Self-Diagnosis

Recently, I was reading Michael John Carley's book Asperger's from the Inside Out. At one point in that book, he starts talking about self-diagnosis. I don't have the book with me right now, so I'll just summarize what he says:
Firstly, he estimates 99.9% of self-diagnosed aspies really are on the spectrum (the .1% who aren't, he claims, are typically claiming to be AS because the condition they really have carries greater stigma). He says at first he felt it was just fine to be self-diagnosed, and gives an example of a self-diagnosed aspie he knows who is doing quite well. But then he noticed in his support groups that despite his 99.9% comment, repeated frequently, self-diagnosed aspies seemed much more likely to think that he doubted they were autistic. And this made him think that most aspies probably need a psychologist's confirmation in order to feel secure in their aspie identity.
This made me think. I've actually had two separate experiences of self-diagnosis on the autism spectrum. With the first one, the self-identification as autistic, my experiences are a lot like he says - I called myself 'probably autistic' until I was officially diagnosed. And deep down inside, I kept wondering if maybe I was actually stupid and rude, as I'd believed before self-identifying as autistic. It was my diagnosis of PDD NOS that stopped that.
For my second self-diagnosis, of pathological demand avoidance, an official diagnosis is just not possible. The only center that diagnoses PDA is in England and only sees children under 16 years old. When I emailed the author of the original description of PDA, she wouldn't even give me her opinion about whether I had PDA, based on my description of myself. So no official diagnosis. But now I don't really doubt that I'm PDA. And what happened to do that, is that my mother read the description of PDA and told me it sounded just like me. So, in essence, my mother diagnosed me.
I've heard autistics refer to themselves as 'self-diagnosed and peer-confirmed', meaning that they self-diagnosed, then met other autistics who agreed with their self-diagnosis. My self-diagnosis of PDA is a bit different, because my mother's not autistic, but it's the same general idea - a non-professional confirming a self-diagnosis. It seems to me that maybe what's needed, for many people at least, is just someone else agreeing with their self-diagnosis. That other person needs to be seen as knowing enough to make that judgment, and as someone who'd be willing to say straight out if they didn't think you really fell into that category, but they need not have a degree.
I also wonder if this uncertainty about self-diagnosis is itself an effect of how much the category of autism is 'owned' by professionals. Virtually all gay people are basically self-diagnosed, and it's rare to see such uncertainty among gays (granted, homosexuality is also much more easily defined, so that could be it instead).
Any thoughts?

Wanting to be What You're Not

[Note: In this article, 'transgender kid' means any kid who fits the societal roles for the opposite gender better than they do those of their own gender. 'Transsexual kid' means a child who truly considers themselves to be the opposite gender, not just as a transient phase but as a lifelong identity.]
I just found an article by Feministe about 'gender identity disorder'. At one point, she quotes Kenneth Zucker, a psychologist well-known for his attempts to train transgender kids into fitting gender roles, who said:

"If a 5-year-old black kid came into the clinic and said he wanted to be white, would we endorse that? I don’t think so. What we would want to do is say, 'What’s going on with this kid that’s making him feel that it would be better to be white?'"

I agree. I would consider that black kid to have a problem* which is best solved by helping him accept his own race rather than changing his appearance. But there are some big problems with Kenneth Zucker's analogy.
Firstly, if I was trying to help that black kid accept himself, I would go about it completely differently. Imagine, for the sake of argument, that this boy is insisting on being white because he's not very musical, he does well in school, etc, and that just doesn't fit with his idea of what black people are supposed to be like. Rather than pressuring him to enjoy music more and be less committed to his schoolwork, I'd encourage him to broaden his concept of what it means to be black (actually, if I was his therapist, I'd probably refer him, because this is better done by a black therapist who can be a role model for him). I suspect at least some transgender kids are basically like this - they don't realize people can break gender roles and still be clearly of that gender.
It's possible, of course, that the hypothetical black kid is wanting to be white because 'white is better'. In that case, I still wouldn't try to make that kid act more conventionally black, because that's irrelevant. I also wouldn't denigrate white people, because racism isn't any better if you just switch targets. Besides, if this kid not only wants to be white, but actually on some level actually views himself as white, then denigrating whites would just make his self-esteem issues worse.
And that leads into another problem with this analogy. Whereas black kids who want to be white usually don't consider themselves white already - even on the inside - transsexual kids don't just want to be the other gender, they feel that they are the other gender. They just don't look like they are. That's an important distinction. The most important thing is for these kids to accept what they are, and transsexual kids are not cissexual kids of their natal gender. They are transsexual kids.

* I'm assuming it's been determined that this kid actually understands what black and white, as racial terms, actually mean. Lots of young children don't. I've heard of light-skinned black kids saying they're white because their skin is almost the same tone as the white people they know, or white kids expressing fear of black people because they're imagining someone whose skin is truly black (like a kettle) instead of dark brown.

It's a Gift, You're Not Owed Anything

I'm just finished attending a conference by the Association for Research on Mothering, where me and my mother presented regarding the 'war on autism'. I've got a lot more comments to make that are inspired by this conference, but here's one.
Very often, parents of autistic kids talk about feeling 'cheated' out of something by having an autistic child. Here's an example:

"I prayed before I ever had kids that god would give me children that have no mental or social problems. I believe that god ruined him. What if the best my child can do is work as a greeter at Wal-mart, how does one accept your child is doomed, ruined, a waste of human life?"
http://autism.about.com/b/2008/09/16/an-autism-mom-says-god-ruined-my-child.htm

At ARM, I've been hearing about the concept of matriarchy and the gift economy. A gift economy is based not on exchange, but on gifts and fulfilling needs. And according to the advocates for this model that I've just met, the prototype of the gift economy is a mother raising a child.
And this really clarifies a big problem with statements like the above quote. You are not owed anything by your child. You are giving them a gift, a profound, life-creating gift, with no strings attached. They may give you a gift in return (and I think all children have the potential to give their parents such gifts, if their parents can see it) but you are not owed anything.
My younger brother has a tendency to interpret 'maybe' as a solemn promise (although he seems to be outgrowing this). And that's exactly the mistake that these parents are making, when they feel cheated by a child not being like they expected.
You are not promised a normal child. You are not even promised a child. You are giving the gift of life to your child, with no guarantee as to the results of this gift. Your child could live only a couple of weeks in utero. Your child could grow up normal and then die unexpectedly at 17. Your child could grow up to be a greeter at Walmart rather than the high-powered executive or whatever that you'd hoped for. You must remember that your hopes for your child are just hopes, not guarantees. You have not been promised anything, you have not made a contract with your child, you've given them a gift. And that's what it means to have a child.

Being 'Out' Nonverbally

One big concept that the gay community has introduced is 'coming out of the closet'. 'The closet' refers to pretending to be straight, so coming out means admitting that you are gay rather than trying to hide it.
Some people in the disability rights community also discuss coming out - especially people whose disabilities aren't very evident in the situation they are discussing. For example, one book I've heard of (but never actually read, unfortunately) is called Coming Out Asperger. There are differences between coming out for disabled people as opposed to gay people, but there are also similarities.
One issue that some gays have been talking about is when you are 'out' verbally, but still trying not to be too obvious about it. For example, your coworkers may know you are gay, but you don't hug your lover in front of them (in a culture where a straight person might do so).
I can certainly relate to that. Just because someone knows I'm autistic doesn't mean I'll flap in front of them. It's not that unusual for me to tell someone I've only just met that I'm autistic, if it comes up. But only with people I really trust will I actually act autistic (apart from acting intelligent and obsessive).
And this can't be solved just by choosing to be out nonverbally, because there's a difference between forced nonverbal signals and real nonverbal signals. So, for example, that one pro-choice lesbian in Citizen Ruth kissing her partner in front of a bunch of Christian pro-life protesters was forcing nonverbal signals - she wasn't kissing her partner because she just wanted to kiss her, but because she wanted to shock her audience. (Note: even though I'm pro-life, I much preferred the pro-choice characters in that movie.)
But the big problem is that often worrying about your audience inhibits wanting to act the way you naturally do. If you've spent a lifetime hiding, then fear combined with self-consciousness (that feeling that you don't belong) tends to show up in acting 'normal'. So you don't feel like being out nonverbally.
What can be done about it? I'm not sure. One thing that helps is to force those nonverbal signals until they do come naturally in that setting. If it's too scary, work up to it gradually. I've found strangers are easier than acquaintances, because they have very little opportunity to actually hurt me for being different. I've mostly been hurt by social rejection, which can only really occur if you want a relationship with them.
Anyone else have any ideas?

Insults to Discriminatory People

I've heard many people who support cure and prevention of autism say they find the word curebie insulting. Recently, I found a man who thinks white men are best saying he finds the words racist and misogynist insulting. As an autistic rights activist, he compared those words to the word retard, that so many autistics find insulting.
Instinctively, I dismiss those ideas. It's nothing alike. But then, I stop to think. Is it similar? Is calling a discriminatory person a hurtful word because they're discriminatory morally equivalent to calling the target of discrimination a hurtful word?
On closer reflection, I come to the same answer. No. But now I know why they aren't really the same.
Firstly, being a racist, a misogynist or a curebie means you are hurting others. When you show your opinions to other races, women, or disabled people, you hurt them. This is a fact. A big part of people's dislike for these terms seems to me to be an unwillingness to admit they are hurting someone. But that's why Native people have such high rates of alcoholism, child abuse and suicide. It's because they are harmed, systemically harmed, by racism. That's why women are more often depressed, more often victims of sex crimes, and make less money on average than men. We are also systemically harmed by sexism. And that's why adult autistics have such high rates of depression, why some autistic people wish they were never born, why prenatally diagnosed autistic people very well might never be born. We are systemically harmed by disablism.
Secondly, it is a choice, to a certain extent. Your beliefs largely depend on what you have been exposed to, but if you decide to accept that your beliefs are hurting someone and make a commitment to change, you can. You are born with your race, your gender and your pattern of abilities, and those are extremely difficult to impossible to change. I know it's possible to have facial surgery and bleach your skin, but you don't become a white person that way - though you may be able to fake it. Technically, people who've gone through a sex change surgery aren't exactly the other gender - they're physically in between, and genetically their natal gender. And there are no cures for autism, even though some autistics can learn to pass as neurotypical. It's harder than it sounds, too. Even I have trouble passing perfectly, and I'm only very mildly autistic. But even mild autism pervades how you think and by extension, how you behave.
There are some things very hard to change that hurt others. A good example is pedophilia. It's probably about as hard to change as being gay. And there are a bunch of ways people are working on preventing and curing pedophilia, and that's valuable research, for the sake of the children that pedophiles are attracted to. Your beliefs aren't easy to change, but compared to your sexual orientation, it's no big deal.
And one last thing. Autistics, black people and various other groups have chosen names for themselves, that offend no one. Curebies, misogynists and racists haven't. They don't seem to just want a different name - they don't want any name for what they are (except maybe 'normal'). I can't accept that. I need to be able to name those attitudes, and the people who hold them. That's how we can stop the harm these attitudes cause - by looking at it clearly.

Disability History

Here's a great overview of disability history I found.
Recently I've been looking at developmental disability in the 1700-1800s. Google books has some of John Langdon Down's stuff and Edouard Seguin's stuff (both 1800s). That was really a fascinating time - special education was just beginning. John Langdon Down was a man I have a great deal of respect for - antiracist (he used disabled people as proof that nonwhites were human), very antisexist (he said it was 'lunacy' to deny women equal education to men) and an advocate for disabled people (he spoke out against isolation and denial of education to 'idiots').
Two things John Langdon Down is quite well known for - describing what he called Mongolism, now named after him, and coining the term 'idiot savant'. By the way, many people claim 'idiot' was a misnomer because savants don't generally have an IQ below 25, which is what 'idiot' meant. But that classification is from a later period - IQ tests weren't even invented when John Langdon Down coined that term. He used 'idiot' if they were mentally disabled from childhood, and 'imbecile' if their condition was adult-onset.
He divided idiots into congenital, accidental and developmental. The latter two categories are interesting. The accidental category looked normal, except that some had 'paralysis' (I suspect cerebral palsy). He attributed their condition to brain damage in infancy. His description of their behavior sounds a lot like autism - they were 'bright in their expression, often active in their movements, agile to a degree, mobile in their temperament, fearless as to danger, persevering in mischief, petulant to have their own way'. They did not speak, loved music, and were 'in a world of their own'. He described them as self-absorbed and engaging in repetitive movements. He said many people held more hope for them than for congenital idiots, but they were actually less educable.
The developmental category sound like a mix of regressive autism, Heller Syndrome and schizophrenia, these individuals developed normally until either the first dentition (later infancy), the second dentition (mid childhood) or puberty. He felt they were unusually prone to stress reactions at those times, and had a 'prow-shaped' skull. Those with onset at puberty were described as 'suspicious and reserved' and prone to making incorrect statements or phrasing them wrongly.
So anyway, here's some stuff about the history of developmental disabilities.
PS: I have just found the Disability History Museum.

Reverse Discrimination

Recently, I read one black person mocking white claims of 'reverse racism'. She suggested that this is an accusation given in reaction to taking away white privilege.
When I was 12 years old, a Native girl told me I was 'too white to be a person'. Recently, I read someone mocking a white woman for being offended by the statement that 'white chicks' were untrustworthy. Malcolm X called us 'white devils'.
The same people who vehemently oppose similar statements towards other races are often willing to tolerate it towards white people. Racist jokes against white people are 'humorous' while against any other race they are intolerable.
This happens with other forms of discrimination. I've heard many women make sexist comments or jokes about men that would not be tolerated if they were made about women. Saying women aren't as smart as men is sexist, right? Then why do so many women seem fine with saying the opposite (for example, one joke states that God offered two gifts to the first man and women, saying they could chose to get either brains, or the ability to pee standing up)?
Regarding autistic rights, I see this so often in the suggestion that NTs are inherently stupid, manipulative, immoral liars, or that they are boring. Discrimination is treated as a distinctly NT behaviour, as are bullying and many other things. The same people who make claims like that are generally the autistics most prone to doing the exact things they accuse NTs of - the ones who are most prejudiced and bullying.
Now, some people claim reverse discrimination simply because they are losing the privileges they are unfairly given. This is certainly true. There are also some people who claim more traditional discrimination when they don't get what they want for very different reasons, as Joel Smith described recently. I remember someone on one listserv complaining that he was being denied some legal-type post because of his Asperger Syndrome diagnosis, but it transpired that he was in fact denied the job because he was a convicted sex offender. Now, personally, I think it's just fine to deny a legal job to someone who has shown a substantial disrespect for the law, in doing something as serious as what he'd done (I believe it was some kind of sexual assault).
But reverse discrimination does happen, and it hurts. Up until recently, I absolutely hated my skin color. White is beautiful, just as black is, but I couldn't see it. I felt personally responsible for all the wrongs that white people have done over history to other races. What I'd read never gave a hint that it wasn't just us who were racist, never discussed racism from other races. The Uyghur people, in western China, are discriminated against by the Mandarin majority. That's only one of many examples, which show that white people aren't the only racists. But non-white racists are invisible. As are many anti-male sexists, and anti-normal disabled people.
I used to think that victims of bullying were 'good guys', the bullies and bystanders were 'bad guys'. But being victimized does not make you morally superior. It says absolutely nothing about your morals. It only indicates anything about the ones who hurt you. And you should not judge an entire category of people based on the actions of some of them. It's wrong when it's done by those in power, and it's wrong when it's done back at them by the oppressed people. Revenge will not make it better, it only perpetuates the hurt.

Mommy, There's a Black Person!

This is a message I just sent to the Polskie Radio:

"Hi, I'm writing in from Canada. Last night, I was listening to Radio Poland on the overnight thing, where CBC presents news from other countries. I don't know Polish, so hopefully the people doing the English section will read this.
I'm writing about a story where one news person was discussing offensive ads. The first one she described, showing young women bungling various 'male' occupations, was clearly sexist.
The second one, however, was about a child saying 'look, mommy, there's a black person'. When she described that, I thought OK, now she'll get to the offensive bit. But apparently that was the part she found offensive - the child pointing out a black person.
I haven't seen the ad, but from what I've heard, it doesn't seem offensive at all. Noticing and commenting on differences in skin color is no more offensive than noticing and commenting on differences in hair color (which the news person did when discussing the first ad). The problem is making a value judgment about skin color, not merely noticing it.
I see no problem in calling myself white. I have several black friends, and I call them black and myself white in their presence without offending them. I have a good friend who is an immigrant from Zambia and she and I talk about race as freely as anything else.
In fact, ignoring race is frequently racist, because very often people will assume the person is white unless they know otherwise. Particularly on radio and other communication where you can't see the person described, this erases black people and other groups. Also, ignoring racial differences usually means ignoring cultural differences too, and expecting people to be like you when they really aren't is prejudiced too."

Nearest book

David Hingsburger was tagged for something awhile back. You take the nearest book, go to page 123, and type up three sentences. I'm not sure, from the instructions, if the sentences are meant to be sentences 5, 6 and 7 or 6, 7 and 8. Anyway, he said people could tag themselves if they wished, rather than him tagging people. So I've tagged myself.
Nearest book is the abc of CHILD CARE, by Allan Fromme, Ph.D. It was first published in 1960, but my copy is the 4th edition, published in 1975. Since I'm not sure which 3 sentences to quote, as described above, I'll quote 4 instead.

"b. If we are fortunate enough to have our own outdoor play area for our child, it is worth equipping it in such a way as to attract other children. Although this may sound extravagant, it is economical in the long run to have a sand box big enough for several children, with enough sand toys for all. One outdoor swing is never as effective as two or three. A place to play, indoors or out, where children are not constantly nagged about the mess or noise they are making is in itself attractive enough for children to want to return to of their own accord." (In a list of suggestions on improving your child's friendships.)

Now, that's not one of the really interesting parts of the book, so I'll quote a few of the more interesting (accurate or not) parts:

"There is no such thing as an aggressive child who also feels loved. Children who are habitually and openly overaggressive are the very ones who baffle their parents the most by their extravagant if infrequent demonstrations of thoughfulness, love, affection, and begging for forgiveness. ... Superficially, of course, we assume that we all love our children and that therefore none of them should be aggressive. No doubt we do love them, but it is equally true that we don't always put it in evidence sufficiently clearly for our children to feel our love. A child, for example, doesn't see our love when we scrub the dirt off from behind his ears. It is equally true, too, that in addition to the love we have for our children, we frequently feel annoyed, irritated, offended, impatient, and even desperate about them. Without realizing it, we sometimes express these feelings very much more dramatically and clearly than we do the more tender sentiments of love."

There are aggressive kids who act that way for reasons other than feeling unloved. Although many of those kids end up feeling unloved, it's simply because many people don't act loving towards an aggressive child, rather than because feeling unloved makes them aggressive. Apart from that, this statement is very true. Many aggressive kids act that way because they feel unloved, and being loved doesn't necessarily equal feeling loved. With autistic kids, especially, they are more frequently corrected and redirected. They also hear parents describing them as having a problem that may have stolen their child, be trapping their child, be an enemy that must be fought, or other forms of nasty imagery about autism. Those statements might be less harmful if the child's perception matched them - for example, if they really did feel trapped - but most autistic children don't naturally feel trapped by their own brain style. (Some feel trapped by movement difficulties, but even that need not be seen that way.) The child often wonders 'if you knew this was who I really am, would you hate me?' and feel your expression of love isn't real.

"The child can be spared considerable confusion, in many instances, if the divorce is as complete for him as it is for his parents. His father's visits almost always lead to additional rejection when they are eventually discontinued. The younger a child is at the time of divorce, the easier it is for the man to divorce himself from his child also. Although this may not be easy, in any case, and is not supported by the law, it is merely a recommendation worth considering. The child should be adequately prepared for his father's departure in either event."

"Most important of all, replace your child's father as quickly as possible by remarriage. Don't try to be a mother and a father to your child. You can't do it. You'll remain a mother, make your child excessively dependent on you, and confuse the masculine and feminine roles in life for him. The longer you put off remarriage, the more difficult it becomes for you and the less easily do children accept the idea. Remarry - it's the best thing you can do for yourself and your children."

"In the case of the death of a child's mother or father, the recommendations above still pertain. However, the most important thing one can do is to supply a substitute as soon as possible. A child's daily physical care is the paramount issue. No woman can be father and mother to a child alone, nor can any man expect to perform the functions of mother and father himself. The greater problem, of course, is the death of the mother. Ideally, some immediate substitution should be made. A maid or grandmother are good temporary solutions. Remarriage is the best permanent one."

All of this advice is precisely the opposite of what is really best for the child. Absentee fathers are a big problem, and this should not be encouraged unless the father is abusive. Regarding remarriage: a) single parenting is not a big problem, provided they have (and use) a good support system, b) you can't be choosy if you're in a hurry to get married, especially since many people don't want to be stepparents, and therefore are more likely to make a poor choice, and c) children need time to adjust and grieve (especially in the case of death rather than divorce) and even after many years may be unable to accept a 'substitute' (in fact stepparents must never be portrayed as a substitute, because they are not the same person as the child's parent). The only children to whom this advice wouldn't necessarily be damaging are children under 2, who will be fine as long as they have good parenting (however, making a poor choice in spouse or having unresolved grief can adversely affect them long term).
The other advice they have for children in case of death is also damaging, because it encourages the parents to minimise it and ignore or suppress the child's grief, in the idea that children grieve not because of their own loss but rather modeling from parents, and that grieving is unhealthy for children.

"Under no circumstances is spanking your child the best technique of discipline. No doubt you have friends who feel differently about this. Certainly you must have heard them say, 'Why, when my child behaved that way, I gave him a good spanking and that was the end of it.' They're telling you the truth, too, in their naive way. Probably it was the end of it - from what they could tell.
But were they in the best possible position to make this diagnosis? They were interested in a specific result and got that result, but do they know what else happened in the thought, feeling or behavior of their child not obviously or immediately related to the very specific misbehavior they were trying to correct?
Spanking a child is effective only if it hurts him - hurts him enough so that he becomes afraid, not only of the thing he might have done, but of you. ... Spanking our child has still another unfortunate effect upon him. Just as he learns to fear us as a result, he will also learn to resent and hate us. Since our child also quite naturally loves us, we place an enormous burden of conflict upon him by infusing his feelings of love with those of fear, resentment and hate as well."

This seems to me to be very accurate, not only about spanking but any kind of aversive. Some aversives don't exactly hurt, but any effective aversive is unpleasant enough that the child will fear getting it. You can fear eating something disgusting, for example, even though the unpleasant taste isn't painful.

[children up to about 10 don't mourn much unless parents overburden them with their own grief]

Radical Feminist Therapy

I've read a lot about various therapies. My biggest problem with many of them is that they take society for granted. They assume that what the majority likes is probably good, and what the majority dislikes is probably bad.
Which is why I was excited when, in a local used book place, I saw a book on Radical Feminist Therapy (by Bonnie Burstow). I thought 'they won't take society for granted'. I was right.
Although I don't agree with everything in that book - for example, the claim that the majority of women are naturally lesbian and are socialized into heterosexuality, or that autonomy should take precedence over preventing suicide - there's a lot I found very valuable.
Firstly, she discusses what she calls the 'just-like-us' scripts. She describes three types. The first, the 'liberal just-like-us' script, is described as such:

"The paradigmal liberal-scripted woman sees all ideology as dangerous and believes that she has no ideology. While acknowledging that injustice exists and occasionally fighting against it, she believes that society is essentially just and that for the most part we need only point out injustices and appeal to people's better nature and everything will be okay. Insofar as she acknowledges and protests against severe injustice, it is generally in some other part of the world and in reference to an oppressed group to which she does not belong. She believes that all positions are equally flawed, that there is equal right and wrong in just about everything anyone says, and that everyone has an equal burden to bear."

The part about how liberal-scripted view injustice is a good example of what I call 'taking society for granted'.
Regarding everyone having equal right and wrong, I think everyone is right about some things and wrong about others, but not to equal degrees. Some people see the truth better than others, often because the others are taking society for granted and won't or can't challenge basic assumptions.

"A second type of just-like-us script I call 'honorary just-like-us scripts.' The woman with this script has been assigned and has accepted attributes that are traditionally identified with the oppressor. She has been treated like an 'exception' by one or more significant others who belong to the oppressor group. And she has been rewarded for joining with them in belittling the oppressed group to which she actually belongs... The honorary guy is in an enormously precarious and frustrating position. Being even more critically divided from women than the traditional woman is, she has no women friends on whom to rely. She keeps finding herself fundamentally betrayed. 'Inexplicably' she is periodically robbed of her 'male' status and is demoted to 'women' again... As counselors we need to understand and validate this woman's pain and her anger. She has been harmed dreadfully. Her very ability to question traditional women's roles is being used to deceive her."

Though the comparison doesn't fit exactly, this reminds me a bit of the 'shiny autistics'. Many 'shiny autistics' are among the relative minority of autistics who have the most mainstream views of autism. For example, in Autism and the Myth of the Person Alone, the autistic in that book who had the worst view of autism was one of the only two who are relatively well-known by 'curebies' - Sue Rubin. Most of the autistics in that book were much more positive about their autism. All agreed that inability to communicate is a big problem, but many described wanting to be accepted as they are instead of hoping for a cure, and many mentioned positive aspects of autism.
Regarding the 'ability to question traditional women's roles', the 'shiny autistics' are often held up as breaking stereotypes because they are viewed as 'able disabled' instead of 'unable disabled' (or, as Cal Montgomery put it, as Mary instead of Bruce).
One important difference is that 'shiny autistic' is a less voluntary position. Many autistics may be forced into that role, and rather than not expressing controversial views, they are just selectively ignored or misinterpreted when they do. As I get to know more of Tito Rajarshi Mukhopadyay's (the other relatively well-known contributor to Autism and the Myth of the Person Alone) writing, I see that his view on autism is much more accepting than the way he is typically portrayed. Partly because of his unusual way of expressing himself (like many nonverbal autistic typists, his language differences are evident in his typing, and there is also a cultural barrier for Westerners because he is Indian) and partly, I suspect, for political gain, many of those who discuss him and review his books portray autism as much worse than he does while appearing to agree with him. To a lesser extent, Amanda Baggs has also experienced this, though she fights it well. If you look at how CNN portrays her, it is more mainstream than how she describes herself. (For example, Amanda Baggs never refers to herself as being trapped inside herself, which is a comment the reporter gives when she hits herself - 'such a bright woman, so trapped'.)

"The attributes that the 'liberal' members of the dominant group impose on people with keep-it-hidden scripts are fairness, discretion and the attributes of the dominant liberal group. Injunctions and other messages that are given include the following:

• Act like us 'in public.'
• You are totally okay only as long as you act like us 'in public.'
• All members of your group are totally okay only as long as they act like us 'in public.'
• Not acting like us 'in public' is unfortunate, indiscreet, and blameworthy.
• We are bing nice by accepting you the way we do.
• If we did not accept you or you did not appreciate us for accepting you, you would not be totally okay, so do appreciate us for being nice and compliment us when you can.
• Although you can see or imply that your group is being oppressed by other members of the dominant group, do not see or imply that you are being oppressed by us liberals."

Examples she gives are 'apples' (Native people who act white) and lesbians who downplay their sexuality when around straight people (eg by not being affectionate to their partner in public). I think this pattern is extremely common among disabled people. One woman with a spinal abnormality describes doing this until she became pregnant. I have experienced the pressure not to act autistic, particularly with those who don't know I'm autistic but even with those who do. The only people I stim in front of without it being an effort and scary are my parents and some developmentally disabled people.

This post is getting pretty long, so I think I'll stop and comment on other parts of the book at another time.

After the First One

People tend to talk a lot about the first person to do something. First person to walk on the moon, for example. Rights movements also have their firsts, the people who first break through an absolute barrier. First woman doctor, first black politician in US, etc.
My question is, after the first one, what do we do next? How do we get from that point to the one where it's nothing strange, where we have plenty of women doctors, or black politicians, or whatever. Even now, when women doctors are nothing particularly odd, there's still inequality, with the glass ceiling and less women than men choosing to be doctors in the first place.
Tamora Pierce is a fiction writer. She has written several books set in a land called Tortall. The first series was Songs of the Lioness. The star of that story, Alanna, disguises as a boy to become a knight. After she gains her shield, her gender is revealed, and the king declares that girls are now permitted to become knights.
Then she has a series called Protector of the Small, about a girl named Keladry, the second girl in Tortall to become a knight. Alanna pushed open the door for lady knights, but it's not completely open. She is an oddity and treated badly by many of the other knights-in-training and the ones who teach them. I really like this series because it shows that it is better, but still not perfect, compared to when Alanna became a knight.
The absolute barrier of 'no X allowed' is easy to see. It's easy to know what to fight. But what about the barrier where things are just simply harder for X people, not due to inherent lack of ability but the effects of discrimination. How do we fight the problem of girls learning that science isn't a 'girl thing' and therefore not seeking careers in science? How do we fight the problem of organizations hiring 'tokens' of various groups so they can point to them and say 'see? we're inclusive!' without really changing anything? I don't really know the answer.

More Listservs

Here is a continuation to my earlier post listing listservs I belong to.

AutAdvo
AutAdvo is an autism advocacy group. This is the group I generally go to when I need to reassure myself that I'm not alone in fighting for acceptance of diversity. Like many lists, people who disagree with the primary viewpoint are sometimes flamed, but one special thing about this list is that, unlike many other lists I'm on, someone usually steps in and says that though they don't agree with that person's viewpoint, flaming them is not a good thing to do. There is a general norm that encourages rational discussion instead of personal attacks.
AS-and-Proud-of-it
This list is similar to AutAdvo, although it appears to be younger. I haven't been that active in this list however.
AutismSpectrumTreehouse
This group differs from AutAdvo and AS-and-Proud-of-it mainly because it's specifically for those on the autistic spectrum, while the other two welcome parents and others as well.
AC-GLBT
AC stands for 'autistic and cousin' and GLBT stands for 'gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender'. As the name suggests, this group is for autistics who are also different in sexual orientation or gender identity (or both). I joined it because I'm autistic and asexual.
ADD
ADD stands for attention deficit disorder (I don't like the word disorder). This is a fairly small group for ADD and learning differences. I was active in it awhile ago but kind of got sick of seeing constant uncritical acceptance of medication and not knowing how to respond.
Coffin-Lowry
Coffin Lowry Syndrome is an X-linked condition causing developmental delay and various physical difficulties, the most distinctive of which are drop attacks. This list is very inactive. I asked to join a more active list, from the Coffin Lowry Syndrome Foundation, but was rejected by a woman who seemed to think I was 'naive' for thinking kids like her son actually were valuable people.
Cri-Du-Chat Syndrome
Cri du chat is french for 'cat's cry'. This condition is caused by a 5p deletion and is characterized by developmental delay, a distinctive cry that resembles a kitten's cry, distinctive appearance and various other traits. This group isn't one of the more progressive groups, but they haven't been nasty to me either. I was thanked for giving advice to a woman whose daughter was upset about being different.
Iwill continue later.

Autistic Girls and Gender Stereotypes

My Mom just got this book about feminism, intended for teachers of women and gender studies, and told me I could read it. It had a section about disability, but I was dissapointed to find they were only talking about physical disabilities and body image. Pretty much every feminist analysis of disability is about physical disabilities and body image. So I thought about what I'd write about in terms of autistic girls and women.
The thing that came into mind was 'gender roles and gender identity'. So here's what I think about autistic girls and gender stereotypes:
Firstly, there are rules about what kinds of things boys and girls are interested in. Boys are supposed to be interested in war games and sports and so on, girls in 'playing house' and being beautiful and nurturing. Both transgender and autistic kids don't fit that, but in different ways. Transgender kids fit the general framework, they pick from the same list of standard interests, but they pick from the other side. A girl who likes transformers, like my brother's tomboy friend, or a boy who pretends to be a mommy. Autistic kids have interests that don't fit either gender. I heard of one autistic boy who was asked by some girls to play the daddy in a game of house. He decided he'd rather be the radio, and stood there reciting radio things. Gender roles underestimate the variety of things children can be interested in. Is pretending to be a radio a boy thing or a girl thing? Neither. It's an autistic thing.
Gender roles are also defined by disinterest. Boys aren't supposed to be interested in babies, girls aren't supposed to be interested in sports. Autistic girls may be thought of as boy-like because they aren't interested in girl things, while autistic boys are considered effeminate because they aren't interested in boy things. Once, I told a girl I was a tomboy, and she said I wasn't. I was thinking of the girl things I wasn't interested in, like my appearance, she was (I think) thinking of the boy things I wasn't interested in, like sports. Autistic teens are often thought of as gay because they aren't interested in the opposite gender, never mind that most of them aren't interested in the same gender either.
Autistic girls are more often thought of as boyish than autistic boys thought of as girlish, it seems. This is because there is a space in the gender roles for a male nerd. A smart, socially awkward boy is more typical than a smart, socially awkward girl, because boys are supposedly smarter and less socially skilled than girls. Math and science are supposed to be boy things to be good at, but they are also common autistic strengths. The 'mad scientist' is generally a man, I haven't seen many depictions of a female mad scientist. I've often indentified with the mad scientist stereotype, understanding the obsessiveness and delight at discovery ("It's alive! It's alive!") and dreaming of making my own monsters (which I wouldn't be scared of, unlike Frankenstein).
Lastly, autistics are less likely to absorb social norms (not that we don't - I've seen the same attitudes towards physically disabled or developmentally delayed people from both NTs and autistics) and autistic girls are often natural feminists, since gender roles are so illogical, especially if you're a girl with 'male' strengths.