I should be asleep. I should not be posting but not long ago I read something which has left me rather agitated and I need to scream somewhere. Here has been chosen.
First last night when I was similarly agitated. I was responding to ![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sandwichartist7 's comment about it being an outrage that Gender Identity Disorder is listed in the DSM and trans people are therefore considered innately disordered, officially, as a matter of course and thinking of another diagnosis I carry which is in a similar position.
I looked up Autism to verify that it was, in fact, listed in the DSM. It is, at least according to Wikipedia and I do not much doubt this particular fact being as it does in corroboration with other knowledges I possess. I perused other, related articles and, as I did, grew in agitation. There is not much specific I could point to as cause for this save that much of what provokes others to consider me interesting - mode of communication particularly - clearly described as characteristic. It is a sensation not unakin to being unravelled[1]. What struck me most particularly was the described tendency for art by autistic persons to be considered 'Outsider Art'. Possibly I interpreted that too harshly but it felt as if being told any art produced by an autistic person becomes classified as an interesting novelty for that alone. That should not be the case. Visual artists only and no mention of writers. I just checked Wikipedia again looking specifically for writers and found a handful (four), only one of whom writes fiction and two became famous for being autobiographical.
Yes, truth, perspective, etcetera. It still is distressing to be told we are only of value as a novelty, a curiosity of brief amusement. Yes, flaws, we know! Language/medium does not work that way, no space (not either way) for thorough digression.
It took perhaps an hour for my breathing to settle down and that... feeling to dissipate. Mostly by distraction. There. Now you have seen demonstrated my over-sensitivity and tendency to panic we have the reason tonight why it is very difficult for me to type this because every time I let my hands off the keyboard they are tapping, twitching, not being still.
We start by reading this post at Galling Galla (AKA RachelPhilPa unless I am mistaken) - oh, there it has taken what feels like minutes to be able to stop tapping, twiddling and be able to write this post. and again for this aside. i have not normally these difficulties - in which she talks about what is outraging her.
At the normally excellent Shakesville one of the contributors wrote about feminism in relation to sexism she experienced while being out and about, as one would normally expect to be able to do without being harassed. I of course am not complaining about that. No, outrage springs from the first comment and flows from there. Nato/natooo says:
Nato may not think she would ever say something so awful as what the subject of the original post did (go check the link - he was quite creepy), but she just did. Isn't privilege wonderful? I do not appreciate being told that many men behave like entitled, sexist creeps because they are like me. Really, I don't. And then, so we know she is genuinely concerned and not at all a bigot, she spends the rest of the paragraph talking about how much she pities such people.
I do not want pity. I want people to not think that because the wiring of my brain differs from theirs I am predisposed to hurt people emotionally. As a matter of fact I want to not think that. It is one of my greatest fears and a source of much anxiety that I shall through insensitivity bring emotional harm to another person, but stereotypes are insidious and difficult to tear out.
Still, perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps it is not her privilege that is allowing her to say such dreadful things. Perhaps her brain is deficient.
QuakerDave was great though, like Melissa McEwan, and became halfway down the 150-comment thread the second person noticed to point out that Nato what awful things she was saying. Nato 'countered' his niece/firsthand experience with her been following research awhile/knows what she is talking about.
When RachelPhilPa shows up to call Nato on it she receives condescending dismissal and when she does not appreciate that Nato posts a blend of further dismissal, backpeddling and questioning of her authenticity:
Her tone is very friendly, is it not? Slightly puzzled at what she could have possibly said that would hurt someone's feelings. If I were to read Nato charitably, she might genuinely not realise that reading an account of an unknown man observing a woman over an extended period before making unsolicited suggestions concerning her appearance and suggesting on this basis that he could be autistic is a horribly offensive thing to say. She might not realise that suggesting autistic people are incapable of being "constructive, happy members of society" (scroll up if you missed it, first exchange) is a thoroughly awful and factually untrue statement. I won't call Nato a liar because I believe she meant it but I will place the word right there to associate with her name in people's minds because I do not like her and I am petty like that.
She might not realise she is talking down to RachelPhilPa as if she were a tantruming child in need of soothing, one with flawed comprehension. She might not realise that putting the onus on RachelPhilPa to justify herself and her experiences is a defensive shift of topic.
She might not realise, even with the parallel example of The Quilter - a concern troll telling the commenters to the thread that this incident is not at all worth getting upset about because it was not a bad thing at all - that she is just the same trying to convince people that what she said was not at all a dreadful, inappropriate thing to say. That she is able to maintain a calm, even tone telling people for whom this is terribly emotional that despite what they think she is not marginalising them, patronising them, pitying their existence, denying their voice because it does not affect her.
I apologise for being so emotional; in all the time I have been using the internet I believe this the first time I have been provoked to tears in such a way. What has just been written of above touched some deeply held anxieties of mine. I wish I could cite some papers to demonstrate the falsehood of Nato's position but I cannot, so I am just going to have to agree with RachelPhilPa and say that if a person acts like a sexist/racist/whatever, it is probably because they are. Of course, they might be ignorantly so.
At least I have learned a little better the functioning of my self; the breathing, the motor... occurrences. Righteousness reminds me again that few feelings so well boost oneself, that it is a sweet and subtle poison that must not become a habit.
[1] Yes, yes, I know the cures but have grown more vulnerable. I am working on it!
sandwichartist7 's comment about it being an outrage that Gender Identity Disorder is listed in the DSM and trans people are therefore considered innately disordered, officially, as a matter of course and thinking of another diagnosis I carry which is in a similar position.I looked up Autism to verify that it was, in fact, listed in the DSM. It is, at least according to Wikipedia and I do not much doubt this particular fact being as it does in corroboration with other knowledges I possess. I perused other, related articles and, as I did, grew in agitation. There is not much specific I could point to as cause for this save that much of what provokes others to consider me interesting - mode of communication particularly - clearly described as characteristic. It is a sensation not unakin to being unravelled[1]. What struck me most particularly was the described tendency for art by autistic persons to be considered 'Outsider Art'. Possibly I interpreted that too harshly but it felt as if being told any art produced by an autistic person becomes classified as an interesting novelty for that alone. That should not be the case. Visual artists only and no mention of writers. I just checked Wikipedia again looking specifically for writers and found a handful (four), only one of whom writes fiction and two became famous for being autobiographical.
Yes, truth, perspective, etcetera. It still is distressing to be told we are only of value as a novelty, a curiosity of brief amusement. Yes, flaws, we know! Language/medium does not work that way, no space (not either way) for thorough digression.
It took perhaps an hour for my breathing to settle down and that... feeling to dissipate. Mostly by distraction. There. Now you have seen demonstrated my over-sensitivity and tendency to panic we have the reason tonight why it is very difficult for me to type this because every time I let my hands off the keyboard they are tapping, twitching, not being still.
We start by reading this post at Galling Galla (AKA RachelPhilPa unless I am mistaken) - oh, there it has taken what feels like minutes to be able to stop tapping, twiddling and be able to write this post. and again for this aside. i have not normally these difficulties - in which she talks about what is outraging her.
At the normally excellent Shakesville one of the contributors wrote about feminism in relation to sexism she experienced while being out and about, as one would normally expect to be able to do without being harassed. I of course am not complaining about that. No, outrage springs from the first comment and flows from there. Nato/
natooo says:... Sometimes I wonder if it's just common for men to have some sort of mild autism.She goes on to elaborate about it. When the host of the site suggested the cause of the problem is privilege, not autism, she said she is privileged too but even so never would have said a thing so bad. Here is the exchange:
Nato: When I say men might frequently have mild autism, I mean, beyond the socialized autism that passes for stoic or whatever. I really suspect there's some sex-linked (mild) gene that induces moderate (by clinical standards) mind blindness. I've met guys like this, and they're like this even with male friends, but traditional male culture tends to hide it. Whatever its source, such cognitive deficits are going to lead to misery for at least one, and possibly a whole family, if there's no intervention.
Melissa McEwan: I really suspect there's some sex-linked (mild) gene that induces moderate (by clinical standards) mind blindness.
Yes, it's called privilege.
Nato: Melissa, I guess I'm just skeptical that privilege can do that much damage to a person's cognitive abilities. For one, I think I've been as privileged as anyone, and even on my worst days I wouldn't ever have said anything like that. It just seems to me that there's a silent class of men with biological disorders whose conditions have flown below the radar because privilege prevents anyone from calling a deficit a deficit. Of course, even if it is all just privilege and bad luck, the fact remains that these people need an intervention. I really do pity these guys, because I just don't know how they're ever going to be constructive, happy members of society. Even a full return to classic patriarchy would just mask their misery, partially by creating so much greater misery around them for contrast.
Nato may not think she would ever say something so awful as what the subject of the original post did (go check the link - he was quite creepy), but she just did. Isn't privilege wonderful? I do not appreciate being told that many men behave like entitled, sexist creeps because they are like me. Really, I don't. And then, so we know she is genuinely concerned and not at all a bigot, she spends the rest of the paragraph talking about how much she pities such people.
I do not want pity. I want people to not think that because the wiring of my brain differs from theirs I am predisposed to hurt people emotionally. As a matter of fact I want to not think that. It is one of my greatest fears and a source of much anxiety that I shall through insensitivity bring emotional harm to another person, but stereotypes are insidious and difficult to tear out.
Still, perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps it is not her privilege that is allowing her to say such dreadful things. Perhaps her brain is deficient.
QuakerDave was great though, like Melissa McEwan, and became halfway down the 150-comment thread the second person noticed to point out that Nato what awful things she was saying. Nato 'countered' his niece/firsthand experience with her been following research awhile/knows what she is talking about.
When RachelPhilPa shows up to call Nato on it she receives condescending dismissal and when she does not appreciate that Nato posts a blend of further dismissal, backpeddling and questioning of her authenticity:
RachelPhilPa: though it's fortunate that any condition you have is mild enough to significantly delay diagnosis.
Well, thank you very much for your input, Mr. Expert. I'm glad to have your "only mildly defective" stamp of approval.
Nato: RachelPhilPa, I'm not sure why you're so upset, but I think you must have significantly misconstrued what both Tart and I intended to communicate, which has nothing to do with belittling those with ASD. That those who behave like the guy in the post have earned censure is really unrelated to the likelihood that he had some sort of ASD. Now, if him having ASD was a contributing factor, then an intervention on that basis would be helpful, but it is the behavior and not the ASD that is the problem.
Also note that I said "...any condition you have..." I do not presume you have any condition, since your original response merely states that it's likely that you do. It's true that "I don't know what it's like", but I'm a little confused as to whether you know what it's like, either, if you are as of yet uncertain as to whether you truly have Asperger's Disorder. This is far from implying that you are necessarily "defective" in any way.
Her tone is very friendly, is it not? Slightly puzzled at what she could have possibly said that would hurt someone's feelings. If I were to read Nato charitably, she might genuinely not realise that reading an account of an unknown man observing a woman over an extended period before making unsolicited suggestions concerning her appearance and suggesting on this basis that he could be autistic is a horribly offensive thing to say. She might not realise that suggesting autistic people are incapable of being "constructive, happy members of society" (scroll up if you missed it, first exchange) is a thoroughly awful and factually untrue statement. I won't call Nato a liar because I believe she meant it but I will place the word right there to associate with her name in people's minds because I do not like her and I am petty like that.
She might not realise she is talking down to RachelPhilPa as if she were a tantruming child in need of soothing, one with flawed comprehension. She might not realise that putting the onus on RachelPhilPa to justify herself and her experiences is a defensive shift of topic.
She might not realise, even with the parallel example of The Quilter - a concern troll telling the commenters to the thread that this incident is not at all worth getting upset about because it was not a bad thing at all - that she is just the same trying to convince people that what she said was not at all a dreadful, inappropriate thing to say. That she is able to maintain a calm, even tone telling people for whom this is terribly emotional that despite what they think she is not marginalising them, patronising them, pitying their existence, denying their voice because it does not affect her.
I apologise for being so emotional; in all the time I have been using the internet I believe this the first time I have been provoked to tears in such a way. What has just been written of above touched some deeply held anxieties of mine. I wish I could cite some papers to demonstrate the falsehood of Nato's position but I cannot, so I am just going to have to agree with RachelPhilPa and say that if a person acts like a sexist/racist/whatever, it is probably because they are. Of course, they might be ignorantly so.
At least I have learned a little better the functioning of my self; the breathing, the motor... occurrences. Righteousness reminds me again that few feelings so well boost oneself, that it is a sweet and subtle poison that must not become a habit.
[1] Yes, yes, I know the cures but have grown more vulnerable. I am working on it!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-16 12:45 (UTC)From:If we were to be discussing the topic you are talking about, I might say that the problem is it seems to be classified indeed as an innate disorder when it ought not to be. People might seek counselling for distress caused by the general intolerance of our society or the specific intolerance of individuals, or if their particular dysphoria is so intense as to impair their functioning, but they should not be considered disordered simply because of who they are.
Other states of being have been in similar positions and are not now considered disorders - homosexuality, left-handedness, red hair. It is not an innate disorder of the functioning of our medical system.