@coolitcathy
I know we've used the "high / low functioning" labels a lot in this thread as it's difficult to describe specifics of a condition without them but I've attached a little photo of why that can be harmful (hope you can read it, it's very long!)
Wishing away a child's disability IS ableism. It's the very definition of it.
I think wishing for someone's disability to be easier or for them to be in less pain isn't ableism necessarily. I see that as caring for people close to you. But I think trying to change or coerce an autistic child into behaving like a 'normal' one or letting them know you wish they were different is harmful. And for me anyway, that's where the distinction is.
I agree that high and low functioning are too simplistic and that each individual can have no difficulties or heightened skills in one area and severe difficulties in another. The problem for me is that the word autism alone covers such a massive range of abilities and disabilities that I feel it exacerbates a lot disagreement shown here. I can see why the term high functioning is offensive to those who have huge difficulties in some areas, as it trivialises what they are facing, but it also creates this gulf between those who have the capacity to speak for autistic people and those who cannot speak for themselves (and I don’t mean actually speaking - writing, using AAC, typing, etc is all speaking in my view).
I also agree with your second point - I would be a pretty shit parent if I didn’t want my children to be able to communicate in some form (and I genuinely don’t care if it’s speech, but of course I want them to be able to take in information in some form and express it in some form). But where is the line in trying to change an autistic person? I’ve been told by some that engaging in speech therapy, occupational therapy etc at all is trying to change them. These arguments usually start from the assumption that the child has a “natural communication style” I am disregarding, and that they have social anxiety because that’s the experience of the person speaking. My two rarely ever made eye contact, not because it makes them uncomfortable or they find it painful, but because they just didn’t see other people as interesting in the slightest. We’ve worked on building interaction which has increased their interest in people - eye contact has naturally followed but never has been forced. Them looking at people more means they are learning much more, since watching others is usually how children learn.
We’ve supported them to learn new skills using hand over hand support - it has never been forced or coerced or bribed, it’s support they want and will reach for when they can’t do something themselves as their fine motor skills are delayed. They’ve learnt to do some things independently with this help.
To some I’ve forced my children to behave neurotypically because that’s what they see. Any therapy or support is considered abusive. We are not talking about things like ABA here, some even call PECS abusive because the early stages involve hand over hand support to make exchanges.
I often wonder if the people saying this would willing trade places with an autistic person who can’t communicate in any form, or do anything independently. They’d have to think this surely, since they’d be ableist otherwise by their own views. I don’t think there are many people in the world however who would choose to live a life where they can’t communicate, wear nappies for their whole lives, can never live independently, need to be fed if cutlery is involved etc.