Note For Anyone Writing About Me

Guide to Writing About Me

I am an Autistic person,not a person with autism. I am also not Aspergers. The diagnosis isn't even in the DSM anymore, and yes, I agree with the consolidation of all autistic spectrum stuff under one umbrella. I have other issues with the DSM.

I don't like Autism Speaks. I'm Disabled, not differently abled, and I am an Autistic activist. Self-advocate is true, but incomplete.

Citing My Posts

MLA: Hillary, Alyssa. "Post Title." Yes, That Too. Day Month Year of post. Web. Day Month Year of retrieval.

APA: Hillary, A. (Year Month Day of post.) Post Title. [Web log post]. Retrieved from

Friday, July 13, 2012

And where did THAT come from?

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this pattern yet, but poetry-ish stuff comes out when I'm angry or scared or both. ``Empathy" came about (no names here) because someone, after my making it very clear (as in ACTUALLY SAYING IN AS MANY WORDS) that I don't think she's a bad person for disagreeing or anything like that, but that she has made some faulty assumptions about other people's experiences, but that you CAN'T assume that someone is high functioning because they can type, or that they only dislike Autism Speaks because they are blessed. I even cited sources. I named one person and linked to the blog of another who are just as severely autistic, both non-speaking and at least sometimes facilitated communication users, who dislike Autism Speaks even more than I do. She assumed that her moderate to severe group could never advocate for themselves, and said how blessed I was to be able to think and learn. No. I am blessed that there are ways available to be that allow me to show that I can think and learn. It is NEVER safe to assume that someone cannot think or learn. NEVER. And I explained why. And she outright denied it. And she insisted that we were disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing (we weren't. I was disagreeing because she was making assumptions that, while SHE may not see those people as less human because of the assumptions, other people will, and there is certainly no hope for self-determination in any form under those assumptions.)
In the end, I figured that her not considering people less human when assuming inability to think was enough, and that for any given person, either that or refusing to make that assumption would be enough to keep them from intentionally harming another, at the least. (Unintentional harm is still a MAJOR problem, but I was trying to make some peace here.) And she responds to that by saying that it reinforces her opinon that a human rights and anti-bullying platform is needed.
Logical fallacies much?
It's pretty hard to give human rights to someone you don't believe can think. It's pretty hard to support Autism Speaks and be anti-bullying, considering that their supporters regularly bully autistic adults, including death threats. It's pretty hard to reconcile human rights, anti-bullying, supporting Autism Speaks, and silencing every autistic adult who tries to explain why those things don't actually fit together BECAUSE they can think for themselves.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I reserve the right to delete comments for personal attacks, derailing, dangerous comparisons, bigotry, and generally not wanting my blog to be a platform for certain things.