whatever, all of which would have risks and side effects and expenses and time and pain, in order to make me fit their idea of normal and healthy.

And because I won’t go to faith healers, or sign up for experimental protocols, or let someone with a booth at a street fair realign my spine, or attend physical therapy past the point of it producing noticeable improvement, I’ve also heard, “Don’t you want to get well?”

About the only time I did follow someone’s advice about a quack cure was when I was advised to immerse my legs in sea water and lie out in the sun. But that was because I was going to the beach for a swim anyways. ;-)

User Gravatar
n. said in October 23rd, 2006 at 13:40

You know how in Second Life when you (or more often Muskie) crash, and then when you get back online and your avatar is a barbie for like a second and then suddenly your “real” body rezzes and ZAP it looks like you again? I feel relief to see that (I mean when the barbie goes away). Like, “Here is Amanda (or Muskie), after all. I recognize her.”

OK, this is not all that deep either, but it’s what I thought/felt when I read the early parts of this post.

PS: This post is important and ought to be an article at autistics.org (just an idea).

User Gravatar
ballastexistenz said in October 23rd, 2006 at 14:33

The thing about rounding up and curing people, already happens in much the way that guy describes, in parts of the psych system. Many people are not allowed housing, money, etc, sometimes even the ability to live in the outside world, unless they take particular drugs (that may not even make them feel any better, but that are mandated).

As Judi Chamberlin points out in Confessions of a Non-Compliant Patient:

One of the reasons I believe I was able to escape the role of chronic patient that had been predicted for me was that I was able to leave the surveillance and control of the mental health system when I left the state hospital. Today, that’s called “falling through the cracks.” While I agree that it’s important to help people avoid hunger and homelessness, such help must not come at too high a price. Help that comes with unwanted strings - “We’ll give you housing if you take medication,” “We’ll sign your SSI papers if you go to the day program” -is help that is paid for in imprisoned spirits and stifled dreams. We should not be surprised that some people won’t sell their souls so cheaply.

User Gravatar
Anonymous said in October 28th, 2006 at 15:40

I feel so sad to read your essay, that your identity is derived from your disability, be that as it may. I wish the very best for you and hope that many scientific advances can help you.

User Gravatar
ballastexistenz said in October 28th, 2006 at 17:44

Wow, that last comment ought to go into the “Mistaken impressions…” section along with all the others. It assumes a worldview I don’t even operate under, in a couple different convoluted directions.

To that commenter: Tell me, if you woke up tomorrow morning, and found that some innocuous attributes of yours (some of which you’d never thought about before, some of which you found fairly central to who you were) were suddenly considered “a disability in need of curing” (or “part of a disability in need of curing”), would that mean that “your identity was derived from your disability”?

I don’t think it would, but imagining that scenario might give you some clue how silly, out of left field, and totally outside my experience, your comment sounds to me.

User Gravatar
Ann said in October 29th, 2006 at 5:56

I think some people see a disability as the same thing as having an illness. Basically I may have a cold or allergy that makes me “suffer” is annoying and keeps me from feeling my best and doing my job. Do I want a cure and get rid of it ? You bet !! I also had a health “problem” when I was born. If I had not had surgery its not likely that I would have lived past 20. I didnt have it so I could “be like everyone else ,or play like everyone else or be active like everyone else”. The motivation was to LIVE not to change who I was. Too many people dont see that difference between having an infection that is short term and annoying and prevents you from doing what comes normally and a disability that is a total part of who you are.

User Gravatar
ballastexistenz said in October 29th, 2006 at 11:53

Yeah, I mean, I have early-onset gallbladder disease, and that’s genetic, very obviously inherited in my family because all the women have it by the age of 20 or so. And, yeah, I view my gallbladder removal surgery as very different from, say, rewiring my brain, rearranging my face, and so on.

Although if it came to the genes themselves, again I doubt I would change them. Because who knows what else is attached to those genes besides gallbladder stuff. That’s the other part of what I meant, is that when you get down to the basic genetic level, humans don’t even know what they’re messing with.

User Gravatar
dee said in October 30th, 2006 at 20:29

I was overly impressed with your writing. Good for you. Thanks for being a voice for us.

User Gravatar
n. said in November 1st, 2006 at 10:56

I don’t know if this will make sense, but… I do think that everyone’s identity is maybe sort of a combination of how we’re made and how we react to that and to all the other stuff that happens to us. So… I donno, I don’t get what Anonymous said either.

User Gravatar
J said in November 1st, 2006 at 17:29

I’m also stumped by the anonymous comment. I keep trying to imagine a sense of self that’s completely unrelated to things like brain functions, genetic makeup, past experiences, and the physical body. I really don’t see what’s left. And the ‘many scientific advances’ remark is odd. It sounds a bit like “I’d like to replace you with someone more agreeable.”

User Gravatar
scap64 said in November 13th, 2006 at 3:19

When I posted online a request for a legal referral to an employment lawyer, one “mom on a mission” had a nerve to actually post a reply to the following extent: “see, that’s why we need to push for autism cure - if you were cured and no longer autistic, you would’ve been discriminated at your workplace then”.

Some logic…

User Gravatar
ashley x - more links « reSisterance said in June 30th, 2007 at 14:40

[...] and not specifically about Ashley, but a brilliant piece about “the implications of cure” at Ballastexistenz [...]

User Gravatar
Ettina said in September 28th, 2007 at 0:09

http://abnormaldiversity.blogspot.com/2007/09/people-like-me-are.html
That’s a post inspired by this entry - kind of peripheral to the topic of it, but an intriguing topic on it’s own. It’s called ‘People Like Me Are…” about your statement regarding seeing people like you being looked after by staff on outings from institutions and finding that ominous. I replied with some pondering about my own impact on an autistic kid I know, as an example of what ‘people like him’ can be.

User Gravatar
Henry Emrich said in December 1st, 2007 at 4:50

So, where exactly do you draw the line on what’s “attatched” and what’s not?
I mean, WHY do you view your gallbladder surgery as different from “rearranging your face” or “rewiring your brain?” It doesn’t make sense, because both of those things (the gallbladder operation, and the supposed “autism cure” are aimed at doing exactly the same thing: altering a condition which (in both cases by your own admission) is “obviously genetic”.

So how exactly can you classify ONE genetic condition as a “problem” and another one as “a vital aspect of your being”. I’m just trying to understand where you’re dividing lines are?

I have some experience with this: I’m severely visually impaired (20/200). To some people (you, probably?) the visual problem would be seen as the sum of my personal identity. It’s “attatched” in the way that you’re autism is, in that it effects quite a lot of how I have to do things in many settings, etc. But here’s the clincher: I have NEVER considered a health problem sacred in the way that you seem to be doing. For instance, I wear glasses, took mobility training, and attempt (with varying levels of success) to be as functional as possible.

I find this portion of your blog doubly ironic, in light of your current pain-crisis, and having the nerve survery. Isn’t the pain-disorder “attached” as well?

You strike me as a brilliant person, Amanda, but I don’t get the double standard, I really don’t.

User Gravatar
ballastexistenz said in December 1st, 2007 at 7:53

It’s not simply a matter of what’s “attached” and what’s not.

It’s a matter of being a lot more careful than giving blanket pathology-status to everything that the medical profession would pathologize.

In this post, I was trying to say “Hey, the medical profession sees this in black and white, I see it in shades of grey.”

You’re instead reading the post as, “Hey, the medical profession sees this in black, so she must be seeing it in white, because black and white is all there is.”

Which isn’t what I wrote. Nor did I write that these things are the sum of a person’s personal identity.

My guess (and I can only guess, because I can’t see your logic here) is that you’re saying that there’s two possible points of view.

One is completely medicalizing a particular trait of a person’s body, and viewing it as completely separate from who they are.

The other is viewing it as all there is to a person.

I’m not saying either of those things. As long as you respond as if either of those things are the only two possible ways to look at these things, then you will see it as a “double standard” that I do things that you would classify into both of those categories. But I can’t really help that, all I can do is explain that I’m not doing what you claim I’m doing. If you think I’m “brilliant”, maybe you ought to give me credit for having thought of that.

You’re the one who made the connection between “attached” and “sacred”. I never said anything was sacred.

In fact, I find it very hard to carry on a conversation with someone who seems to be carrying on a conversation with someone else. As in, not me, as in, not what I said, nor what I meant.

There’s no contradiction in something being attached to a person and the person wanting to change it. However, when something is attached to a person, rather than some kind of external add-on, then it’s vital to look really hard at how and where it’s attached, to see what the consequences are of changing it, and whether they are worth those consequences. The consequences are not necessarily remotely obvious. But people run around figuring that if something is medicalized then medicalization is the only possible way to view it, and therefore that it must be wholly bad, wholly wrong, and wholly separate from who they are.

But it seems that you, coming from this viewpoint, sort of blend the worst aspects of the two viewpoints you are aware of. (Neither of which are my viewpoint.)

You seem to take the notion that anything that has ever been medicalized is by nature and definitely a disease, wholly wrong, wholly bad, and wholly without negative consequences to change.

Then you seem to take a caricatured part of another notion (that you seem to be operating as if it’s the only other one), that says that if something is a part of a person, then it is “sacred” and must never be changed at all.

Then you seem to combine the worst aspects of the two and say that I’m saying disease is always sacred and must never be changed at all. So then you view it as a “double standard” if I go ahead and change something, because you assume that I hold a viewpoint I simply don’t hold.

Even purely within the medical model, mind you, there are a lot of negative consequences of treating some things, and sometimes, even if you think of something as wholly negative, it is best to leave it alone because the cure is worse than the disease.

And even when you do use a treatment, you don’t use it lightly. Because things are attached, and in weird ways. Messing with beta blockers in an attempt to cure migraines results in severe asthma attacks, and messing with beta agonists in an attempt to treat asthma attacks results in severe migraines. Even if you look at that from a purely medical point of view, it’s not exactly a simple situation, because you don’t just have one body part detached from all others.

As far as things like trigeminal nerve pain goes, yeah of course it’s attached. Yeah, I also chose to change one superficial aspect of it. But what if the gene (I’m assuming it’s a gene, might not be) that caused that also caused a lot of other things, some of which I’d rather stayed the same? That means I wouldn’t fix the root cause at the genetic level because it might “fix” other things too that aren’t in need of fixing.

If some of the pain I experience is caused by the highly ungated manner in which I take in information in general, I do not want to give up that manner of taking in information in order to fix the pain, so I would not go to the absolute root cause that might be the manner in which I process information. However, obviously there are ways to treat pain that do not require changing the way I process information into something more standard.

Just as there are ways to work around the perceptual errors that creep in with methods of processing information that look more efficient on the surface but only because they’re cutting out more of the data and replacing it with assumptions that they can’t even tell they’re replacing it with. I doubt that people who process information that way want to become like me just because there are downsides, even extreme downsides, to it, and I don’t see any reason I should want to become like them because of the downsides to my method of processing information.

So, basically, if the only method of treating this or other pain meant going back and somehow rewiring me so that I would perceive the world in a pretty much typical manner, then I would not do it. If treating the pain involves taking drugs that are acceptable to me, or dealing with surgical treatments that are also acceptable to me, then that is fine.

There’s no contradiction here, just a willingness to explore the enormous amount of grey areas between wholly medicalizing something and wholly considering it too “sacred” (your word, not mine) to change.

And I’ve just read over my entire post again, and read the level of nuance I put into what I said. The amount of grey areas I did explore. Are you sure you read it carefully, or did you read parts of it, think you already knew what it said, and fill in the blanks with something from your own head? Because I think I mentioned several times over that while I would get rid of pain itself, that if it comes genetically with a lot of other things that I do not want to get rid of, then getting rid of the root genetic source of it would be a horrible thing to do, even if getting rid of some peripheral source of it (by, say, the nerve treatment I just got, or the meds I’m on for it) is okay.

My point was not that there was no place for medicine (and I said that several times above). Only that it is not the only lens to view a person’s body through, and is not always the best lens to view a person’s body through. And that when a person wants or is urged to make changes to their body, they should be careful to see what other parts of them those changes will pull on, and make a considered decision that is more complicated than a blanket “disease bad, cure good”. You appear to be interpreting “Things are more complicated than this” as “I am taking the absolute opposite view to this.” You also appear to be interpreting all the changes I described above, as if I would never take any one of them. I never said that, I just wanted to explore all the changes together, instead of neatly and tidily separating them all out the way the medical profession tends to. I talked about things I very much wanted to get rid of, and things I very much did not want to get rid of, and which methods of doing so were acceptable or unacceptable to me personally, and why. There are no contradictions here, just complexity.

User Gravatar
AnneC said in December 1st, 2007 at 9:41

False dilemma (or “Fallacy of the excluded middle”) seems like a pretty accurate term to invoke here.

User Gravatar
ballastexistenz said in December 1st, 2007 at 10:21

Another interesting thing I’ve noticed is this:

I’ve known a lot of transgendered people, including some who transitioned from female to male or male to female, physically and/or socially.

If I express no desire to undergo the same process, I am never told that I am choosing to remain pathological, or that I am overly identified with being female and should stop thinking that being female is all there is to me.

(When, in some respects, a sex change would be less intrusive than autism cure.)

And, of course, being trans is highly medicalized and pathologized. Usually.

When I say “usually” I mean there are people who do get pushed to transition to male or female when they are not, and are sometimes forced into surgery to do so. People who experience this are generally intersexed. Being intersexed has been heavily pathologized, and intersexed people who identify as neither male nor female, or both male and female, are seen as aberrations or people who are choosing to be miserable.

Jim Sinclair wrote:

Later that year, my indoctrination into the cult of phallus fixation was continued at a special clinic to which my physician referred me. There I was seen by several Experts who took it for granted that since I did not want to be female, I must want to be male, and that therefore I would be very anxious to acquire a penis. One of their primary concerns seemed to be to dissuade me from undergoing a phalloplasty (plastic surgery to create a phallus using skin grafted from the thighs and abdomen) and to convince me of the benefits of using a prosthetic phallus instead. Neither option interested me. I listened politely to the horror stories about complications from phalloplasties, and to the enthusiastic descriptions of the virtues of prostheses. After showing me two prosthetic penises and explaining how I could get one made to be proportional to my body size and to exactly match my skin color, the Expert who was in charge of my case asked if I had any questions. I did: “What use are these? What would I do with one?” The Expert appeared to be quite surprised by these questions.

[...]

When I was eighteen, I was seen by a different Expert, who wanted to involve me in a comprehensive gender reorientation program. His initial interview consisted of five questions: “How long have you been living as a male?” “Have you ever had sexual intercourse?” “Do you currently have a girlfriend?” “Do you have a boyfriend?” “How many times a week do you masturbate?” Based on my answers to the last four of these questions (no, no, no, and none), he concluded that my gender identity was too weak, and that I needed his help to learn more appropriate “masculine” behavior. When I told him that I wasn’t interested in learning the behaviors he had mentioned, he replied that it was necessary for me to learn them or I would become a miserable and unhappy person. In fact, he even offered to bet money that within five years, if I did not accept his recommendations, I would be a miserable and unhappy person. That was seven years ago. I accepted none of his recommendations, and I consider myself a happy and well-adjusted person with a strong sense of identity. But it’s a good thing I didn’t accept his bet; I’m sure I could never convince him that I’m not miserable and unhappy. After all, I still have not had sexual intercourse, I don’t have a girlfriend or a boyfriend, and I don’t masturbate. Furthermore, I’m not even “living as a male.”

[...] Yet when I told the above-mentioned surgeon that I did not want a phalloplasty, he predicted that if I did not either have a phalloplasty or accept reassignment as a female, I would become very depressed and would be likely to commit suicide. “You have to follow the rules. You can’t just have it your way all the time,” he scolded. Since it was my body, and I was the one who would have to live with the consequences of any surgery for the rest of my life, I thought I had an obligation to make sure that it was done my way. I found a different surgeon. And I haven’t commited suicide yet.

(from Personal Definitions of Sexuality by Jim Sinclair, who is intersexed, xyr intersexuality page is very useful)

There’s nothing more medical or unnatural about Jim having neither male nor female parts, than there is about me having female parts. Yet Jim has been consistently badgered and harassed into choosing between male and female (neither of which xe is). And nobody would badger or harass me into choosing between male and intersexed (neither of which I am). In fact, if I did somehow decide to transition to male or intersexed, people would badger or harass me to try to get me not to.

Talk about double standards.

But at any rate, that’s a good example of why this discussion seems strange to me. If saying I’d rather remain female doesn’t set off people’s “Oh no she believes being female is all there is to her!” alarms, then saying I’d rather remain autistic shouldn’t either. (And anyone who thinks there’s no innate disadvantages in being female has never had cramps, menstrual migraines, etc.)

User Gravatar
AnneC said in December 1st, 2007 at 22:46

But at any rate, that’s a good example of why this discussion seems strange to me. If saying I’d rather remain female doesn’t set off people’s “Oh no she believes being female is all there is to her!” alarms, then saying I’d rather remain autistic shouldn’t either.

Yeah. That’s a really good example. And it confounds (and frightens) me that sometimes, the very people who claim to be the most “scientific” and “unbiased” in their thinking are the ones most deeply and obviously affected by normative/status quo bias.

Actually, that kind of bias is (I suspect) probably the root of some manifestations of “eugenic” thinking — people have this idea that not only is there an “optimal” way to be configured, but that they personally know what that optimal way is. And they don’t even realize that their notions of optimality are actually heavily influenced by local/cultural norms, faddism, and even advertising.

I’m not trying to sound superior or anything in pointing this out, I’m just genuinely confused as to why so many people I’ve encountered seem so utterly and unwaveringly convinced that there are only one or two valid ways to exist.

It’s difficult to articulate this, and I don’t know how good a job of it I can do right now (since I haven’t thought the language through very much yet), but I guess I sort of see life as something that has a near-infinite number of potential paths. And each path can lead the person who takes it (via a combination of choice and circumstance) to a place where it is possible to access things like joy and wonder.

Only the thing is, not all paths (and by extension, not all lives) look alike. Some people seem to think that in order to access the good and beauty in life, your life has to superficially resemble what they associate with “a good life”, because somehow, those superficial factors get incorrectly conflated with essentials for happiness and “success”.

So while some of these folks may “mean well” in trying to shift others’ lives toward what they see as “good”, they can actually end up making things a lot worse for the people they’re ostensibly trying to help. And then when the people they are trying to help seem unhappy, or seem to be “regressing”, etc., it gets blamed on being a certain type of person, rather than on living in an environment that doesn’t value or accommodate that type of person by default.

User Gravatar
Rachel Hibberd said in December 2nd, 2007 at 1:31

“My point was not that there was no place for medicine (and I said that several times above). Only that it is not the only lens to view a person’s body through, and is not always the best lens to view a person’s body through.”

Couldn’t agree more with this. I hope one day we (”health” professionals and their patients) can be a bit more flexible and nondefensive about the medical model, and admit that it’s an analogy. And like all analogies, it works better in some situations and for some people than others.

User Gravatar
Henry Emrich said in December 2nd, 2007 at 20:21

Heh:
Seems like we misunderstood one another’s points of view (that’s not difficult, actually.)
First, you have no idea what “point of view” i’m coming from. Nor is it appropriate for you to “read in” some sort of anti-medical, anti-psychiatric agenda of your own.

First, yes I did read your article thoroughly. Nice dodge, tho. (I just love it when people assume that the only reason one could object to something is because it was “misread”). Give me SOME credit, Amanda.
(And yes, I Do have a somewhat “adversarial” approach to this, which I’ll get to later.)

Secondly, thank you for clearing up the thing about dividing-lines. You probably have a different approach to “nuance” than me, but hey.
I also get exactly where you’re coming from on the “cure being worse than the disease”. In my case, with current laser-technology etc., if they did laser-surgery or something to correct my vision (note that I did NOT use scare quotes there?), I would probably go blind. In other words, it would make the problem worse.
But notice two things:
1. I did NOT use “scare quotes”, nor do I reflexively refuse to acknowledge that my visual impairment IS actually an impairment. (Or are you going to dismiss that idea as just some sort of “optico-normative prejudice?”)

2. Nor do I have a blog whose sole purpose seems to be “de-pathologizing” visual problems.

3. Nor do I take any particular “pride” in being visually-impaired. (I’m not going to regard myself as ‘inferior’ because of it either. Taking “pride” in my visual problems would be as idiotic as taking ‘pride’ in the fact that I happen to be a White Male. I’ve been around people who take “pride” in their skin-color. It’s tedious in the extreme.

Additionally, I gotta ask: exactly how wonderful can this vaunted “ungated access to information” be, if it renders you (on a fairly routine basis BY YOUR OWN WORDS) “a quivering lump?”

Maybe — just perhaps — there are GOOD reasons for the “medicalization” of autism. Maybe taking “pride” in a characteristic you had no direct control over is…..ludicrous?

I really detest “identity politics”, and those (unfortunate) people who get sucked into it.

User Gravatar
ballastexistenz said in December 2nd, 2007 at 20:50

I’ll get to this later (my mom just got here), but “identity politics” is a whole set of widgets I don’t find myself sucked into. I do, however, have to use language, with all its limitations, including the tendency for people to project their own mental widgets onto it.

“Pride” in this sense isn’t pride in a normal sense, it’s more like “not ashamed”. I’ve got to go, maybe others will answer the rest.

User Gravatar
Henry Emrich said in December 2nd, 2007 at 22:04

Amanda:
Did NOT mean to imply that you were neccesarily a proponent of “identity politics” as such. However, you do (regrettably) end up serving that purpose quite often.

One of the interesting things I find is that people who happen to share one or two characteristics in common are essentially forced by the mainstream to view themselves in terms OF those characteristics, almost exclusively. Thus, you get the collossal social-fiction of the “Black community” or the “blind community”. The rise of “person-first” terminology (IE. “person with autism” or “person who is blind”) seems to me to be a really shabby substitute for actually realizing that the individuals who are pigeonholed INTO thse “communities” are individuals.

Also, your use of “pride” to denote “not ashamed” is, quite frankly, sloppy. “I am not ashamed, therefore I am proud” is an ACTUAL instance of “excluded middle”, far more than my acknowledgement that autism (and visual impairedness) ARE actually problems — and not just because of “how other people treat us”.

Have a good day Amanda. I hope the nerve block works, so you can become more functional again (grin!)

User Gravatar
Rachel Hibberd said in December 2nd, 2007 at 22:05

I can offer my own understanding of what it means to be “proud” of a category membership, not sure if it would match Amanda’s or others’ meaning.

It’s a different usage than the way we use “pride” when we’re talking about something we’ve accomplished. I’m proud of having finished a paper yesterday rather than procrastinating. When I say I’m proud to be a woman, or that I’m proud to be someone who’s been (at least at some times in my life) categorized as white trash, I don’t mean that I feel a sense of personal accomplishment for being those things. I mean that they are categories which have been historically devalued, and I’m proactively going out of my way to construct an identity for them that is positive. I do this both for my own psychological well-being and as part of a political effort to help these groups be recognized as consisting of valuable people.

User Gravatar
AnneC said in December 2nd, 2007 at 22:23

Henry: regarding the word “proud”, I agree that it can be problematic (inasmuch as some groups do use it in a boastful, self-aggrandizing manner). Nevertheless, there are contexts in which (as Amanda indicates) “proud” simply means “not ashamed”.

Regarding your (Henry’s) own visual impairment: while it’s clear that you personally would rather not have this impairment, I hope you would agree that your value as a person is not diminished by its presence. Shame can be a useful emotion at times (e.g., it is appropriate for a person to feel ashamed if they see someone abusing a child or animal and have the means to stop it, but don’t), but shame has absolutely no place in assessment of a person’s physical or cognitive characteristics.

Regardless, people who differ from the norm in particular ways (whether or not these ways are referred to as “disabilities”) are subject to social pressures to be ashamed of things that they shouldn’t be. Autistic people are pressured to “not look autistic” in public; children are subject to dubious “therapies” intended not to teach them to live successfully as an autistic, but to look as “normal” as possible.

Everyone needs some kind of assistance — no person living in a cooperative society is truly “independent”, and if you think otherwise, try living off in the woods and making your own clothing, catching and gathering your own food, dealing with your own medical needs, etc. But people who have atypical assistance needs are often pressured to be ashamed of those needs. Leaving aside the word “pride” for the moment, would you not agree that it doesn’t make sense for people to be ashamed of having needs that differ from “normal” ones?

None of what Amanda has said here has anything to do with “identity politics”, though I have noticed that quite often when anyone from a marginalized group attempts to press for social change surrounding the perception of that group, someone will almost invariably come along and accuse the person pressing for change of engaging in “identity politics”.

And regarding your dismissal of the idea that “ungated access to information” can be a good thing — I experience something very similar, and while it CAN be overwhelming at times, it is also extremely useful in helping me learn, perceive patterns about the way things work, and in providing me with access to rich levels of beauty in existence. I would much rather learn ways to manage the negative effects of overload than have my brain re-wired so that I had more gates and filters between reality and my perception of it.

I’m pretty sure that this “ungated access to information” is a large part of the reason why (at least in my case) I learned to read by the time I was two, why I can draw realistic objects well, why I often seem to notice things that other people don’t, etc. I don’t think my mode of perception is intrinsically superior to other modes, but it does have enough good points such that I’d never want to give it up even if doing so would make me function more “normally” or lend me the ability to drive, etc. Does that make sense? Or have you already formed all your conclusions regarding this subject, and are just trying to “win a debate” as opposed to actually learn about a perspective you might not have encountered previously?

User Gravatar
Tera said in December 3rd, 2007 at 5:44

Henry asked:

Additionally, I gotta ask: exactly how wonderful can this vaunted “ungated access to information” be, if it renders you (on a fairly routine basis BY YOUR OWN WORDS) “a quivering lump?”

I don’t think Amanda said her way of processing was “wonderful.” She just said that it wasn’t inferior to non-autistic processing systems. (And that non-autistic processing systems aren’t perfect, either; it’s just that they’re more readily accommodated in our society than hers is).

Like everyone else, there are some things I can do and some things I can’t. Some of the things I can’t do are thought of as essential for happiness or “living well” by lots of people. My life is good–I like it.

I don’t think of my disability (or my gender, or my heritage, or my hometown, etc., etc) as “sacred.” But those things are all part of what makes me who I am. I also don’t think that other people’s deficits are more acceptable than mine.

User Gravatar
Henry Emrich said in December 3rd, 2007 at 6:04

Ann C:
Interesting points, but I disagree (wouldn’t you just know.)
First, it is NOT just people who are “different” in some way who are “pressured to conform”: this isn’t a “tendency”, so much as a basic attribute of any and all “group” mentality. That’s why it’s doubly problematic when people like you (and Amanda, presumably), insist on “fouling your own nest” (so to speak) with the same sort of “group-member” mentality which has, ironically, been the primary means to OPPRESS those who differ along socially-unacceptable axes.

Let’s be honest here:
The percieved need to self-identify with a particular “community” is, to my way of thinking, a symptom of someone who is already psychologically beaten, primarily because it involves taking the FUNDAMENTAL WEAPON of those who have oppressed you, and attempting to turn it into a “badge of pride”.
So you happen to share some characteristic or other with people who have “historically been oppressed”. And? What I mean here, is that just going “Well okay, you’re right about the classification-scheme you’ve used to opress us; we just wish you’d be “nicer” to us.” It’s an abdication of the most fundamental sort imaginable.

Take the “black” community:
There’s a group who have historically been oppressed, solely on the basis of a few characteristics (skin color, nose shape, etc.) The solution to this would be, of course, to rethink that classification. Do they do that? Not very many. Unfortunately, the currently-fashionable mindgame we all play says that there’s something called the “black community”, whose units are essentially interchangeable, and leads, even among the most “liberal” and well-meaning of people, to a “seen one, seen ‘em all” mentality.

That’s what I’m getting at here: Armstrong Williams (for example) is a Libertarian who happens to be black. There’s a big difference between him — his outlook and social advocacy and such — and that of, let’s say, Farrakhan.
But the crass, socially-fashionable lumping of all blacks into some fictitious “black community” obscures that fact.

Same with the visually-impaired. There are some (like myself) who acknowledge that it actually is a problem, but even those who try to gloss over that fact would probably not actively take “pride” in the fact that they are visually-impaired. The opposite of shame is not “pride”, and claiming that there is ANY legitimate context for such downright slovenly thinking will inevitably lead to a groupthink-mentality and an “us Vs. Them” mentality.

Why exactly does Amanda (for example) choose to self-identify as “an autistic woman”, rather than as a “lesbian”, or an amateur-radio enthusiast? In the context of her particular brand of social advocacy it’s doubtless expedient for her to focus on the autism, but taking “pride” in it simply because one’s “group” has been “historically oppressed” is basically saying “lie down, and lick the feet that kick you.” What’s next? A “battered women pride day?”

I don’t buy it. What is so difficult to understand about the fact that I acknowledge that my problems ARE problems, and then go on with my life? I don’t go to rallies, because I don’t need to be surrounded by a whole bunch of other people who have been forcibly grouped with me on the basis of a SINGLE set of characteristics.
But you probably don’t get what I’m trying to say.

User Gravatar
ballastexistenz said in December 3rd, 2007 at 6:36

One reason that I wasn’t sure you read what I said, is that you’re tying what I’ve written to entire ideologies that I don’t believe in, and then insisting I answer for beliefs I don’t have. I was explicit that I was only guessing at what you might be thinking, but you’re telling me what I’m thinking, and you’re telling me where I get my ideas, and why I have them, and any accuracy in what you say about them seems about as much as random chance.

I repeatedly clarify that I don’t have those beliefs (and point back to instances of me actually saying I don’t have those beliefs), and you repeatedly insist that I do have those beliefs, seemingly because anyone who says/does such-and-such must have such-and-such a belief, or something.

And even when you say something that I completely agree with, you put it in terms as if it’s somehow opposed to my viewpoint.

And, yes, I think there must be something you don’t understand about what I said, because you keep saying I said things I did not say. I thought at first you might have skimmed what I wrote, because what you said does not make sense in terms of what I did write, and what I did mean by it. Generally if someone responds continually to things I did not say as if I said them (and/or insists that my saying one thing means I buy into an entire ideology that the other person happens to associate with that one thing), my assumption is that they did not understand what I said, because the alternatives (making a deliberate straw-man argument, willful misinterpretation, malice, etc) are things I don’t tend to accuse people of without stronger evidence than them not seeming to get what I’m saying.

A person who disagrees with me, is someone who knows what I meant by something but believes something else about it. If you would phrase your disagreement in terms that indicated you actually understood what I said, I’d be more inclined to believe you understood what I said even if you didn’t agree with it. As things stand, you’re saying I said things I didn’t say, and I can’t see how far this conversation can go because (among other things) it requires too many attempts on my part to go into a really abstract mode of thinking to try to model what you might think I meant by just about every other thing you think you’re responding to in what I said.

And on the combination of meds I’m on, that’s just not feasible.

But I’ll say this: I’ve been referred to by friends as a ‘perpetual outsider’ for a reason — although I identify with and work with many ‘communities’ of the sort you describe, I never entirely fit into them, because each one (in general, not necessarily the specific people within it) tries to warp the entire world to fit their own agenda, heedless of what other people might need or want. And additionally demands everyone within it to believe the same things. Etc.

And I don’t go to rallies.

I think I’ve also repeatedly managed to demonstrate what I do and don’t view as a problem and why, and I sincerely doubt that what I write fails to acknowledge problems.

So… yeah. Feel like I’m standing here and there’s this ghost standing next to me that someone’s having a conversation with and insisting it’s me. Not sure what to do about it, because the more I point to myself, the more the person talks to the ghost.

User Gravatar
AnneC said in December 3rd, 2007 at 8:58

Henry said: …but taking “pride” in it simply because one’s “group” has been “historically oppressed” is basically saying “lie down, and lick the feet that kick you.” What’s next? A “battered women pride day?”

If you disagree with using the word “pride” to refer to a state of “not being ashamed”, that’s fine — I’m not going to quibble over that point.

But I take great issue with your attempts to frame Amanda’s (and my) explanations/arguments as evidence of some kind of “groupthink” or “group mentality” or whatever you want to call it.

I don’t write about ethics and stuff because I want to “identify with a group” — I don’t know where you’re getting that. I’ve always resisted that kind of thing, for as long as I can remember. I’m not a fan of granfalloons at all.

Heck, when I was eight years old I wrote in a journal that I didn’t see myself as “either male or female”, just as “me”, because I thought gender was a really stupid way to divide people up, and I didn’t identify with any of the feminine stereotypes I came into contact with as it was.

Nevertheless, I recognize that there are certain practical realities about being female that it would be ridiculous not to acknowledge.

For instance, because I am a woman, I need to get checkups at the gynecologist’s every so often. Because I am a woman, I need to buy feminine hygiene products. Because I am a woman, I need my employers to have bathroom facilities I can use (e.g., not just male-only urinals). These things do not “define me”, and I most certainly do not get a warm, fuzzy feeling of community whenever I walk to the checkout line carrying a package of maxi-pads, but it would be dumb for me to insist that I wasn’t really female or that there are no issues that are common to most (if not all) women. Or that there wasn’t anything I liked about being female.

I also live in California. There are practical realities associated with living in California — for instance, the necessity of learning what to do in the event of an earthquake, the necessity of paying California state taxes, and the particulars of California’s geography and climate. I don’t “define myself” by the fact that I live in California, but the fact that I live here does make it useful to learn about the practical realities of being here.

And if people living in other states suddenly started running news articles and media sob-story pieces about how living in California was “devastating”, and that everyone here was miserable, and that the rest of the people had some moral obligation to send trains into California to cart all of us off to Minnesota or Alaska where we’d be able to “flourish properly”, you can bet I’d have something to say about it. Not because of some weird tribal identification with being “Californian”, but because California just happens to be where I live and I don’t want to be carted off in a train and put somewhere else on the basis of someone else’s mythology about my home state. In other words, I’d certainly have a practical interest in helping dispel the mythology, but that interest would have absolutely nothing to do with wanting to maintain a sense of “belonging” or “community” in the Californian Club. I couldn’t care less about that kind of thing, but I don’t want people spreading lies and misinformation about where I live and then using those lies to justify taking away my rights or the rights of my neighbors “for our own good”.

The same goes for being autistic — being autistic means that there are practical realities in my life I need to deal with, and that my life goes a lot better when I’m acknowledging these realities than when I’m trying to ignore them or insist they don’t really exist. It also means that yes, there are other people who know similar realities, and that people who know these realities can benefit from swapping strategies, experiences, and suggestions with one another. And it means that yes, I should be allowed to say that I like some parts of being autistic. Just as I like some parts of being female, and some parts of living in California.

If you think that is “identity politics”, I don’t know what else to tell you.

User Gravatar
just passing through said in December 3rd, 2007 at 13:58

Henry, people set-intersect with others on the basis of common interests. (It’s going to be the really odd one who identifies only with one particular group to the wholesale exclusion of others.) Amanda has made it clear in her writings that she identifies with elements of a number of different groups and movements competing for her time and interest.

When others with like minded interests do too, they take the form of a “community”–for that topic of interest.

Individuals with vastly different philosophies or histories tend to find commonality somewhere. (They may like the same brand of takeout pizza, or come together for the same musician’s performance.) Then those in themselves comprise their own “communities.”

This is a compositional outlet for her (as well as to converse, opine, persuade, correct, spar with others): (disability-rights) political, anthropological, spiritual, mostly with an “autistic community” bent–this one happens to speak prevailingly on issues topical to her appraisal of an “autistic community” which she feels she intersects with, like some other people with similar issues do. (Who knows, she may even have other blogs that address other things that we don’t even know about, with their own sets of followers.) She’s not even defined by blogging.

The original topic of this thread was clear: People are temples, who have a right not only to prioritize (an understatement), but to set personally directed limits, on what some others would do to them if they were allowed that authority. There are plenty of casualties in the historical record when those rights are not respected; you can really damage someone with the practice of quackery. (But she even has made abundantly clear in certain threads that her particular makeup results in certain beautiful, invaluable (side?)-benefits (perceptional, cognitive, empathic, even in some ways physiological to name a few) in addition to those numerous complaints she never hesitates to mention.)

Where would you draw lines of demarcation then? If it weren’t up to her, how would you have her (or any of us) changed? What zones of familiarity, comfort–even pleasure–would be invaded in the process? How many procedures? At what cost in iatrogenic consequences, physiological and psychological? Or in personal liberty? Or in dollars? Those are all the things that are “attached.”

Check out a seriously great piece of art–”Seconds” (1966) by John Frankenheimer. Available on DVD. (Parts of “The Game” a few years ago were nicked from it.)

As with anybody, let her decide what she would change about herself. Penultimately, unless you have lung disease or something, no one really wants to change a whole lot neurophysiologically–identity is tied up in it. We all relax and chill our own ways.

I haven’t seen the word “pride” used anywhere on her blog–maybe it is. But the word when mentioned in the world of humanity is basically pride in standing up for one’s self.

User Gravatar
ballastexistenz said in December 3rd, 2007 at 16:00

Also, the thing about some things being problematic applies to most people’s lives.

Human beings can’t fly. Many human beings wish they could. However, in order to change a human being into a flighted animal (without artificial external aids such as hot air balloons, airplanes, etc) the entire bone structure, metabolism, brain, inner ear, size, and several other aspects of the standard human body, would have to be changed.

If such a change were available, how many humans would be willing to pay that price to lose the inconvenience of not being a flighted animal?

I suspect, if they truly knew what that price was, they’d rather go back to using assistive technology to fly rather than being cured of their non-flighted state, even if being flighted would save their life in some situations, and make other situations far more convenient. And this despite the fact that many humans wish they could fly. A few might choose to pay that price, but not a lot, and it’d be a personal choice, not a matter of everyone who didn’t choose to pay that price being medicalized or told that they just identified too much with a group.

User Gravatar
Evonne said in December 3rd, 2007 at 18:05

I think that’s an interesting analogy particularly because I don’t think a lot of folks take into account that human ability to fly *would* require that much overhauling . . . I think they’re just picturing slapping angel wings on somebody’s back, or something. Perhaps the same analogy applies to folks’ idea of “cure” — that it’s really just a simple maneuver that involves attaching/detaching one element that’s not necessarily infiltrated into the rest of the “being”. Or did you say that already? ;)

User Gravatar
Time to read this again « reSISTERance said in January 2nd, 2008 at 17:31

[...] in Body & Mind tagged bipolar, cure, disability, medication, mental health at 4:28 pm by v Hey, watch it, that’s attached! by Ballastexistenz “To be cured, is to be brought closer to someone else’s standard of [...]

User Gravatar
Fernando said in February 24th, 2008 at 8:34

Amanda, your whole argument seems to be that you were born with 100% of your autistic traits… and that’s what you are supposed to be… and don’t want a cure… so on.

If i could prove to you that less than 10% of the traits are biological and the rest was acquired in your early life, would that change your views? would you then accept a treatment that removes the other 90%?

User Gravatar
ballastexistenz said in February 24th, 2008 at 19:11

No, my argument is not that things are all things I was born with, and I am not talking, above, solely about autism. Nobody is born with all of the traits they will acquire on their way to adulthood. Some of the things I described above are clearly acquired things, yet they are still things that I would think carefully about before changing. Some are things I could change, some are not.

I remember you as someone who claimed to have found an exercise that could cure autism or something. I’d be interested to know what you think it is, certainly, and which parts you think are innate versus which parts you think are learned, but that won’t necessarily change anything.

You might be interested, in fact, in this post, where I go into some traits that are often attributed to autistic people but that I think are often acquired and not actually useful except for when surviving awful situations.

Anyway… yeah, if you’d do more than hint around I’d be happier.

User Gravatar
Fernando said in March 21st, 2008 at 6:52

And i’d be happier if i could talk to someone without them pushing me around to reveal the cure. I feel so alone right now. When i was a kid i used to feel like an alien among humans, there was nobody like me. I was 23 years old when i discovered autism and it was so cool to know there was millions of people going through the same life as me, and i could share experiences and ask questions to them. Then i got cured and i was alone again, there has never been anyone like what i am right now, you have no idea how many times a day i ask myself how can a physical exercise change my psychology so much (i mean come on, even my voice changed from monotone to “multitone”), and i have no one to ask questions to. Someone told me today that “no respectable researcher has ever suggested what you mention, so you are on you own”. So i’m on my own. Don’t worry my “therapy” will be public knowledge before year’s end, that is my job.

Regarding the link to your other post, yea, my father spent 20 years trying to make me social and polite, he only succeeded in making me hate the “pretend to be normal” game, that would be the main reason why i started looking for “alternative” solutions to autism, i wasn’t willing to pretend, and i was too old to keep living locked in my room with no job, friends, etc.

Leave A Reply

 Username (Required)

 Email Address (Remains Private)

 Website (Optional)