It seems there's two side to the debate.
Cureists who want to cure the disease of autism as they see it.
People with autism who think we are fine as we are, so just leave us alone. Autism is not a disease.
These two camp seem irreconcilable at first, but I got thinking and it seems to me they are both flawed, and that the flaw comes not from the reality of autism, but from a single term being used to describe both our neurology, and the problems that many autistic people have.
Imagine if being black and sickle cell anaemia had the same name (hope that's not offensive, I couldn't think of another example).
If we had a word to describe our neurology, and another for our problems, would anyone mind people trying to cure our problems?
But if they did the equivalent of trying to cure us of being black, society would understand our outrage, as it has obvious parallels.
Cureists who want to cure the disease of autism as they see it.
People with autism who think we are fine as we are, so just leave us alone. Autism is not a disease.
These two camp seem irreconcilable at first, but I got thinking and it seems to me they are both flawed, and that the flaw comes not from the reality of autism, but from a single term being used to describe both our neurology, and the problems that many autistic people have.
Imagine if being black and sickle cell anaemia had the same name (hope that's not offensive, I couldn't think of another example).
If we had a word to describe our neurology, and another for our problems, would anyone mind people trying to cure our problems?
But if they did the equivalent of trying to cure us of being black, society would understand our outrage, as it has obvious parallels.