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?
You do realize the word has a meaning?
“an illness or condition that disrupts normal physical or mental functions”
Generally people are born with 4 limbs because that is the normal, if you are born without them it’s abnormal you need to use words to classify things, the world operates on the norm… it wouldn’t make sense to make all cars be only able to operate for people who were born without limbs
Saying that, just because you have a disorder doesn’t make you any less of a person, anyone that thinks that is a moron… basically don’t get hung up on a word, you had no choice in your biology/birth you just got what you got
They way you describe it as being oppressed or marginalized you are gonna be well on your way to always being a victim if you want to frame your worldview that way
I mostly agree, except for the last part about marginalization. The idea you can always overcome whatever disability/disorder/whatever with hard work and the right mindset is not accurate at all. And that’s not you wanting to be a victim, it’s you advocating for what you need. Accommodations exist for everyone, they just cater to abled/neurotypical people instead. Once I finally admitted to myself I was disabled and stopped trying to live my life like I am 100% able bodied improved my life A LOT.
And disabled/chronically ill/neurodivergent people DO face a lot of discrimination regardless of if you want to admit it or not. We should be fighting for improvement in treatment, acknowledging people treat you like less of a person doesn’t mean you actually are less of a person. ESPECIALLY in the current political climate… once LGBT+ people are dehumanized sufficiently disabled people are going to be next.
I can see how you interpreted that last part that way I didn’t mean it like that, what I was trying to say is I’m arguing that the word disorder is strictly that it’s a genetic disorder and having it doesn’t make you any less of a person it’s a biological issue
I’m not advocating a positive mindset cures all (otherwise depression and anxiety wouldn’t exist) and people with disabilities don’t experience hardships, of course they do but at the same time you are a person that can try to not allow others to dictate your feelings, life is hard enough as it is don’t let someone who looks down upon you determine your worth as their opinion is just that… an opinion
Thank you for bringing some levity to this convo.
No problem :) thanks for being nice
Have a good day
Then homosexuality is also is a disorder? What?
Does homosexuality disrupt normal physical or mental functions? No.
Does ADHD, Bipolar, Autism, Depression, and others disrupt normal physical or mental functions? Yes.
Couldn’t it be argued that homosexuality disrupted normal function in society due to societal expectations, which is also the primary way that ADHD produces functional disability? If society has different requirements would ADHD still be a disorder?
Just playing devil’s advocate.
Productivity and focus are not “societal expectations”. Sure if society was based around getting things half finished, then maybe. But we can make up all kinds of things to try to justify
Some people (read those who take “go forth and multiply” literally and as an imperative) absolutely could. However, there is a basis in multiple older cultures in which gay/childless people helped support the society by taking care of the other members’ children and the elderly. Not everything was focused on the individual need to have more kids, but to help those who others had. It is more of a group idea. There’s more than enough children to sustain/grow the population, so it’s more important to have extra hands to care for those who are here.
No, since your own personal ability to function isn’t affected in homosexuality. Whereas with ADHD, you could have social support and still run into problems caused by ADHD. Similarly with ASD. That’s not really the case for homosexuality.
Used to be classed as one. As did being left handed.
As someone who is left handed and grew up being forced to adapt to a right handed world I can understand how it could be considered a disorder! So many things were just that little bit harder
It’s funny how you immediately brought that up when it has nothing to do with it and as Johnny said it doesn’t disrupt anything mentally or physically so no, but nice try to make it an issue that wasn’t even talked about
I wasn’t bringing up an issue. I was just asking a question.
I could see this argument though. If society takes on the value that the main purpose of every single living organism is to reproduce, then homosexuality could be considered a disorder since “homosexuals” would have difficulties fulfilling life’s mandate (per society). I don’t agree with that, but I can see the argument.
Well I also don’ agree with that, but if we wouldn’t reproduce, we would go extinct.
That’s why we have to look at the bigger picture instead of focusing solely on matters of individuals. How do LGBTQ+ individuals contribute to the progress of their group with similar DNA?
There’s a theory that suggests that having homosexuality is socially beneficial, because it means you have some non-rearing adults helping care for the children, similar to why humans live so far past the ages where they would normally be able to bear children, since they can still help socially raise the kids. It’s been observed in birds, but there is a bit of disagreement over whether that’s the case there, or whether there’s some additional species-related complications at play.
Well I didn’t mean to be aggresive. I was just bringing up a question. Maybe it was worded too agressively.