MN and their approach to autism

[HypocrisyHere]

I have attached two screenshots. One showing the two threads I’m watching, the other the deletion message from the first watched thread which was deleted.

The subjects of the two threads are

(1) Any ‘positive’ autism stories?
(2) Married to someone with Asperger’s: support thread 5

My confusion is that the first was deleted because “the title was not in spirit of the site” Yet thread 2 - which has (IMO) a deeply offensive as it implies all people with Asperger’s are a problem in a relationship (leaving aside the ghastly ableism within the thread) is absolutely fine?

Thread 1 was from a concerned parent who may have used clunky wording but was looking for support - yet she has been deleted. Thread 2 is for concerned partners who can blame every poor behaviour of their partners on autism and that’s all fine?

As an autistic person this makes no sense to me at all and highlights not only ableism within MNHQ but also a deeply inconsistent approach to moderation?

(Have name changed as I’m a coward)

@BarrowInFurnessRailwayStation

Why can't you tolerate polite challenge to your assumptions?

Because they're as passive aggressive as they come and you appear to despise autistic people despite claiming to be one yourself.

I haven't claimed to be autistic nor do I despise autistic people. If you actually look at the details of what I've said, this should be very clear. There is a lot of overlap between aspects of my life and that of some autistic adults, and I am ND. I also can't say with certainty that I'm allistic as I do have other conditions related to autism, so having an ASC isn't impossible. I'm open minded on the subject. It would be extremely silly for someone living in a thoroughly neurodiverse world - as I am - to despise autistic people. That doesn't mean I have to agree with someone just because they're autistic, though.

You were accusing an autistic poster of speaking like a supremacist yet you are insistent that I am attacking you? Very odd.

I’m not really sure why you are on a thread, which is highlighting how so many autistic people here feel that MN do not take ableism directed at autistic people seriously, continually arguing against us?

Are you saying that all the autistic people on the thread saying they feel genuinely offended with the prejudice and ignorance we experience virtually every day on this site are wrong?

To me it does feel like you don’t want us to be treated fairly and that you want the status quo to remain.

@HypocrisyHere I have literally said on the thread that I think the MN moderation is ableist. This is a pervasive issue and by no means restricted to autism or other neurodiversity.

I've also commented on this many other times on MN, and even made a thread in Site Stuff. Feel free to AS me for proof.

@Thoosa

Yes, maybe you're right about early neglect. I really don't know enough about it to comment with any authority. In my earlier comment I meant 'nuture' to include primarily womb environment and birth as I said. I added the word mostly to my comment in case there were any other relevant areas I wasn't aware of. I later suggested early neglect might be included as one of those areas, but you may well be right that it shouldn't. It wasn't relevant to my DS's case so I don't know that much about it - on reflection, I shouldn't have mentioned it at all.

So you're not autistic?

Yeah, you're tricky as anything. I can't be bothered talking to you anymore. I'm off out and just going on the other thread anyway.

Anybody, read the links I've posted, they're relevant.

But yes, the tone and tenor of your comment to me, @HypocrisyHere, absolutely was a personal attack, and I think you know that. It should be possible to disagree without attacking.

You could not be more wrong about me supporting the status quo. Whether that's on MN or in the wider society - I would love to see drastic change.

@BarrowInFurnessRailwayStation

So you're not autistic?

Yeah, you're tricky as anything. I can't be bothered talking to you anymore. I'm off out and just going on the other thread anyway.

Anybody, read the links I've posted, they're relevant.

Neurodiverse in multiple other ways, some of which correlate with autism; have never been evaluated for autism so I don't know if I am or not. Sorry if that's not ND enough to have a place at your table! I prefer a more inclusive approach, myself.

@Thoosa
On the other hand, I don't know if there's such a thing as 'autism proper'. I think it's too diverse for that, perhaps.

[quote BessieFinknottle]@Thoosa
On the other hand, I don't know if there's such a thing as 'autism proper'. I think it's too diverse for that, perhaps.[/quote]
Do you really? Why am I surprised? How do you conceptualise it then? A varied array of differently malfunctioning humans?

I wish they’d kept Aspergers as a separate dx, OTOH. It was useful.

[quote BessieFinknottle]@Thoosa

Yes, maybe you're right about early neglect. I really don't know enough about it to comment with any authority. In my earlier comment I meant 'nuture' to include primarily womb environment and birth as I said. I added the word mostly to my comment in case there were any other relevant areas I wasn't aware of. I later suggested early neglect might be included as one of those areas, but you may well be right that it shouldn't. It wasn't relevant to my DS's case so I don't know that much about it - on reflection, I shouldn't have mentioned it at all.[/quote]
Thanks. Fair enough.

I would never describe someone with autism as malfunctioning @Thoosa. Or ever think of them in that manner. You've misjudged me there.

Well if you are even entertaining “environment on the womb” and early neglect as a contributory or possible cause of autism (although I do appreciate you’ve rescinded your comment) then you’re thinking of autistic people as damaged neurotypicals rather than the entirely valid neurotype minority that they were always destined to be.

I get the impression you haven’t had as many dreary decades to ponder this as I have been blessed with. I even wondered from your wording if you had adopted your child. Maybe not. No offence intended either way. I think the longer you have living in the ND world and observing familial patterns, the more becomes clear.

Just my take on it all.

@Ponoka7

I shared lots of positives around my adult DD's (and mine) Autism. I did put the disclaimer in about more severe cases, but as long as that was acknowledged, I thought that it was a good thread. Disability and agesim isn't addressed.

Well that sounds fair enough. I do sometimes think it's a bit off when people dismiss how difficult it is for some but pointing out positives can't be bad can it as long as that is acknowledged?

@Thoosa

Well if you are even entertaining “environment on the womb” and early neglect as a contributory or possible cause of autism (although I do appreciate you’ve rescinded your comment) then you’re thinking of autistic people as damaged neurotypicals rather than the entirely valid neurotype minority that they were always destined to be.

I get the impression you haven’t had as many dreary decades to ponder this as I have been blessed with. I even wondered from your wording if you had adopted your child. Maybe not. No offence intended either way. I think the longer you have living in the ND world and observing familial patterns, the more becomes clear.

Just my take on it all.

I am not that young as it happens Thoosa

My DS is my biological child. I was ill when I was pregnant with him and wondered if this had affected his development in the womb. My background is in medical research so I looked into it. There are, in fact, many studies showing a correlation between illness/inflammation in a pregnant mother and increased risk of autism in her child.

I'm sorry if this isn't what you want to hear and if it goes against your view of what autism is. But it's entirely plausible scientifically that sub-optimal womb conditions, in some cases, may lead to different developmental outcomes for a child. And that an individual's outcome in more adverse conditions could vary depending on their genetic makeup. Objectively, this is not the mother's fault. It's easy to feel the guilt however.

Maybe my illness affected my son, I don't know. It probably didn't help him.

I have the utmost respect for the autistic community, but I am also a scientist. Humans are more fragile during early development than perhaps you know. That said, many cases of autism will have nothing at all to do with womb environment. As I said, there's a lot of diversity in autism.

Possibly we are both right @BessieFinknottle

Maybe I can just see a very clear familial pattern in several families I now know, and that sways me. Maybe familial autism is different - and naturally solely or mainly genetically mediated - distinct from other similar syndromes. They are all currently categorised as “autism” because they are
diagnosed by psychological assessment tools, and not by genetic test.

Maybe there are many autisms. It could be like that old allegorical folk tale in which a dozen blindfolded people all gripe an elephant and describe separate body parts?

I also see a lot of giftedness running in parallel with autism around me so I don’t feel negative about it at all. Quite the opposite.

As for maternal guilt, none here, but nobody should feel guilty about things they didn’t intentionally cause.

Or are you saying lack of empathy is not actually a typical trait of people with autism in your opinion, and I should reinterpret their actions towards me as deliberate cruelty?

It really isn't. That's been thoroughly debunked. So yes - if the people in your life are being cruel to you for no reason I presume they must lack empathy. But this lack of empathy isn't because they are autistic. Many autistic people are very empathetic, the two things are completely separate.

Thanks Thoosa. Yes, I think there are many autisms really, both at the level of genetics and in how in presents in different people.

Reading this thread with interest.

Just to throw it out there as labels withing the dx are being discussed. There is an increasing call from professionals and families for profound autism to be used and for the dsm to be updated to reflect this.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/my-life-aspergers/202112/reflections-profound-autism%3famp

As I've already said, I don't think it's for anyone else to decide how someone else can describe themselves. I don't think anyone would disagree nd people spend a lot of time compromising, whether that's with other nd people or the nt world at large. I don't see why it is then helpful to demand they unnecessarily compromise further because some nd people wish to police the terminology others use on an individual level.

I also believe we need a shorthand way to differentiate. Mild/ severe and high/ low aren't the right terms, but using just autism is too vague to be useful in anything but very broad terms.
I also find it interesting it has been assumed @Innocenta must be nt because she hasn't been dx with autism.

On a lighter note, I think discussing whether autism is linked to major scientific breakthroughs is irrelevant. I think it's fair to say it was the ape with adhd that on an impulse climbed down the tree first. And then the primitive woman with adhd procrastinating about going hunting and rubbing a few stones together that discovered fire.

@BessieFinknottle I've never thought about a correlation between illness in the mother and autism in the child so feel free to tell me I'm completely wrong, but isn't it equally likely the autism is purely genetic, and the difficulties in pregnancy/ birth linked to the mothers own autism?
I'm just going from the fact autistic people are less likely to seek and/ or receive medical help, rather than the autism physically causing problems in pregnancy or childbirth. And that possibly if they'd been able to receive medical help their illness wouldn't have been noteworthy. But either way their dc would still be born with autism.

I apologise if I've phrased that clumsily and it reads as though I'm implying autistic parents aren't as concerned about their unborn child and cause the problem. That's not what I mean at all, I'm referring to illnesses/ conditions that only harm the mother, and the fact they are more likely to tolerate the pain or discomfort.

@Justrealised sorry, cross post that's not in response to you. Fwiw I agree profound

@TrainspottingWelsh no probs, I thought so, please don't apologise.

On the illness during pregnancy, I was hospitalised with my second ds (diagnosed at 2 years old) due to extreme sickness and given anti sickness medication. I also bled throughout the pregnancy, had high blood pressure and conceived the cycle after a miscarriage. My gut instinct is that this has contributed in some way but i doubt I'll ever know. My ds, dh and myself are all on the 10000 genome project and nothing has been found on any of our genomes so far. The genomes will be rerun in the future again. This isn't to say I don't think there is a genetic element, as I do believe it's likely but I think there may be other factors also or that the problems in pregnancy caused the mutations (if any are found).

I've never thought about a correlation between illness in the mother and autism in the child so feel free to tell me I'm completely wrong, but isn't it equally likely the autism is purely genetic, and the difficulties in pregnancy/ birth linked to the mothers own autism?

That's an interesting point TrainspottingWelsh, but I don't think it's the whole story. The article below might be of interest, but I hasten to add that in many cases autism is probably purely genetic. Also the title of this piece will be offensive to some, I know. I'm sorry about that, still wanted to link the content as an overview.

www.verywellhealth.com/autism-risks-in-pregnancy-birth-5207680#:~:text=%20Autism%20Risks%20Related%20to%20Pregnancy%20and%20Birth,According%20to%20studies%2C%20your%20baby%20may...%20More%20

And there's this
www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20170203/obstetric-complications-tied-to-slightly-upped-risk-for-autism

Most of this is work in progress though.

@Justrealised my dd is nt, easy healthy pregnancy and birth. My mother had a similar experience, I'm nd. My suspicion is the nd only runs on my fathers side, and there's certainly no evidence to suggest difficulties in pregnancy were common. But dd does have a physical disability that in her case is mild. It is however genetic. But historically, it was only really dx when severe, which afaik it never was in my family. But if you know what you're looking for it's quite easy to armchair dx which ancestors also had it, as far back as photos and snatches of information go. If it was the other way round, I had the physical disability and dd was nd after a difficult pregnancy, I wouldn't be able to identify the genetic link beyond all doubt and it would be easier to blame myself, for want of a better word.
By contrast my friend has several dc, her healthy nt children were all the result of very difficult pregnancies, birth, intensive care etc. Her dc with complex needs which includes autism was the result of a textbook pregnancy and birth.

@BessieFinknottle thanks, that's interesting but just raises more questions!
Such as are the stats coming from people with a reliable dx, or could it also include children with attachment disorders that were incorrectly dx with autism instead? Reason that springs to mind is because there is a link between traumatic pregnancies and birth and attachment disorders.
Or is the reverse true, and there's the assumption the traumatic pregnancy and birth are the cause of 'refrigerator mothers' and there's an underlying bias towards assuming that outdated and offensive theory about autism still holds some truth.
Or is it just that it's nearly always the woman's fault. 100yrs ago we'd be blaming the mother for not producing an heir and a spare, now it's not producing nt children.
And on a purely biological level it would be interesting to know how exactly the genetics could be influenced by the womb environment.

are the stats coming from people with a reliable dx
I would hope the work is reliable, it's peer-reviewed and also represents a large collection of work rather than just one or two studies.

Or is it just that it's nearly always the woman's fault. 100yrs ago we'd be blaming the mother for not producing an heir and a spare, now it's not producing nt children.

No, I don't think it's a question of fault. It's just a biological fact that children are carried by females, not males.

And on a purely biological level it would be interesting to know how exactly the genetics could be influenced by the womb environment.

Well, some of the mechanisms are already known to some extent. Though the cells in your body contain the same DNA, the genes are expressed differently in different cells (so maybe a particular gene is turned off in one cell type, on in another for example.) It's what allows your skin cell to be different from your heart cell, though they both have the same DNA. The environment can affect gene expression too. So the underlying code remains the same, but how that presents can be altered.