autism, eugenics
There seriously needs to be more pushback against 'research' into autism; especially that which is genetic in nature (either identification or modification).
This shit is going to turn into eugenics, the way it is happening now, and there seems to be effectively zero ethical oversight for it.
It's not just one university, either. It's a widely accepted thing, and it *really really* shouldn't be. Especially non-autistic folks should be pushing back against this where they can, because autistic folks are rarely listened to.
re: autism, eugenics
And if you think I'm exaggerating: look for the research that aims to use CRISPR techniques to eliminate autism.
re: autism, eugenics
@joepie91 This is actually something that bothered me a while ago when we removed Asperger's and went to ASD, which I do get why. Because I certainly have Asperger's/ASD, but I am high functioning and can fake it for extended periods, and I am fine with it.
On the other hand, there are extremely low functioning people who need serious assistance at all times, and can not communicate. My feelings on fixing them are a bit more .. complicated
re: autism, eugenics
@Oggie I am not a fan of "low-functioning" and "high-functioning" classifications; those classifications, themselves, are (like just about everything else in the medical view of autism) from the perspective of external observers and not from that of the autistic person and how they experience the world - they presume that "not functioning like neurotypical people" is automatically a deficit, no matter what.
re: autism, eugenics
@joepie91 okay, and I will grant there is a high degree of ableism in even touching those terms- but recognize that under the umbrella of autism there are people who cannot function on a basic level, or cannot communicate in any real sense ( not the same thing). It is a very, very broad diagnosis, and stretches from people who are perfectly capable of articulation to those who will not be able handle their own sensory input, or relate anything about anything
So, conflicted.
re: autism, eugenics
@Oggie I find this complicated, because there's a bunch different issues that all tend to get conflated... to take 'ability to communicate' as an example:
1. External observers (parents, teachers, etc.) are claiming that someone is unable to communicate, because they don't meet NT communication expectations (external ableism)
2. An autistic person themselves is having trouble communicating because they do so differently than NT people do, and they have been taught that that is a deficit on their part (internalized ableism)
3. An autistic person actually is intrinsically having trouble expressing themselves, because eg. they cannot convert their internet thoughts and feelings into external communication of *any* kind (genuine communication issues)
Of those three scenarios, only the third one is one that I consider a legitimate 'deficit' that requires treatment of some kind. And one person can experience any of those three things simultaneously, muddying the waters.
When people talk about "low functioning", they usually are talking about the first one. But even when generalizing it to "cannot communicate", people are often *still* just talking about the first two.
So if it's genuinely about option 3, then yes, that is a problem. But personally I am extremely hesitant to accept that that is the case in a situation until I understand it fully, because internalized ableism is a thing - and it doesn't actually seem to be the case all that often in practice, going off my experiences so far.
