![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Tonight is the sort of night in which I feel tremendous optimism and capability. So far doing a good job of not letting that trick me into overloading on things to do and thus stalling (like an engine).
So tonight we are reading the book my mother has on Asperger's Syndrome, to see what her information source is telling her: The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome by Tony Attwood, ISBN 184310495.
Getting furious at the back cover is perhaps not the best start:
This is just wrong. I am capable of empathy, as are many other people I know, and a frequent complaint I see is that this is a false stereotype, when it is actually expressing empathy and communicating in ways others understand which is often difficult, or understanding the signals others are giving - as well as the lack of empathy shown by those who are supposedly innately superior to us in that area. This suggests the author has NOT achieved an empathic understanding because if he did he would realise this.
I showed it to my sister and she agreed, as well as picking up on and being outraged by the dehumanising term 'clinical pictures', speaking of persons with Asperger's syndrome as if they are not persons but puzzles.
Still, calming down, I told myself this person is not necessarily accurately representing the contents of the book, and perhaps the author did not see this quote or did not have control over what promotional quotes went on to the book.
This cannot be the book she mentioned having had when I was first diagnosed, since it was first published in 2006. I asked her about that and we could not find the old book. It seems likely it was lent to someone who has not returned it. While looking for it I mentioned my objections to that promotional quote and got told (paraphrased from several repetitions) "That is because you have a very mild case, other people have it much worse and do not have empathy." When I pointed out that some other people do not experience empathy either, she said "But those are sick, messed up people". Uh, thanks.
I am very inclined to be hostile to this book and what it contains, as some of its contents have been used directly as justification for denying portions of my identity.
The Preface is interesting, particularly the notes about the conditions in which Hans Asperger published his paper (Nazi-occupied Austria) - the statement that "education will 'render harmless the dangers which are in a child's genetic disposition'" make sense in the context of trying to prevent the sterilisation and murder of people, but I wonder, if true, what influence this might have had on subsequent developments after context was lost. Perhaps not much. Re-education to normalise people seems the standard sort of response and if Asperger had not advocated it originally I am confident others would have soon after.
What also interests me about the preface is what is meant when Attwood talks of the importance of learning to identify Asperger's in very young children so they can benefit from early intervention. What is the intended outcome of these interventions and what is their intended benefit (and to who)? Managing sensory perception issues is one mentioned later and seems like something which would be very useful.
I am more ambivalent about "We also need to develop and evaluate programs to encourage friendship and relationship skills, the management of emotions and the constructive application of special interests." Could go either way, and those can be useful, but I am wary because they could also be used for the purpose of shaping people into what they are not and do not want to be - I see those skills as useful to have when wanted, but developing them should not be used as an excuse to erase the original person in the name of making em 'acceptable'.
At this point I wonder if I should be so critical. After all, I am so often told how 'high functioning' I am and how mild my case is, so what right have I to object to what may not apply to me if it applies to others, especially since I clearly cannot really understand what is going on? But I am not for denying people choices and options for their own lives, but opposed to requiring people to be 'fixed' to meet the standards of others when they may not wish to. And I am trying to restrict what I say to my own experiences and observations, and if I have misrepresented something, hoping that I would accept correction with good grace.
The rest of the preface seems decent though. Not really a place for going into depth.
So tonight we are reading the book my mother has on Asperger's Syndrome, to see what her information source is telling her: The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome by Tony Attwood, ISBN 184310495.
Getting furious at the back cover is perhaps not the best start:
'Tony Attwood explores in depth the complexity of the mysterious group of clinical pictures known collectively as Asperger's syndrome, part of the wider autistic spectrum. He describes all the puzzling and fascinating aspects of these conditions and brings them vividly to life with illustrations from personal histories. He has achieved a real empathic understanding of children and adults whose basic problem is a biologically based lack of empathy with others. The book is to be highly recommended.'
- Lorna Wing
This is just wrong. I am capable of empathy, as are many other people I know, and a frequent complaint I see is that this is a false stereotype, when it is actually expressing empathy and communicating in ways others understand which is often difficult, or understanding the signals others are giving - as well as the lack of empathy shown by those who are supposedly innately superior to us in that area. This suggests the author has NOT achieved an empathic understanding because if he did he would realise this.
I showed it to my sister and she agreed, as well as picking up on and being outraged by the dehumanising term 'clinical pictures', speaking of persons with Asperger's syndrome as if they are not persons but puzzles.
Still, calming down, I told myself this person is not necessarily accurately representing the contents of the book, and perhaps the author did not see this quote or did not have control over what promotional quotes went on to the book.
This cannot be the book she mentioned having had when I was first diagnosed, since it was first published in 2006. I asked her about that and we could not find the old book. It seems likely it was lent to someone who has not returned it. While looking for it I mentioned my objections to that promotional quote and got told (paraphrased from several repetitions) "That is because you have a very mild case, other people have it much worse and do not have empathy." When I pointed out that some other people do not experience empathy either, she said "But those are sick, messed up people". Uh, thanks.
I am very inclined to be hostile to this book and what it contains, as some of its contents have been used directly as justification for denying portions of my identity.
The Preface is interesting, particularly the notes about the conditions in which Hans Asperger published his paper (Nazi-occupied Austria) - the statement that "education will 'render harmless the dangers which are in a child's genetic disposition'" make sense in the context of trying to prevent the sterilisation and murder of people, but I wonder, if true, what influence this might have had on subsequent developments after context was lost. Perhaps not much. Re-education to normalise people seems the standard sort of response and if Asperger had not advocated it originally I am confident others would have soon after.
What also interests me about the preface is what is meant when Attwood talks of the importance of learning to identify Asperger's in very young children so they can benefit from early intervention. What is the intended outcome of these interventions and what is their intended benefit (and to who)? Managing sensory perception issues is one mentioned later and seems like something which would be very useful.
I am more ambivalent about "We also need to develop and evaluate programs to encourage friendship and relationship skills, the management of emotions and the constructive application of special interests." Could go either way, and those can be useful, but I am wary because they could also be used for the purpose of shaping people into what they are not and do not want to be - I see those skills as useful to have when wanted, but developing them should not be used as an excuse to erase the original person in the name of making em 'acceptable'.
At this point I wonder if I should be so critical. After all, I am so often told how 'high functioning' I am and how mild my case is, so what right have I to object to what may not apply to me if it applies to others, especially since I clearly cannot really understand what is going on? But I am not for denying people choices and options for their own lives, but opposed to requiring people to be 'fixed' to meet the standards of others when they may not wish to. And I am trying to restrict what I say to my own experiences and observations, and if I have misrepresented something, hoping that I would accept correction with good grace.
The rest of the preface seems decent though. Not really a place for going into depth.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-06 15:29 (UTC)From:We'reI am slowly seeing the growth of a movement in this culture, that encourages acceptance of "disabilities" as things which ought to be a choice, not an intrinsic negative. Like homosexuality, a thing that some people value, which defines them, which they do not WANT cured.I think this is very much in keeping with diversity. Indeed, I see one of the big counter-forces in diversity is homogenization: forcing cultures to integrate in to ours, to act like us, rather than valuing them for themselves. I think there are people who resent their culture, their gender, or their disability. I think that is fine too, but... I sometimes wonder how much less frequent this would occur if people felt safe and comfortable expressing themselves.
Me? Half my transition was because I "wasn't allowed" to wear skirts and the like unless I was female. Transition let me "get away" with things, and alleviated a lot of stress in that area of self-expression. Take away the gender roles, and I think it would have been much milder for me. But I also understand disliking one's anatomy (I wanted breasts!), and imagine that those with serious body issues would not be "cured" by a tolerant society.
Me, I value my perspective on the world. People are strange and confusing, but I also seem to have significant insight in to their operation simply because I DID have to learn to pay attention, to consciously read people rather than just intuiting cues and social patterns.
As for empathy... I find myself hard-pressed to define that word. Sometimes I seem high-empathy, and sometimes I feel like the world would not be inaccurate in labeling me "sociopathic." I seem to have a ... different sort of empathy?
no subject
Date: 2008-09-07 03:16 (UTC)From:Oh wait...
MWAHAHAHA *points fingers* you're a sociopath!