Her view: The concept of masking is “unscientific” because it’s unfalsifiable.
Reply: So is the concept of pain. Should we treat that as irrelevant in medical or psychological contexts, as well?
⬇️
Her view: The concept of masking is “unscientific” because it’s unfalsifiable.
Reply: So is the concept of pain. Should we treat that as irrelevant in medical or psychological contexts, as well?
⬇️
Her view: Autism in women has gone too far.
Reply: Interesting. Has freedom in women gone too far, too?
_________
Her view: We must categorise autism into smaller subgroups.
Reply: Interesting also - a bit like how Hans Asperger did in Nazi Germany? I think, in this case, the purpose is to exclude a lot of people from the category "autism" and to divide the autistic community.
⬇️
@KatyElphinstone what's her argument for "We must categorise autism into smaller subgroups."? Why is it necessary, what would we gain?
I do agree that within the spectrum there are obvious differences that might be used for forming groups, for example to address the different needs for support adequately. Maybe there's even different causes, that might be treated differently, but the science is still not far enough for that to be a valid reason
Yes, I think a big part of the problem is intrinsically connecting autism with specific support needs.
What we'd arguably most benefit from, I think, is a) a system of identification of autism/neurodivergence, and b) a *separate* system for allocating support, of varying types, to whomever needs it.
Which would go along with depathologizing autism and neurodivergence.
@KatyElphinstone yeah, and maybe separating support needs from illness in general. Perfectly normal, healthy people can be hit hard by compounding factors, and then need support from society, while others start out not quite as able.