It seems sometimes that hardly a month goes by

[conuly]

when I don't see somebody saying a variation on "My $PERSON is having trouble with $PROBLEM because of the rigidity/black and white thinking since they have autism."

This is, of course, an absolutely inappropriate and disrespectful way to speak of your loved ones - or anyone! Irritatingly, whenever I point that out I get some variation of "Your continued disagreement with me over this issue is not because I'm wrong, but because of your autism". I said irritating, I meant infuriating.

JFC, some people.

(The particular context here is "My son is having trouble understanding that the pastor he was close to at church was actually an abusive spouse who is leaving his wife for his mistress". Your son isn't having trouble with this concept because he's autistic, he's having trouble with it because he's a kid and also because this is a troubling situation!)

Comments

[marahmarie]

This troubles me more for the stereotyping than for the way it was put. If you drop "since they have autism" from the sentence does the overall statement still sound disrespectful to you, or is it the qualifier that makes it so?

[conuly]

It's still disrespectful, but a lot less so, because it's at least framing this as a personality trait and not a disability.

The thing is, people like this like to talk and talk about how autistics have trouble seeing other people's perspectives - but they never once look in the mirror at themselves and consider that they set a crap example.

[marahmarie]

It's hard for most people to put themselves in someone else's shoes, and for some people, including those not on the spectrum but perhaps with disorders of some sort, it can be even harder. That's why empathy's often so valued and/or often so undervalued.

[peoriapeoriawhereart]

I am wondering if we're running into undiagnosed parents with autism spectrum with diagnosed children and some horrible praxis.

What I've been seeing for the diagnostic criteria, autism is akin to 'the cancer'; it's potentially much more complicated than whatever model they've made.

[conuly]

I know what you mean in this case.

You should also know, though, that there is a long and shitty history of people comparing autism to cancer. Sometimes the idea that cancer is preferable because it kills the patient is left as subtext. Occasionally it's stated outright.

[peoriapeoriawhereart]

Yeowch.

I was (for those not up on this particular subtlety) referring to the very old school whisper before various cancers were spoken of as distinct. Because at that time, it was whispered. It was too mysterious.

A bag of symptoms that may or may not stem from the same cause isn't particularly more sophisticated. I was addressing only the medical practice; divergences aren't the same as diseases.

[conuly]

Indeed. I did know what you meant, it's just never a good comparison. (There probably are people out there still making it in earnest. They can fuck right off.)

[marahmarie]

I cannot even with people comparing autism to...cancer? Seriously?

[conuly]

Oh yeah.

[marahmarie]

*grrrrrr*

[marahmarie]

Of course, dropping the qualifier still leaves you with someone making assumptions, which even with a non-autistic person is a bit like...jumping to conclusions, which can be rude. Sometimes it's more helpful to ask someone *why* they feel like they do than assume it's because of x.

[rhoda_rants]

Wow the context makes it so much worse. I mean, it was bad already, but WOW. So you've raised a child who is trusting of authority figures and had a, "Wait, what?" moment when they turned out not to be trustworthy. THIS IS NOT A BAD THING. This is in fact a NORMAL reaction to a very bad person betraying their trust and something you should work through together. They really don't need that qualifier, at all.

[calimac]

C.S. Lewis called this 'Bulverism': dismissing an argument because of the characteristics of the speaker.

[redbird]

It occurs to me that one plausible response might be "no, your continuing disagreement with me is because you're neurotypical and emotionally attached to your preconceptions."

I don't think the attachment part of that is specifically a neurotypical thing--I think it's a human thing to not want to consider "what if I was wrong" and spend the time/energy to reconsider a problem/question." That "because you're autistic" is one shape of framing their emotional reaction as something the other person is doing, and similar to (for example) men insisting that their viewpoint is "rational" and anyone who disagrees with them is being "emotional."

[conuly]

It occurs to me that one plausible response might be "no, your continuing disagreement with me is because you're neurotypical and emotionally attached to your preconceptions."

I will use that verbatim next time and report back.

[marahmarie]

I like it.

[silveradept]

That is a very rude statement of them to make, especially in that context, because the autism part probably has a lot less to do with it than "a person thought trustworthy has proven themselves much less so" and recalibration is hard and no longer being able to rely on stereotype and external cuts requires more cycles of thinking.

It seems much more life the curvy response is "your son is grappling with something in a healthy way, vs your continued inability to help him is not because you're NT, but because you are bad at understanding and helping him."

[janewilliams20.livejournal.com]

Poor kid. It's one of the worst but most essential parts of growing up, realising that adults have flaws too, even the ones you've trusted.

[conuly]

Yup. This is a pretty brutal lesson, poor kid.