Using a social perspective to autism, I would appreciate if there were a way to classify someone as autistic without calling it a disorder. Yes, we have difficulties, but from a social perspective, a lot of them come from society being structured to meet the needs of allistics. They get guidance, acceptance, and ultimately privilege of a world that is designed for them, while we have to try to meet their expectations. From this perspective, we’re not disordered, but oppressed/marginalized. How does that make us disordered?

I agree that there are different levels of functioning, and that some individuals might meet criteria for a disorder due to autism spectrum characteristics, so that would be valid. However, many individuals would function quite well in a setting that was designed to raise, educate, and accommodate autistic brains.

Anyone have any insight or ideas on this?

  • I'm back on my BS 🤪@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    10 months ago

    A genetic abnormality doesn’t have to be a disorder. Someone could have a genetic abnormality that protects them from the bubonic plague and not be considered “disordered”.

    Also, calling someone a moron for judging an autistic person is an oversimplification and generalization. That person could be quite intelligent, but not have the culture, compassion, or education to not judge others.

    Science doesn’t care about anything. Science is a system we’ve created to help progress our awareness of the universe. However, all scientific theories are based off of assumptions, those assumptions come from society’s values, and those values come from the people with power. The point is that science still has aspects that are socially constructed, which means that it’s not entirely definite. A measurement can be definite. What that measurement means is subjective.