"behavioral impairment" is a social judgement, not a biological flaw.
Homosexuality was long considered a psychiatric disorder, so be careful putting blind faith in psychiatric judgements.
Homosexuality was long considered a psychiatric disorder, so be careful putting blind faith in psychiatric judgements.
With that said, due to my exposure to autism through my sister, I have seen cases that are far worse than hers. Completely non-verbal people with autism, those who experience panic attacks when they see an unfamiliar person, the list goes on.
We tend to focus on the lighter end of the spectrum, where people can lead functional and fulfilling lives. Most people don't see the other side of the spectrum, where autism is devastating to every single person involved.
There's a form of survivorship bias here: the greater the degree of impairment, the less broad social contacts the person is likely to have, so on average most people's experience is going to have people who have less severe impairments overrepresented compared to their relative frequency among those with the diagnosis.
And I'm sure most people that think about the issue recognize that on an intellectual level, but it's still difficult to tune out the effect that has on one’s “gut feeling” about the subject.
His diagnosis didn't feel like a social judgement. The impairment literally killed him even though he wanted to live.
That part is absolutely true.
> ASD should be prevented medically.
But this part (apart from the fact that it's not currently feasible) is just too categoric. I certainly know several autistic people who would prefer to get rid of their autism, if given a choice. But I know plenty on the milder end of the spectrum who would not — e.g. because their distress in social situations is outweighed by the benefits conveyed by an increased ability to focus.
Edit: very interested in feedback on why this either rubbed some people the wrong way or was perceived as a negative contribution to the discussion
Feedback at your request -
This rubbed me the wrong way because homosexuality was classed as a disorder in my lifetime. (And that has an impact on me, still today - and it is still used as justification for criminalisation in 72 countries). So, there is fair reason to equate them.
If we were having this discussion in 1973, would you be saying "it does nobody a service to see homosexuality as normal"? Because a large proportion of psychiatrists and people were saying that.
What makes those people (in the past) wrong to say that, while you (in the present) are right to say this?
Yes, pretty much all of modern psychiatric diagnosis are explicitly diagnosing a combination of inability to succeed in the concrete social conditions one finds oneself in combined with concurrent behavioral or other symptoms, not “biological flaws”. (Which, incidentally, would also be subjective judgments; biological features are objective, that an objective feature is a flaw is a subjective judgement call.)
It's not even about success in society; it's simply about whether the psychiatric authority considers it undesirable, and in want of eradication.
Drapetomania even existed, which had nothing to do with success. The authority simply considered it undesirable that slaves fled.
Many behaviors that correlate very negatively with success are not considered mental disorders, for they the authority considers them desirable.
And of course, it's an entirely circular argument. There are also some disorders that correlate very negatively with success and thus called disorders, but the disorder is more or less “not caring about success”. — there are disorders characterized by the subject's indifference how he is socially perceived.