Party Giraffe, Hot Spicy Autism, and Small Acts of NO.

By inclination, I'm a bit of an imp. I will say a true thing (I'm nonbinary) in a slightly silly way, messing with people using truth. ("Good man. Wait. Woman." gets responded to with "still no" followed by "nonbinary, good luck".) This is a character trait, not an isolated incident. On National Coming Out Day, I wrote "I draw cool stuff using straight lines, which is funny because I'm not straight." One day when I was pointing out "typos" on the white board while non-speaking, I was told to "be quiet." So I wrote on the side board, "I didn't say anything!" It was technically true. 

I like puns. (Nonbunnary!) I like satire. (Turn it Down Taupe!) And while I wear many metaphorical hats (mathematician, engineer, graduate student, teacher, Autistic person, "person in the lab who can sew", writer, AAC user, Queer person, culturally Jewish person, "that weird person who doesn't get cold", and on and on), I don't necessarily choose to emphasize the set of hats I have in common with the other people in the room. I tend to emphasize the ones that are most effective for messing with my colleagues, even. See again: bit of an imp.

So of course it makes sense that I would have shirts that say things like "Autistic Party Giraffe" (explanation), "Hot Spicy Autism", "We Are Like Your Child", and "I Love Someone Lacking Autism." Recently, I've started wearing those shirts more frequently. And yes, I can trace this back to the election. 

No, I don't think that wearing my identities on my shirt (or my bag, as I've been known to do) will magically make everything OK. That's not the point. Reading Trump Presidency to be Large-Scale Replication Experiments in Destructive Obedience: Here is How to Resist will help the actual points make sense, though. Even though Milgram's experiments were based on a pretty unrepresentative sample in terms of people generally, it's 1) a decent sample in terms of who tends to have power in the USA, and 2) not the only study that's been conducted, though Dr. Alfano's link on the subject loops back to his own post, presumably accidentally. In any case, I'm not after the "most people obey" information. I'm after the "what did the disobedient do?" information.

Point the first: If you want to be able to refuse immoral expectations later, starting earlier helps. There's not been any orders about wearing snarky autism T-shirts, and I don't expect there to be. Why would there be? But I said expectations, not orders, and there's a reason for that. Preemptive obedience (doing what you expect the authority figure would want before there is an order, or on things too small to ever deserve an order" is a thing, and not doing that would logically fall under refusing/resisting early. So instead of hiding or closeting the identities that an incoming administration wouldn't like, I get more open about them. I get (visually) louder. T-shirts. Flapping and rocking in public. Using AAC as a teacher. Throwing myself conspicuously into a wall at the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. There can be no compliance ahead of time, because there should be none later. (As opposed to because I think the ahead of time bits are going to fix things on their own. I don't. They just keep me in a "no, you move" sort of mindset for when I'll need it.)

Point the second: Resist noticeably, and you increase the likelihood that those around you who notice will also resist. I don't want to be alone here. 

Point the third: I'm a Queer Disabled Jew. I may not be near the head of the line of people who'll be victimized, because I am also educated, also have class privilege, and am not Muslim. But I've heard the rhetoric about queer people (including trans people, remember that I'm nonbinary?) and about disabled people. I've seen the antisemitism getting more obvious. Let's not pretend I'm not in that line, even if people sometimes forget. (Read: prefer not to think about it?) So when paying attention to the individuality, to the personhood, of (potential) victims is part of how you make it easier to resist, reminding people I'm on that list seems like a good idea. 

I know myself. I know that, impish nature and all, it took me until I was eleven to figure out, even in theory, that intentional defiance was an option. A special education teacher had to tell me, so I'm not sure how much I can claim to have figured it out. There's a heck of a lot planned that I'm going to need to resist. So I'm going to need all the help I can get. (All the help I can give myself.)

Response on Stem Cell Therapy

This is a response to a question I was asked. Here's the question.

Dear Alyssa, Greetings from India I found your blog while I was researching about special schools in China. I enjoyed reading your posts. I wanted to know your opinion on stem cell therapy for autistic individuals. What are your thoughts? Do you support it? Do you think its useful, not just in terms of autism but also for other neurological disorders. I would love to know your perspective. Love, Avantika

The short answer is that I don't support stem therapy "for autism"  (it makes no sense) but I do for people with conditions where stem cell therapy makes sense (some heart stuff, liver stuff, sometimes Crohns) who are also autistic.

There's a few different opinions that are all part of the long answer.

• There's my opinion on stem cell therapy in general.
• There's science side, is stem cell therapy even relevant to anything about autism?
• There's my opinion on biomedical treatment of any kind "for autism."
• There's my opinion on stem cell therapy for other reasons on people who happen to be autistic.

Anyways.

Stem Cell Therapy in General

My opinion on stem cell therapy in general is that it's still pretty experimental, but there are things it's been shown to work at least some with. It's used for some liver stuff, some heart stuff, some neurodegenerative stuff, osteoathritis, and Crohns. What all these things have in common, so far as I can tell, is that adding new cells that work like patients and doctors expect them to work helps with whatever the patient doesn't want their body doing. 

Some people have ethical issues with stem cell research and therapy for various reasons. As a sciency person, I know that most of those concerns don't even apply in quite a few stem cell areas (adult stem cell lines and umbilical lines have nothing to do with abortion, fetal lines coming from "spare" fertilized eggs after in vitro could become people if implanted but it's also not abortion, and I'm pro-choice anyways.) So I think stem cell research and resulting therapies are really cool, as long as they 1) are working towards a goal that the person being treated supports (not a parent, not a doctor, not a caretaker, the person being treated) and 2) there's scientific reason to believe that it can (help) accomplish the goal. The amount of evidence needed is less for treatments that the person being treated knows are experimental, like as part of a study, and more for stuff that we're saying is known to work. Which level of evidence a person being treated wants before they agree to it (and there has to be consent here) is up to the person.

Relevance to Autism

Going back to what the things being treated have in common, these are conditions where adding new, healthy cells can help with whatever the problem is. Autism does not fit the bill, even a little bit. Even if you hold with the idea that autism is somehow terrible and reducing "symptoms of autism" is the holy grail of treatment, the relevance of stem cell therapies to autism itself is doubtful. Some evidence suggests that we've got extra brain cells and connections in comparison to neurotypical expectations, among other things. 

This isn't a statement about stem cell therapy for autistic people who could benefit for other reasons, like if an autistic person also had Crohns or osteoathritis or any of the other stuff that's getting successfully treated with stem cell therapy, the question would be about relevance to that condition rather than autism.

But no, stem cell therapy is not relevant to autism.

Biomedical Stuff for Autism

Biomedical treatments "for autism" are generally pretty confused about what they're supposed to be treating, how it's supposed to work, and everything in between. Stem cells "for autism" don't look like an exception here. 

At best, such treatments are aimed at reducing discomfort that we have for other reasons (like the fact that autism and epilepsy can occur together, autism and autoimmune stuff can occur together, just by sheer probabilities, unless autism and condition X are not independent (having one affects the chance of having the other) they will occur together for about 1% of people with condition X.) Those treatments would actually help with the condition they're properly meant for, and make autistic people who have that other condition more comfortable. Often, our being in less distress is wrongly taken to mean that we are less autistic, and so people decide that this treatment now reduces "autism." For an autistic person who also has any of the stuff that stem cell therapies are actually good for? The relevant form of stem cell therapy could go here.

At worst, such treatments are actively abusive and have no reason to work. Bleach enemas, chelation, chemical castration, and a lot of other "biomedical" and "alt med" things people do "for autism" go here. If the autistic person in question doesn't have anything for which stem cell therapies are actually relevant, then stem cell therapy may well go here.

Regardless, treatments "for autism" are also rooted in the idea that autism is wrong or lesser, while neurotypicality (or being able to fake it) is ideal. That's directly opposed to the neurodiversity paradigm, so the idea of any treatment "for autism" is not high on my list of good things. 

Rather than trying to make Autistic people be "less autistic," I support giving us the treatment and tools that help us live better lives as Autistic people. If we've got any stuff going on that's causing us problems (I've got asthma, for example,) then treating those problems is just as good an idea for Autistic people as it is for those lacking autism. People tend to prefer feeling good to feeling sick, after all. The problem is when people conflate "feeling better from other stuff" with "less autistic." We're not actually less autistic, and less autistic isn't actually a good goal anyways.

I've talked a bit about what education that's based in teaching us to live well as autistic people could look like, but it's so unusual that finding anything like that is tough. That's also not particularly the point of this answer, but if you're interested, here are a few:

• But AAC Increases Speech!'
• Growing up into an Autistic adult
• Education and Services, by Autistic people, for Autistic people
• More than two options

Stem Cell Therapy (when the person is also Autistic)

I don't see how this is different from stem cell therapy when the person isn't autistic. If someone has a condition where stem cell therapy is actually relevant, them being autistic isn't a counter-indicator.

Slightly Disorganized Thoughts on Forgiveness and Moving On

Warnings: References (no descriptions) of abuse, violence, people hurting each other.

I've been thinking about the ideas of moving on vs forgiving vs forgetting. These aren't the same things. Moving on is a prerequisite for forgetting/forgetting causes moving on if it hasn't happened yet, the way I look at it, but other than that, I'm pretty sure these can happen in any order.

First off, the definitions I'm using so that folks don't get super confused. I've seen a lot of disagreement about what forgiveness even means, so I think this is important.

Moving on: I don't spend particularly much time thinking about it. If something with a similar pattern comes up or I'm digging for examples, I might think of it. If someone brings it up, I know what they're talking about. Those last two are mostly to differentiate from forgetting. Moving on means thinking about the event isn't exactly taking up much time in my life. I probably don't think of it often.

Forgetting: I'm not going to come up the event as an example, not going to remember it if I see a pattern it fits in. If someone brings it up, my reaction is "wait, what?" or something along those lines. I may or may not have retained whatever I learned from the event itself, but I don't consciously remember the event. I think this is a pretty common idea of what forgetting is. Not something I can consciously decide to do, FYI.

Forgiving: I may or may not trust the person/organization, but I am not actively mad at them when I think about them/the event. I still recognize that it was a messed up thing to do, because if I didn't think it was messed up then I wouldn't think there was anything to forgive. There's some active relationship repair that's happening or has happened.

Now.
I'm actually going to use debts as a metaphor here. Yay metaphor time.

Forgetting means I lost the records. Forgiving means I cancelled the debts. Moving on means working under the assumption that the debt's not getting paid and not really worrying about this fact. If I run into the person and I've still got the records, I might make an attempt to get the debt repaid, or I might not, depending on a bunch of stuff. Even if I don't bother trying to collect, I still am aware that yes, it is a debt.

For me, forgiveness requires a real attempt to fix the problem and be better in the future. Moving on doesn't require that. Forgetting isn't something I decide to do, but it implies that I've moved on because I'm not thinking about it. When people talk about forgiveness as something that will lift a burden for the forgiver, I wonder if those people are equating forgiveness with moving on. Maybe they can't move on without forgiving. I don't know- I'm going to demonstrate "theory of mind" here and say that I recognize their mental states are different from mine. Yes, there is some sarcasm/satire at the idea of theory of mind that I'm intending in that statement. I'll continue said use of "theory of mind" and suppose that the people who insist I must be unduly burdened by the wrongs I've not forgiven don't understand how my mental state is different from theirs. That is, they are lacking this "theory of mind." But wait, I'm the one who's Autistic, so that can't be.

Too bad. So sad. If people are going to come up with ideas of the "root" of autism that are that silly, I'm going to poke fun at them when I get the chance.
Anyways.

I can move on without forgiving. A lot of people can. Related to the fact that I can do this, if I forgive someone who's wronged me, that's because they're attempting to fix the problem and do better. I'm not Jesus, folks. Not even Christian (though I am under the impression that they also want you to at least be sorry and try to change.) I'm kind of Jewish (went to Hebrew School, Bat Mitzvahed, family celebrations around Jewish holidays, but I don't really believe in any higher powers,) and I'm pretty OK with the way of handling forgiveness that I was taught in Hebrew school. See, while folks tended to not work that way in real life, the cycle went something like this, from the perspective of a person who did a wrong thing. "I'm sorry," was step one. "I won't do it again," and other statements of attempts to make it right were step two. Not doing it again was step three. I'm not a fan of the part where you're kind of expected to give forgiveness if the person who wronged you does all those things, but at least the expectation of being better is there.

(Hey, Neurodivergent K, I think your idea of what a person needs to do for a shot at forgiveness and the Jewish idea I was taught for what you need to do to be forgiven have some similarities.)
Anyways.

From my observations of the world, I'm going to assume there are also a lot of people who can't move on without forgiving. That's OK. Different mental states/mental processes for different people. I think potential problems arise when people assume that moving on requires forgiveness and give advice based on this assumption (or assume that potential bad effects of not moving on are automatically worse than potential bad effects of trusting someone who is making no attempt to be better.) I don't think those are the only places problems can come from, not by a long shot, but I think they're important.

Different people handle being wronged differently. Some folks need to use "never forgive, never forget" to keep themselves safe. That's especially true when the world actually isn't safe and people keep trying to do wrong things to you. Recognizing those patterns and staying the heck away from the folks who fall into those patterns, not letting them back in, can be important.

Sometimes the same people who need to do that might be people who actually can't move on without forgiving. I'm not in either of these categories of people, so I can't say what they absolutely think of this idea, but I've got an idea. It's that even if not being able to move on is a burden (and yes, I'm leaving that as an if,) sometimes taking on a burden is what you've got to do to stay safe. People make calculations of "which not-awesome thing is less bad?" all the time, and as much as it stinks to be making that kind of calculation... it's not the place of people who aren't making the calculation to say the people living that are doing it wrong. I'm not sure there's actually a contradiction in that sentence.

Long story short, moving on and forgiving aren't the same thing, and some people can do one without the other. I assume there are folks who can forgive without moving on as well, but I'm fairly sure that's not one of the combinations I can do.

And example time: I've moved on from a decent bit of the stuff that happened to be in 5-6th grade when the school somehow managed to attach another girl to me because she "behaved better around me." I've not forgiven them. If someone tried to defend what the school did as OK, especially if the school tried? They are in DEEP TROUBLE. But as long as no one/nothing else brings it up, I don't exactly spend my time worrying about it. I've got stuff I'd rather be doing.

Note that the problem sources I talked about here are just the ones where the person doing it actually means well. Demanding forgiveness because you're uncomfortable with another person's anger isn't meaning well, and there's a ton of other ways forgive/forget/move on/etc can get very ugly when people talking about it don't mean well. I'll go out on a limb and assume that I missed several ways it can go wrong even when people mean well, but I've not even tried to get into malicious stuff.