It doesn't has to be a disability just because someone is different from the majority.
Majority is just the average
Majority is just the average
I'm sure I would've been diagnosed autistic as a kid instead of just difficult. Not sure it would've changed anything. I still would've been very strong willed and confused about why people around me say one thing but do a different thing. I think what would've been different is maybe other people's reaction to me?
I think the biggest benefit to diagnosis is both the parent and the child are able to draw on resources for those disabilities - learn about coping mechanisms, get advice from other autistic people, etc.
> confused about why people around me say one thing but do a different thing.
I think it importantly helps shift this confusion from the framing of "Is something wrong with me?" which a lot of young autistic people feel
I communicate extremely clearly. Most people do not. They say half of what they want, or ignore half of what they read/hear. It's very odd. Life is much easier (read: less complicated, not more pleasant) when you communicate as if the other person isn't actually reading your thoughts and emotions. That applies for neuro- typical and divergent people equally.
i mentioned before the book "Speed of Dark" by Elisabeth Moon which explores this topic.
well that is the ethical question, isn't it? i mean for severe symptoms that cause obvious problems, sure. but what about lesser symptoms? where do we draw the line? the affected person should have a say in that, and, what i find much more important, outsiders need to be neutral. while those affected obviously can't be neutral about it, those outside often aren't either. we define what is normal, and we try to explain every deviation from normal as a problem that needs to be fixed.
i am not diagnosed, but i do have behaviors that i think are not normal. they are not getting in the way of my life, so i don't need them fixed, nor do i want to fix them, but if i were to be diagnosed then there sure is someone who would insist that all those diagnosed should be fixed whether they want it or not.
and even worse those that want to take away my autonomy because they believe that anyone diagnosed is not capable of leading a normal life and should not be allowed to do certain things, such as raising children.
did you see the movie "i am sam"? sam is one of those with severe autism who as you say don't have a frame of reference for their own disability. regardless of whether sam could be cured, or whether he should be cured, it should be possible to create an environment where he can live together with his daughter. who gets custody should not even matter. you don't separate siblings either just because one sibling is not able to care for the other. so why separate sam and his daughter? it's done in the belief that children better be raised by normal people and that the bond they have with their own less capable parents doesn't matter.
the point i am trying to make is, cure or not, first of all, as a society we need to make accommodations for those who are ill or disabled. we do it for those using wheelchairs or for blind or deaf people, so why not for autistic people as well?
instead of changing every individual to conform to society, i believe society should adapt to accommodate all individuals so each one can live a dignified life.
It's a brain pattern / way of thinking which doesn't fit the avg societies expectations.
It's a disability when it hinders me lifting my life but even then you allow the narrative be written by the others.
It is no different than say diabetes T2. Both are diseases which are caused by wrong levels something essential, both can be mitigated by a treatment which changes levels of that something. Both have significant societal impact on a life of the affected person. Yet, there is no doubt in the social networks that T2 is an illness, while ADHD is for some reason not afforded as much.