I don't think I was very clear

[conuly]

Or even very accurate

*le sigh*

Anybody care to go and correct any inadverdant mistakes? On anybody's part, mind, I'm not going to complain if you correct somebody else!

Comments

Re: From Dictionary.com

[conuly]

1. Dictionary.com sucks. Just on general principle, I say that. (not being sardonic, either)
2. This is definitely the right place. I just *really* didn't want to clog up that person's inbox with my pontifications, especially when I've got a post here.
3. Okay, on to the good stuff:

You say two things here that need discussion. Or three... why do you say I'm biting you? *confused*

The first is the discussion of suffering. While I'll agree that that is one definition of suffering that could apply, the reality is that language isn't just used to communicate ideas in a literal sense. It's also used to communicate... um... non-literal ideas. Bear with me while I say this properly. The word suffer has a lot of negative connotations, most of which are much more severe than "to appear at a disadvantage" (I will not use the "experience" definition, as I've never heard it and it seems uncommon). So if you say "this person suffers from autism" meaning "the autism makes this person appear at a disadvantage in certain (but not all) circumstances", that's nice, but there's no way to prevent people from hearing the more normal version "this person has a horrible debilitating condition called autism". It'd be really really cool if people would hear what you mean instead of what you say, but most of the time it's a struggle to get them to even hear what you say instead of what they think. No need to make it harder by saying things which may be unclear.

The other thing is the illness model. While I can see this perspective, it seems ill-advised. First of all, it only applies at all if you can prove there's an inherant disadvantage to one form of thought over another. You can't prove that. All you can prove is that autistics tend to have problems in a world full of nonautistics. I could just as easily say that nonautistics would have problems in a world full of autistics. Then they'd be sick. That doesn't make much sense, saying that illness depends on your perspective. In addition, you can easily say that certain aspects of autism make certain things easier. In some situations, it's a benefit to be autistic. That doesn't sound much like an illness either. Then there's the really important one - calling autism an illness means trying to separate it from a person's mind/thoughts. It's like saying there's a normal person with something else making him/her strange. This is not true. It is, in fact, completely nonsensical. People aren't anything but their thoughts!

*yawns* I'd be more coherant, but it's 2:13. Must sleep.

[goddess588.livejournal.com]

Keep biting me = keep challenging what I say.

You're right about the reality of the word suffering. I seem to have this tendency to use words for their obscure meanings rather than their more common ones, and you're not the only one who's picked up on that.

To me 'illness' equals 'disorder' equals 'illness' and I use the terms interchangably mostly. Illness is on a continuum, as is wellness, in its broad sense. A disorder can be too, but the very word disorder implies that there is a difficulty in order - yep - we have it again - another word that can be twisted - so a shorter continuum, or at least one with a start point. And Aspergers is a disorder in the DSM-IV, though I know that others call it a syndrome. And the thing about the DSM-IV is that it says The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning, which to me means that it's a disadvantage.

DSM-IV definition (http://www.isn.net/~jypsy/whataspe.htm)

Society decides what is 'normal' on that continuum, society (admittedly professed experts in that field) decides where the cutoff is for the beginning of 'abnormality' (I am so digging this hole deeper with all these words with negative connotations) and society decides where the point is that they won't tolerate people out and about, hence the Mental Health Act. Saying that nonautistics would have problems in a world full of autistics isn't even relevant, because autism is not the norm in our world. There is a disadvantage to being autistic in this world, when the majority of people think/process/interact differently, as you admit in your next post.