To be so angry after watching "Love on the Spectrum"

[Jobs4kids]

As the parent of two high functioning young adults. Admittedly I only watched one episode (no wish to watch anymore) but was dismayed to see that all the autistic people featured were infantised and presumably picked for their entertainment value (awwww bless them). I actually watched it after overhearing a colleague say how funny it was.

I feel it's representative of just one type of autistic person - those that come across as frankly odd (for want of a better word), obviously autistic with terrible social skills, and who in many cases can't live independently/attend mainstream education. It's an extremely wide spectrum and many people with ASD, such as my kids, don't come across like that all! My son, while quite quiet, has an excellent job and interacts in public very normally (can be a bit quirky behind closed doors though!) My daughter is away at uni and comes across as very outgoing and socially able with a large circle of friends, including a few who are also high functioning ASD. Many of her newer friends don't know she's autistic (only brings it up if relevant to the conversation) and she says most she's told seem surprised, although one remarked "ah that's why you're so good at chess!". That's not to say being autistic doesn't cause her a lot of difficulty - she's an expert masker, which is why she wasn't diagnosed until nearly 18, and there are times she needs to go into hibernation as her social battery gets depleted as all the acting "normal" is incredibly exhausting. She also constantly worries about how she comes across, replaying interactions in her head and is prone to depression, anxiety and self harming (has started counselling to help manage all this). She can also meltdown in private. While she's not had a serious relationship as yet, she's had a lot of interest (no surprise, she's extremely attractive) and I worry some may be put off upon finding out she's autistic, especially after watching programmes like this!

I think it's a shame they don't also include people like my kids and some of their friends in the programme to demonstrate the vastness of the spectrum or it because they would make very boring TV as you couldn't laugh at them?!

Sorry for the rant but both my husband and myself were so cross after watching this and pray my kids don't see it!

I completely get their offensive viewpoint .My children are in no way shape or form priviledged.

Do not patronise me because I call out your abelism.

So are you saying that your children are just as disadvantaged as someone who is profoundly disabled, unable to communicate, and completely dependant on their parents or carers for every aspect of their lives?

You haven't called me out on anything.
You don't understand the concept of privilege. I'm not patronisong you; it's not my fault you don't fairly simple concepts.
You clearly have your own unresolved issues surrounding your children's diagnoses and are combatative as a result.

Oh my goodness:

• If a person is missing one leg below the knee, they will be disabled, if the are missing both of their legs completely they will be more severely disabled.
• If a person wears glasses they will have an impairment, if they are completely blind they will have a more severe disability and will need more than glasses to access the world.
• The child with infrequent, mild epileptic absences has a disability. The child with a life threatening epilepsy syndrome is severely disabled.
• If a person has a disability and is also a black woman they will have less privilege (e.g. more difficulties accessing healthcare) than a white man with exactly the same disability.

I don't think you want to get the point though.

What do you think about the term ‘relative’ privilege? Is that more palatable?

It depends what you mean by 'most people', the voices you describe are very loud on this forum, this is not replicated in real life I find. In my professional world and those of the multi agencies we work with, including those from CAHMS there is a huge recognition of the nuance in traits, diagnosis, trauma, behavioural interplay and the areas of grey in 'certainty about the condition'.

There is concern about what exactly is ND/ASD and all the comorbidities, the triangulation etc

People that say now, that BPD/EUPD has been misdiagnosed and its actually ASD (particularly for women), a) dont have the same view about men diagnosed with the male equivalent (so to speak) which is ASPD and b) seem very certain that in 20 years time, that ASD diagnosis then wont be seen as something else and people at that time will say 'we got it wrong, it wasnt ASD it was .....'

@likelysuspect I agree. "There is concern about what exactly is ND/ASD and all the comorbidities, the triangulation etc" My children also have OCD, which I think is interesting for a couple of reasons: it's difficult to pull out their OCD from the rest of their conditions and also, in the SEND world no one is talking about OCD anymore / no one is seeking diagnosis whereas about 4 or 5 years ago OCD was talked about quite a lot. It's like there's so many different MH, ND, trauma etc traits that seem to be viewed with very different (but quite rigid) lenses every few years?? The reality is a lot more nuanced.

A person with glasses is not disabled, a person with autism is. Who on earth are you to declare who is severely disabled and who isn’t just by a comorbidity others have.

I don’t think you want to get the reality let alone any “points”

YANBU OP my family is all ND. My brother and I watched the preview, he was hoping to identify with some of the difficult situations he gets himself into when he gets confused over other people's communication and he realised he wouldn't be represented at all. Not a problem but idk it felt a bit gawky to us

No it is not. My disabled children are in no way priviledged, they are disabled.

I very literally did not say a person who wears glasses has a disability.

If a person is missing one leg below the knee they will not automatically be treated as disabled if they have no other health conditions and any prosthetic limb fully replaces the function of the lost limb - it’s a fairly common scenario.

If a person is wearing glasses to correct a common impairment such as short/long sightedness, again they will not be considered disabled.

Epilepsy is epilepsy. Because seizures are mild and infrequent at one point doesn’t mean they will stay that way and if any level of epilepsy is well controlled by medication it’s unlikely to be considered severe.

Not sure of your point here. Are you saying being a black woman is a disabling condition or should be treated as one ? I agree that there are certain areas of healthcare where there is institutionalised racism but after over two decades as a disability outreach worker I haven’t seen black women with a life affecting disability at any significant disadvantage in accessing any aspect of care for it simply because they are black.

I mean this genuinely, have you ever explored an autism assessment for yourself? There's quite a lot of cognitive inflexibility and black and white thinking in your posts. It's not disabled or privileged.

I don't know your children but it is certainly possible to be disabled and have some privilege.

I am fairly impaired and my life impacted by MH, but Im no way as impacted as someone who is more ill than me, sectioned or in psychosis or experiencing self neglect or self harm. In that way, of course I experience privilege of being about to get out of the house every day (well some days) and able to interact with the world to a better degree than someone else

Anyone who is refusing to see the difference has an agenda and/or is being deliberately obtuse.

Ok. Would you say there are some kids with autism who present with greater challenges than yours do?

Who are you to decide how disabled my children (who you have never met ) are based on a comorbidity somebody else has. Who are you to decide my disabled children are priviledged?

Did not say wearing glasses constitutes a disability.

Having only one leg is very likely to be considered a disability, although I suppose if the prosthesis replaced every single function, including in washing, driving, pain levels, management perhaps not. The point here is that missing two legs is more disabling than missing one.

Many severe epilepsies are treatment resistant. It is absolutely not at ALL a case of 'epilepsy is epilepsy'. One of my children had a presumed case of extremely mild epilepsy which barely affected him and an an acquaintance has a child who could drop dead at any moment from his treatment resistant epilepsy.

OBVIOUSLY being black is not a disability- have you never heard of intersectionality?

You can say what you like about yourself. What you don’t get to do is dismiss, belittle or denigrate the disabilities suffered by others.

Privilege is not a word that should ever be applied to any disability. It’s akin to someone able bodied telling a disabled person they’re ‘lucky’ they’re not as severely affected as some. It’s offensive.

There are levels of disability - some severe, some not so severe. But having any level of disability puts you at a disadvantage and having a disability which doesn’t impact you as severely as some, absolutely does not mean you are privileged, you are just less disadvantaged.

I think it’s also important to point out that some people with ‘less severe’ disabilities can be just as impacted in daily life as someone more severely disabled because of the barriers society presents to what those without a disability would call a ‘normal’ life. It’s called the social model. It’s nuanced and never straightforward.

You seem to have a fixation, fascination and obsession with disability as if it is a stand alone factor in someone's life. You seem very angry and thats a shame in otherwise quite an interesting and informative exchange with other posters.

I have a right to be angry. If you don’t like it don’t write such deliberately goady and inflammatory posts.

Yes. It’s where several factors of societal disadvantage intersect to compound the disadvantage. That absolutely does not mean that someone who is ‘less disabled’ than someone else should be considered privileged, any more than someone whose disadvantage is down to one factor only should be considered so. The word ‘privilege’ has been hijacked from its original meaning and it is not a word that should ever be applied to disability in any way shape or form. As I said upthread, it’s tantamount to someone able bodied telling a disabled person they are ‘lucky’ they are not more disabled. It’s offensive.

I don't think they can engage properly tbh. They're now saying I am deciding how disabled their children are, while quoting my post where I literally said 'I don't know your children'.

I haven’t watched it but I was at the airport today in a transit train. For context my DS is autistic. He’s also an expert masker.
The couple next to me were talking about. The lady said it was a lovely programme so cute who one boy talked etc. The guy replied that his friend was part of the crew and was really uncomfortable with what the participants were asked to do. But couldn’t speak up for fear of losing his job. I said it was a disgraceful way to treat a vulnerable person.
It feels a bit 'circus freaks‘ in vibe. We all know the social exclusion that autistic ppl can face.