Why are accommodations for autistic people often seen as unfair?

[YourPoisedFinch]

In my last job, I received some accommodations and explained them to colleagues when they asked why I was coming in late. Instead of understanding, they accused me of fraud and faking my condition to get special treatment. This isn’t just my experience—many people with mental health conditions and other invisible disabilities face similar challenges. They’re either not believed and resented for receiving accommodations or believed but then negatively stereotyped.

@Perzival But presumably less weight on the way back from lourdes

Unfortunately no but I have witnessed a few miracles when people find out how many others on the plane are waiting for wheelchair assistance and decide they can manage without.

@Perzival Yes we had a delay in our last flight on getting us off the plane. Suddenly a few people decided they could manage walking there after all.

@JoyousGreyOrca always amazes me.

@Perzival you keep switching between two separate points and I'm struggling to keep up with what you're concerned with.

(1) There are people who self diagnose with autism who wouldn't meet the criteria for a diagnosis. I can completely get behind that this is an issue but I've explained the trade off issue in relation to insisting on diagnosis a few times now.
(2) There was a change with DSM 5 and what was Asperger's is now part of autism meaning people who would previously have been diagnosed with Asperger's are now diagnosed with autism (and some other conditions but just keeping it to Asperger's to keep it simple). Your view is that this has meant an autism diagnosis is now meaningless and this group of people advocating for their own support needs has had a material negative impact on people with profound autism. To the extent that your view is that now accomodations should be limited to people with with profound autism.

Which one is your main concern? Because 2 is absolutely a race to the bottom - you want to remove rights from a group of people who have always had those rights, because you believe them advocating for their rights impacts another group. Although you haven't really been clear on how. You've mentioned research focus and support funding. If there needs to be more research into profound autism, the people who want that need to advocate for it. The reality is that a lot of the time research is being conducted by people who are themselves autistic and people choose research topics they're interested in: it's not a case that there's $1m for 'autism research' and someone researching something related to 'mild autism' means that money is taken away from profound autism - it's not a zero sum game like that because there isn't a pot being divied out just for autism. People with 'mild' autism aren't taking support money from people with profound autism either - there is no (free) support.

You say that I am taking advantage by wearing a sunflower lanyard because I can cope without one. This is the real issue and this absolutely is a race to the bottom. I'm not going to stop using MS because it's a condition I have a lot of experience with and so I feel I can comment. You don't appear to have an issue with my sister wearing a sunflower lanyard so that people are aware she has MS. My sister can also 'cope' in airports without one, but she faces issues other people don't have at an airport because of her disability but her disability won't be obvious (eg someone might think she is drunk when she's unsteady on her feet and struggling to read a boarding pass due to double vision) and indicating that is what a lanyard is for. However, because I am autistic, your view is because I can 'cope' I am taking advantage. So again, what is the difference? I am not self identifying, I have a formal diagnosis and in fact the leading clinical psychologist for my assessment said I was close to textbook. This is nothing to do with the expanded definition - if we were still in a DSM-4 world the only thing that would be different would be I would be saying Asperger's not Autism. The accomodations (including sunflower lanyard) would be the same.

I find this frustrating because what you're actually saying is because people aren't disabled enough by your standards they should not be entitled to adaptations (and you've argued that if someone is capable of passing the interview for a job then they shouldn't be asking for adaptations because they shouldn't have been capable of assessing that the job wasn't suitable!). And those adaptations are the kind of thing that makes a difference between me being able to work in the job I do (extremely well by the way) and having to quit and take a substantially reduced role (and pay) because I do accept it's more important to my kids I'm alive that I have a 'good job'. And that sunflower lanyard is the difference between me risking ending up lashing out (verbally) at some poor person who's communicated a change to me, or spending most of the journey dreaming of how much easier it would be if I just took myself out of the picture.

If there's only one person who gets an adaptation then yes I would probably agree your child needs it more than me. But this isn't the case. The OP getting to work 10-6 to avoid rush hour doesn't impact your child, but you're saying she shouldn't get to make that change because she's not disabled enough for you. That's why people keep talking about race to the bottom.

If your issue is self ID, then we can talk about that. It's far more nuanced. But you clearly have an issue with me getting adaptations in the situation I have described (and lol because you told me I was projecting before!), and that has nothing to do with self ID because I have a diagnosis (although it is private - I'm not clear whether me not using NHS resources is a good thing or a bad thing for you, should be a positive!).

*Some disabilities, conditions or chronic illnesses are not immediately obvious to others. For some people, this can make it hard to understand and believe that someone, with a “non-visible” condition genuinely needs support. Some people question whether you have a disability because you don’t look ‘like you have a disability".

That is why we created the Hidden Disabilities Sunflower - to encourage inclusivity, acceptance and understanding.

It is a simple tool for you to share that you have a hidden disability voluntarily. Simply by wearing the Sunflower, you’re just letting everyone know that you might need extra help, understanding, or just more time.*

Could you be clear on what part of that you consider me to be abusing? I am using it exactly for the purposes it's intended for. Please be specific. Because you have accused me of personally abusing an adaptation meant for others and that's a really horrible accusation to make.

Should I tell DC not to use it as well? They can cope too because I'm with them at the airport and so can manage the impact. DC won't be disabled enough for you either. You've made it clear I don't need to tell DS because her MS makes her disabled enough for you. DS doesn't get PIP btw.

Ok I'm out. I'm done with these personal attacks. I have done my absolute best to be reasonable but now apparently me saying that priority boarding makes the airport experience far easier for me is just because I don't like to wait. It's the airline's choice for people with additional needs to be boarded at the beginning not the end, not mine.

Did I touch a nerve? You actually said you did not need the accomodation but it made it easier! You abuse this accomodation that you do not need. It isn't dx based, you could quite easily join the normal queue but choose not too.

Abuse of accomodations is the whole point of the thread or at least a reason why people don't take autism accomodations seriously.

Race to the bottom AKA please don't point out there are those who are more severely impacted else I might need to use this phrase or disability top trumps. Not all disabilities are equally as disabling (see pip levels, dla levels etc). Some people are just more disabled. This is a fact.

Just to reiterate the dx is pointless because of the varying presentations not soley because Aspergers has been included. This is your take not mine.

I have never said people aren't disabled enough to have accomodations. What I have done is say that accomodations are abuse, people use accomodations where they aren't needed to make it easier (see your use of the sunflower lanyard as an example), the varying presentations and abilities f people with autism means people are sceptical of accomodations, people with profound autism are impacted by those who self ID, have lesser needs but ascertain that their needs are equivalent etc

You have compared autism to MS not me, you've said that this is for your ease but this ease isn't carried over to myself or possibly others reading.

I have never said the op isn't disabled enough to have RA. I've discussed reasons why it may seem unfair to others and why they may be sceptical.

I have never described anybody as not being disabled enough. I have pointed out that there are people more disabled by autism and that abuse of accomodations damages the legitimacy of those who really need them.

As much as you want to explain any situation your view isn't always right or acceptable to others.

Are you both quite done, can the rest of us have a say on this topic without feeling like we're interrupting your conversation?

"I've never skipped a queue in a theme park btw. I have used my sunflower lanyard to get priority boarding at the airport. I can cope without it but it makes the whole experience fat far easier for me and it doesn't seem to harm anyone. I mainly wear the lanyard because I can react badly to changes that seem insignificant to many people, and it helps if the person dealing with me has the context that there might be something going on apart from me just being a complete arse."

Since my post with the screenshot was deleted I thought actually quoting you and answering the question "could you be clear on what part of that you consider me to be abusing? I am using it exactly for the purposes it's intended for. Please be specific. Because you have accused me of personally abusing an adaptation meant for others and that's a really horrible accusation to make." The above shows you do not need the accomodation of pre boarding yet you use it because it is easier this is abuse of that specific accomodation- you openly admit you don't need it.

This isn't a personal attack, it's showing that accomodations are misused which lead to other people being sceptical of accomodations for others.

But how do you, personally, know what's going on with someone? What makes you, the person on the Clapham omnibus, the arbiter of whether someone is disabled 'enough'?

Are you asking for everyone's diagnosis letter at the airport?

Poor DD. She either 'doesn't seem that disabled' or is getting stared at because she's stimming or scripting. She can't bloody win.

the whole point of accommodations/reasonable adjustment is to make life easier for the person with a disability. They might not always need them, but the 'making life easier' isn't just about the person at work, its how coping through the day impacts their home life.

Take me.. using my physical disability, i'm an ambulatory wheelchair user. Most days i'm fine on my crutches, but part of my disability is the exhaustion my pain causes. Do i need my chair every day? no, i don't, but when i'm doing volunteer work, i will use it every day because it conserves vital energy that i need to be able to function at home for my kids. Using it makes my life easier even though i don't 'need' it.

Having accommodations that you CAN cope without, doesn't mean you should HAVE to cope without them. It isn't taking advantage, it isn't taking the piss, its using the help available to you to make things easier.

Someone said something to me when i was considering buying my wheelchair and dithering because i CAN cope without it.. you wouldn't even be considering using one if you didn't need it.

People who don't need accommodations wouldn't be going through the rigmarole of trying to push for them if they didn't need them.

(edited for spelling error.)

@Dinnerplease the poster above admitted she didn't need to use the accomodation but did because it made it easier for her. Having a preboard or queue skipping makes life easier for the most people. It wasn't me that said they didn't need it, it was them. I haven't made any comment on your daughter?

No, but you've decided that you know that people 'misuse' accommodations. And that you're somehow uniquely qualified to judge the extent of that need.

What does 'need' mean anyway? Because DD can survive getting through an airport, why shouldn't it be made easier for her so she can start her trip on the same footing as a non-disabled person? She could probably 'manage' the non-SEND kids event but will actually enjoy the SEND one with fewer children. Exactly how uncomfortable do you think people should be to qualify in your world?

Literally everything in her life is harder in ways that will not be public. She will have to repeat this to others- schools, employers if she's lucky enough to get one, medical professionals for her entire life. I'd trade not doing that for a thousand sunflower lanyards.

Actually the point of reasonable adjustments is to remove disadvantage not make life easier. In terms of work cost is a factor into what is reasonable and the basic nature of the job shouldn't be changed. I'll put an acas link for clarity.

https://www.acas.org.uk/reasonable-adjustments

I would like to believe that the world works exactly as you've put but unfortunately there are people who do use or ask for adjustments that don't need them.

you're being pedantic for no reason. Are you disabled yourself? Or speaking as a parent/relative of someone disabled? Just curious.

'make life easier' =/= 'remove disadvantage'

You do realise that we are automatically at a disadvantage for being disabled.. right? that disability is making life harder automatically.

So by 'make life easier' we are doing something to remove that automatic disadvantage.

We aren't fully abled, we are already experiencing difficulty just living with that disability.

No, I'm not uniquely qualified I'm going off what they posted 🤷‍♀️ they even stated the reason they use that lanyard as something different and that they didn't need preboarding.

You may want to read earlier posts so you can see that I have a kid with severe needs and am quite familiar with why a kid with send would prefer one event to another.

I don't agree with someone misusing accomodations where they don't need them. I don't agree with people parking in a bb space when "they'll just be 5 mins" I don't agree with one more party in the disabled easy access because they have an unrelated disability and "it doesn't cause anyone else harm", I don't agree with anyone who identifies as needing special treatment which takes accomodations away from those who truly need them.

Just to add I'd swap my son's needs in a heartbeat so that a lanyard could meet his needs and no employment will never ever be on the cards.

Not pedantic, factual. It is to remove disadvantage not to generally make life easier (where not required). Someone who is disabled who doesn't suffer disadvantage in a certain area shouldn't be given an accomodation just because they have an unrelated disability. That isn't the point of reasonable adjustments.

To answer your question yes I have a son who Is profoundly disabled in multiple ways, I also volunteer advocating for children with disabilities in a legal context around send.

Make life easier does not equal remove disadvantage.

Reasonable adjustments take into account that what is reasonable. Disadvsntage, affordability, practicality and the health and safety of others is considered not just making life easier. (Work context)

Oh and I also have a physical disability, did you mean to be so patronising?

Yes I believe some people ask for RA or accomodations not because they are at a disadvantage but because it would make their life easier in the same way it would make anyone's easier.

But do you see that doubling down on this argument feeds into a very dangerous narrative - much like public narrative around 'benefit cheats' which has led to policies plunging children into poverty. These arguments are used as excuses to remove accommodations for everyone, or to make it more difficult for people to get them through endless displays of 'proof' that can be very hard to get and can be removed at a whim. The Leader of the Opposition has said she would be very pleased to remove those accommodations.

I'd personally rather have a few people pushing the envelope and not feed into that narrative.

ok. i may have a slightly better advantage on understanding.. not only do i care for a child (my 18yo ds) with profound autism, but i'm also autistic/adhd myself AS WELL as having a long term degenerative physical disability.

You ever heard of Spoon theory? If you haven't and you need it explaining please say and i'll expand, but i'm going to use it to explain.

NT/Non Disabled people generally have a lot more spoons to play with during the day than i do. Say.. you'd have 50, and i'm working on 20 to make it through the day.

Say i'm in the PP's position of being on a flight and i use preboarding to 'make my life easier' while i might be fine at that point in the day, still have 15 spoons... and by using preboarding, i'm only using 2 spoons for that activity instead of 8... i don't 'need' preboarding because at that point in the day i have plenty of spoons.

but then my pain from sitting on that flight drains another 5, and the getting off/getting my suitcase/walking through the airport/driving home takes another 8.. I'm down to 2 spoons left to make dinner and get my son to bed, and me to bed.. but that takes 5 spoons.. i've taken 3 from tomorrow, so tomorrow i'll start on 17 spoons instead of 20. Had i not used preboarding, i'd have already been in deficit by the time i drove home by -4 spoons, i can order take out instead of cooking, but sometimes DS won't eat take out, so i have to cook, i still have to put son to bed, and me to bed, so that's 2 spoons, i'm now starting tomorrow on -9 spoons.

I might not 'need' that accommodation at the moment it happens, but that doesn't mean that not using it won't massively impact the rest of my day, and the day after.. so i use the accommodation i don't 'need' and that isn't abusing it.

I don't understand why you're struggling to get that?

That is a personal choice. I'd rather remove the people abusing the system than allow the continued abuse. I'm not scared of what will be removed though, there is no question over my ds' needs. The extra proof doesn't worry me either as I'm confident he would meet any threshold.

I'd like everything around disability to be tightened. I see much abuse and false equivalents. The people who are the most impacted are those with the most need.