Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Another article on neurodiversity

I see that yet another article on the ND movement has been published in the latest issue of autism asperger's digest. Your humble blogger and Age of autism staffer Jake Crosby are given token mention as anti neurodiversity bloggers. Though the article is entitled Neurodiversity: A Balanced Opinion, author Nick Dubin's opinion is anything but balanced. He most clearly embraces neurodiversity and is opposed to a cure for autism. Interestingly enough Dr. Dubin did not find out he was on the spectrum until age 27 and then five years later obtained a doctoral degree in psychology. Most of the stuff in the article is very old news for anyone who has followed the ND movement for any length of time, but I still linked to it on here as it might make an interesting read for some persons.

Of note the article mentions William Stillman, a self-diagnosed autistic with no credentials who apparently can get $100 an hour for a phone consult and when questioning how smart a person on the spectrum is Stillman states, 'presume intelligence'.

More interesting is the statement about Michael John Carley.

Dubin States:

Carley serves as a true role model for people of all ages on the spectrum. His character and actions exude tolerance and respect and his efforts to serve as a bridge of understanding to those who are not on the spectrum are admirable

Though it is probable that Dubin wrote the article before Carley made his recent controversial statements regarding his views of Asperger's being taken out of the DSM and not wanting to be associated with autistics who were head bangers or who wore diapers as adults one can laugh at the irony of this. I think some of my ND opponents will agree with me on this point.

Again, old stuff for most of us, but something that might be worth a cursory read in any event.


Droopy said...

Something else I want to talk about that I've been processing (or trying to) ever since it happened.

I'll just report what happened and ask the one question I have after:

Yesterday a nurse was at my home and had made an earlier comment abut my "special type of autism" (which I wondered what he meant but as is often the case when people try to have simultaneous more than one conversation with me at a time, I wasn't able to both keep up with the important issues/topic of hand (the issues that require a nurse's assistance for which he was there) plus at the same time have this other secondary conversation so at that time I left it unaddressed/unasked after)

he then later approached the topic again as sat beside me on my couch (to generally read my text before I have to speak it)he took a moment to looking over his PDA notes on me and asked,

"which special type of autism is it that you have?"

and I replied (having a vague idea 'where he was going with' this but wanting clarification first to be sure)

"what do you mean?"

he said,

"well you know, there are all kinds of special types of autism, there's PDDn-and do you know about Aspergers Syndrome?"

(before I could respond he went on without a hitch just as I was began to wonder and considered asking him if he himself had Asperger's which I never did get to ask and in retrospect I'm not really sure I want to know)

"Aspergers are high level professionals, lawyers, scientists accountants, you know."

this was quickly followed by a comment that included

"not making eye contact"

and something else about

"looking" or "standing"

"across the room"

but I didn't catch it because by then I was typing (loudly, I can 'type quite loudly when I get banging away at the keys with quite a clatter, happens for a variety of reasons) and just butted in with my speak key

"yes, I know about Aspergers"

to which he replied

"well then I'll stop talking about Asperger's then"

followed by (my trying to catch up and actually answer his original question)

"I have Autistic Disorder"

to he asked me something in a puzzling amazed tone something that amounted to


but I was too busy typing and replying (and perhaps getting a bit perturbed with this whole conversation)

"Autistic Disorder, just Autistic Disorder"

and with that (probably because he is actually a pretty perceptive person) we moved on to other topics of import.

I still don't know what he thought my "special kind of Autism" might've been (and I'm not sure I want to know that either).

considering this is isn't an 'autism expert' (he was here regarding other issues I have), but is a medical professional and a member of the general population (and one I observe to be actually pretty enlightened compared to many) and this is his perception

(and likely a fair representation of the perception that is out there)

I just want to know:

Neurodiversity, Is this what you had in mind, is this what you wanted?

Jake Crosby said...

At least he acknowledges we exist and presents our views as legitimate. Many with the ND view won't even go that far.

Kim Wombles said...

In response to your comments at Stephanie's:

Jonathan, YOU moderate comments. I don't. You choose what makes it through. I let it all on sight unseen. You have to intentionally decide to let through hateful or inflammatory remarks. There's a huge difference between that and no moderation. You have a problem with Clay, address him directly. You want what you deem a hurtful remark removed from my blog, you ask me directly. But, you might want to go back through your blog and look for Best's remarks concerning me and see which appeared first: Best's comments regarding me on your MODERATED blog or Clay's on my UNMODERATED.

I'll continue my thoughts since I'm addressing you directly on your own site.

Since you feel no obligation to ensure a bully free zone on your moderated blog, glass houses and all, I'd stop and think about it before I bitched about someone's open blog where no moderation and no censoring (except for three individuals who earned the ban) occur.

As to the song lyrics, agree with it or not, it showed a clever mind. I noted that. I also noted you wouldn't like it.

It seems to me you see no problem with engaging in certain behaviors yourself but have a serious problem when it's turned on you.

Stephanie has a right to protect herself from people who come onto her blog and harass her. Since she moderates her blog, she can control what she reads. By closing out anonymous options, she can selectively delete certain individual's comments sight unseen and avoid the situation entirely. She has a right to protect herself from that.

You, too, have that same right. And you have the right to engage individuals directly if you think their treatment of you is unfair. You also have the right to choose to ignore it.

So, before you set about pointing out perceived hypocrisies in others, I'd recommend, if you want to be taken earnestly, making sure your own house is in order.

Otherwise, it isn't going to go unnoticed that instead of focusing on the details of a thing, like, oh, advocating for an 11 year old who's been arrested for resisting a restraint, or a young blogger who's being bullied by someone whose posts you approve, that you nitpick your already preconceived notions regarding neurodiversity.

jonathan said...

Kim you have said that it is wrong to treat autistic people with disrespect and that is what ND is about. You laughed at me when clay was bullying me. I did not ask you to remove his comments from your blog. I need to moderate comments mostly because of Clay and one or two other people who are probably friends of yours who have gone over the line.

You were not commenting on how clever Clay was you were helping him mock me, so it is you who needs to get your house in order and stop throwing stones from a home of fragile glass. Anything else you have said in this post is irrelevant to anything.

Kim Wombles said...

I think you need to reread that thread at Countering, Jonathan, because that's not how it reads.

And no, the rest of the content in my comment is emphatically not irrelevant. You're railing against me for perceived disrespect towards you and yet you treat Dawson the way you do, you allow other persons' comments on that badger other autistic people. You rant and rail against Ne'eman and show him anything but respect.

I think you feel you should be treated with kid gloves because of your autism (or Asperger's --caught that radio interview you did a few years back where you are identified as having Asperger's); that isn't respect and it isn't equality. Disability rights means being treated like a full citizen, with all the privileges and responsibilities incumbant.

Respecting your inherent value as a human being doesn't mean you get carte blanche. I told you months ago that your biggest problem isn't autism. It's your attitude. That still stands.

Droopy said...


Let me speak for me (if with his selective modding Jonathan ever lets half my posts get through)

there have been no comments "that badger other autistic people"
- there have however been plenty to 'badger' and rather rightfully so, those who aren't Autistic but continue to try in one form or another to pass themselves of as if they are -- and that includes a number of the names you've mentioned, and a few you haven't

and (yet again) its hypocrisy that's over-the-top with you Neurodiversiteess since 'being treated with kid gloves" and an expectation for 'card blanche' is exactly what your movement is about -- seeking just those very same things -- and strictly for yourselves!

Not only is that not our deal (but is the exclusive domain of Neurodiversity)

When and where in hell do you even think you've ever actually given "basic human respect" etc let alone 'carte blanche' etc to us?

as to 'addressing people directly' you know there's a situation you've taken the liberty to participate in lately where I've tried just exactly that (and what I've actually had to say is also right out in the open on John Best's blog) resulting in the 'one half a phone call' effect -- and there's you over there complaining about it (still more hypocrisy, especially then when you turn and actualy come over here and say this stuff, to Jonathan

I've made a point to refrain from bringing the issue with this person here to Jonathan's blog -- in part because I already knew he'd never allow my comments and the addressing of the problem through here (and ask yourself while you accuse him on one hand and exhibit the very same on the other -- why do you suppose, in your own terms that is that Jonathan wouldn't allow it here?

(again, you just can't have it both ways and I'm not about to stand by and say nothing and let you try)

and I also suppose out of at least even a very minimal respect for Jonathan himself and his wishes, so that even if I don't agree with a good chunk of things he says or how he manages things -- yes, this guy, this Jonathan Mitchel the same guy who you're now coming to make your remarks to right now)

I think you Neurodiversitees seriously need to

practice what you preach

(talk about a Captain Obvious moment if ever! -- remember you're the ones preaching it, not us!)

heaven knows you never have and you never will and the fact that you don't is just one of the many things about you that outs and gives you away

it seems to me that we at least have Autism,

while you on the other hand, just have nothing but your Attitude.

jonathan said...

If Kim Wombles is still reading the comments in this thread, she may be interested to know that I rejected a very nasty comment made about her and her weight and her character by John Best.

Something for her to think about next time She laughs at me and my disability when Clay Adams posts some nasty cheap shots about me on her blog.

John Best said...

I don't begrudge you for deleting my comment. People not trained in the psychology of obesity tend to deny the big picture of what causes this disgusting aberration of the human form.

However, it should be noted that Kim Wombles is 100% dishonest with every word she utters on her blog. I could prove this to all if Wombles had the intellectual fortitude to allow me to comment freely there as I can easily refute everything she says.

jonathan said...

John: Perhaps if you toned down your rhetoric a bit she would allow you to comment. This is why I don't engage in debate with Clay Adams because as is the case with you and Wombles I can refute everything he says also, but he never tries to present any facts only insults me and my family.

As I have said before I don't blame you one bit for the anger and contempt you have towards the neurodiversity people which I share with you but you might have more credibility if you changed your style a bit.

John Best said...

I only insult the neuronitwits after they resort to lying about the reasons they banned me from their blogs. I was never banned and never had comments deleted due to insults. That was the lie they resorted to after I gave them intellectual beatings.

After they resorted to lying like that, there was no point in trying to have civil discourse with any of them. They do the same thing to you.

Clay Adams fried his brain with booze and just isn't capable of having any reasonable discussions on any subject. We should pity him.

Anonymous said...

"As to the song lyrics, agree with it or not, it showed a clever mind. I noted that. I also noted you wouldn't like it."

It's too bad those of us with an ASD don't have as much wisdom as the clever minds we have like any other human.

Droopy said...


yes, the ever present "but we/they communicate [Neurodiversitee dirt and lies] so well" as justification rationalizing why somehow that makes it 'okay'

both in the case of Baggs "well shes sooo articulate and says such lovely things.. wouldn't you say the same sorts of things if you could?" (and btw the answer to that query is a resounding "Hell No!")

and on and on not the least of which is this 'misunderstood genius' routine "we're so smart we can't help it, we have so much to offer the world and we can't be expected to be tolerant of those we perceive as less capable/therefor less worthy"

"we should get more than you who are more impaired, after all we'll be able to do more with it/contribute back to society than you ever will"

and on and on.. perceived functionality as elitism and privilege at its 'finest'

(which is particularly ironic when coming from a bunch of self-proclaimed Autistic advocates)

"So what if the song is nasty, its so clever"

doubly ironic when you consider these self proclaimed 'advocates' have selected for their victims.. er I mean targets.. a group of people for whom communication issues are rather a hallmark identifier of our collective challenges

the message for us:

let the 'purdy' and over-privileged speak and whatever they say is and must be right, simply because they have this capacity (to a strikingly non disabled degree that surpasses I think even 'the average joe's' capacity I might add) since they can say it/dole it out so much more effectively..

(and walk all over, stomp on and keep the people who are the real deal down and out of sight)

a rose is a rose is a rose by any other name and a spade is still a spade and no matter how much you think you doctor it up, your sh*t still stinks.

'clever' is clearly in the eye of the beholder and quite subjective.. I bet even I could come up with some pretty 'clever' ways to rip on you (collectively or individually)
but of course you'd never see it that way and I'm not here or out to impress anyone:

Piss on all your 'eloquent' posers delivering what you think is such 'clever prosody'

Not everybody's buying what you're selling.

Anonymous said...

"I just want to know:

Neurodiversity, Is this what you had in mind, is this what you wanted?"

While it sure seems like they want this to be the outcome, I have a hunch that ND is just angry that their autism makes them SOOOOOOOO
apathetic that they end up living like the way ground hogs do during the winter (and I finally came up with a great way to express this feeling I've always had about people affected by autism just from seeing a youtube user making an insult about that in his own words).