When I would write in my journal on my web page some people seemed to express a concern that they were not able to comment on my web page. The way my journal was set up on my web page I was not able to enable comments, though I did try with some reluctance. One of the reasons I decided to get this new blog, which I am still waiting to get my first comment on was so that all of these people who wanted to comment could have an opportunity to comment. Also, the blogspot blog on Jonathan's journal did not have the appearance of others and it did not have the archiving features and things like that. I was new to blogging with comments after I got this blog and was concerned about not being able to delete comments if I thought they were over the line and attacking so I regretfully pushed for comment moderation as I have seen done on some other blogs that do this on a routine basis. I then wrote a comment under these conditions about Michelle Dawson seeming to ascribe a lot of ideas that I wrote in an article urging people to reject the concept of neurodiversity that I never expressed in the article. I also questioned why she and her research associates could not apply their concepts that autism is not a tragedy and autistics intelligence has been underestimated etc, clinically and show positive outcomes based on research harnessing all of these hidden abilities that they allege autistics have. Then she seemed to be concerned that I would censor her comments since I had the comment moderation on. I have now turned the moderation off so that I can encourage people to comment here. Michelle still does not want to seem to comment here though I have now made every effort to accommodate her. She and her friend Jypsy are still saying things about me that are not true.
Jypsy has asked me to provide an example of baseless comments she has made about me so I will accommodate her here but not on Michelle's TMOB board. She claims that I could not back up my claims that there were persons in the neurodiversity movement who claimed that most if not all people felt as they did. This is untrue. I only conceded that saying that the word consensus may have been a bad choice of words and that the use of the term all may have been a mistake. I only said "a number" of persons in my article. This could have multiple meanings. it could mean some it could mean many. Jypsy had asked me in public blogs and private emails to back up my statements with examples. I did give her a number of examples on more than one occasion which included the writings of Dawn Prince Hughes in her book Song of a Gorilla nation and John Robisson's book look me in the eye. I also gave her a number of examples of this way of thinking that was pervasive in the usenet newsgroup alt.support.autism that I used to post on several years ago. I only conceded that I may not have phrased things as well as I could and perhaps I should have said some or certain individuals rather than saying "a number" instead of saying all maybe i should have said they ascribe this to most people or in some cases all people. This would have been a more accurate statement and i hope this clarifies it. Jypsy's statement that I could not back up my assertions is absolutely false and a baseless statement.
Michelle also is now claiming that I deliberately lied about jypsy's family. When I first started corresponding with Jypsy via email she told me about a son who was diagnosed with asperger's at age 9. Then on the TMOB comment board she stated her son was severely autistic at 3 and unable to speak. I thought at the time she was talking about the same person, so I asked her to explain these inconsitencies. Apparently Jypsy has four children and at least two sons who are different people both with different types of ASD's. I had no way of knowing this at the time. I never accused her of being a liar contrary to what Michelle is printing on the TMOB board.
Jypsy seemed to think that I had a different definition of neurodiversity than Michelle and wanted to know what my take on it is. My take is not that it is a movement attempting to acquire human rights but in reality is claiming that autism and perhaps other neurologic conditions are not really disorders but a different way of brain wiring. They are claiming that there is no need to find a cure or even medicalize these conditions in any manner and if the right accommodations are made for these people it will solve everything. I hope this clarifies things for Jypsy.
Michelle also seems to feel that I am being omniscient by stating that I believe that if people with Down's syndrome don't feel that they have a disorder and nothing is wrong with them are engaging in denial and reaction formation defense mechanisms. I only stated this as opinion and this is my assessment of the situation. I never stated it as absolute fact. This does seem to me to be the most likely explaination.
If Michelle and others are concerned about censorship because they had no way to comment on my previous blog and I regretfully enabled comment moderation when i first got this blog, I have made every effort to accommodate them. They still want to seem to attack me on their own turf and not comment on this blog here even though they can freely comment here and have their comments printed here immediately without my approval.
I find this concern about censorship most interesting as it seems to me if there is a huge pattern and history of internet censorship it has been practiced by those in the neurodiversity and anti-cure movements. This occurred on Jim Sinclair's ANI list where comments that autism was a disability or any sort of bad thing were not allowed and people would be first given a warning and then kicked off the list for a second offense. Amanda Baggs at autistics.org also engaged in this practice claiming that censorship just meant that the government would intercede and not allow anyone to print their own newspaper but they were not engaging in censorship as people could start their own lists or blogs. Well I have done that here. Also, I remember one person in the autism support usenet group, which she was only a participant and had no role in starting state that comments wanting to cure autism or labeling autism as an affliction were not welcome in "autistic friendly space" It seems to me a double standard is operating here. I suppose I will get a negative comment eventually from someone as I have just started this blog. I don't know if I will get one from Michelle or not though I have made every effort to accommodate her. Hopefully I will get some positive and supportive ones also.
In the meantime it seems that a guy just can't win.