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?

  • moistclump@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Yes, atypical Brian’s or neurodivergence does not necessarily equal disorder. I hated when my ex used to refer to my “disorder”. I found it not representative and even disrespectful to be honest.

    Maybe it’s because we associate disorder with non functioning, when’s it more “life on hard mode in the current social/cultural context”. It also implies there’s something wrong with the individuals rather than recognizing that the environment could also be adjusted to help the individual thrive.

    • angrystego@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      How should the environment be adjusted? Are there any easy steps that would help a lot without inconveniencing others? I’d genuinely love to know.

    • pogosort@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      “Maybe it’s because we associate disorder with non functioning, when’s it more “life on hard mode in the current social/cultural context”.”

      If a disorder manifested itself in a limited context then it wouldn’t be a disorder. Disorders are inherently defined by their impacts in multiple contexts. It could be argued that society itself is a social/cultural context but society as a whole cannot be changed in a reasonable period of time to accomodate an individual, so it is impractical to classify society in that way.

      “It also implies there’s something wrong with the individuals rather than recognizing that the environment could also be adjusted to help the individual thrive.”

      Although this implication is present within society in many ways, the use of (modern) autistic terminology is intended to inform the accommodations a person needs to thrive. The negative stigma of disability is entrenched deep into our society and even affects the discussions we have within our community.

      What negative connotations do you see with the word “disability” and what motivates you to distance yourself from it?

    • I'm back on my BS 🤪@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Exactly! And I’ve heard from several sources, including a therapist I was seeing, that having a few individuals with autistic traits in a pre-historical group was advantageous to the group as a whole. Two of the benefits I remember were that (1) they were great ambassadors/messengers because both parties trusted them more than NTs and (2) they were more aware of details in local environment to alert the group of important changes that affected everyone. Because of this, these individuals were highly regarded, cared for, and protected.