This really disgusts me

[Mr Allen]

Serious question:

What would be your reaction be if other employees (who are not so open minded) do not see that you have high functioning autism but only notice that you're sort of "different" and start hazing you because of it and Human Resources doesn't care? And that starts to interfere with your ability to do your job?

Or, perhaps more realistically, if the coworkers lack the balls to make those comments to your face but simply criticize you behind your back and make things hard for you and give you more work and less support than others and ignore you and/or give you a hard time in a less obvious kind of way? Or they form a clique with you on the outside and that clique wields a political power and "pull" with management that you simply can't stand up to alone?

What would your reaction be if coworkers did this, not because you had autism per se (which the coworkers don't even really know) but simply as a political maneuver against someone who's different and vulnerable, in a sort of nondescript way?

Here, in the states, discriminating against someone because of autism would be illegal, but just bullying them and being jerks on general principal... is not. Even when it's blatant, and even when the management does it. Even when it's for no good reason. Even if someone lost their job because of it. And, while I agree it's unfair, you can't make people be perfectly nice to someone. Or perfectly fair.

I've run into a number of these situations at work, and I'm genuinely perplexed as to what to do. I could complain about "discrimination", but I imagine that would be very difficult to prove and even harder to prove in a case where the people involved didn't even know that I had autism. (Does the word "discrimination" even still apply in cases where people are being "mean" to you because you're different but they don't know that that difference is because of a protected class?) And still harder in a case where I'm not even sure that I have autism. Assuming I could even find a lawyer to take my case when it would probably cost more to prosecute the case than the settlement would be if I won.

Does "reasonable accomodation" (at work) include mandated social tolerance for someone who is a little bit different: not in a way that affects their ability to do their job, but strictly in a social capacity? And, if so, does this mandated tolerance extend to people who are different but do not have a specific "disability"? (For the less intelligent, the less skilled, the less attractive for example: unfair conditions which people are also 'born with"?) What, exactly, is the difference between forbidding discrimination against a vulnerable class (which I tend think is a good idea) and forbidding politics and/or power dynamics at all (which may be a bad and is almost certainly unenforceable)?

Where, exactly, do you draw the line between "this is an unacceptable way to treat someone because of some stupid, arbitrary difference"...and... "mean people happen, and life's unfair for everyone"? As much as I hate it, I'm tempted to believe the latter.

In a way, I almost envy the guy in the article. As unpleasant as discrimination is, at least he knows that he's being discriminated against, and knows why, for sure. I have to think that, as bad as his situation is, that that fact must be some small comfort, as opposed to not knowing.

If they started being awkward with me because of it, I would be obliged to say something.

Like by rights I should've reported that guy who called me an offensive word last year but was advised not to by me Dad.

 

[Mary Anne]

Ugh, this needs to reported as a "hate crime" IMO, contrary to popular belief, Autism IS a disability, therefore it should be covered under "hate crime" laws.

I am confused by your stance on it being a “disability, “ because many autistic activists disagree, and feel they are NOT disabled whatsoever but very “abled” (though in a different way). S Thus, the continual strong lack of cohesiveness of those within the spectrum hurts overall societal acceptance, and motivation for inclusion- inclusion within all realms of society, and the workforce.

Is the idea that we are “disabled and hindered,” or that we are uniquely but ablely different, and thus, should utilize our differences to challenge (and transcend) societal norms. As Autism becomes ever more prevalent in the world, in the future, we will not be “disabled,” and if we are strong and use our own abilities, will prevail and Grow our own ways of independence and self sufficiency. Many already do.

 

[Ylva]

(Does the word "discrimination" even still apply in cases where people are being "mean" to you because you're different but they don't know that that difference is because of a protected class?)

They know you are disabled if that's what they mock. If they give you a hard time about your jeans being untrendy, that's different than if they give you crap about your stims or your flinching or other expressions of being in pain or stressed out. There is no way they don't know, even if they can't name the specific disability.

 

[Mr Allen]

I am confused by your stance on it being a “disability, “ because many autistic activists disagree, and feel they are NOT disabled whatsoever but very “abled” (though in a different way). S Thus, the continual strong lack of cohesiveness of those within the spectrum hurts overall societal acceptance, and motivation for inclusion- inclusion within all realms of society, and the workforce.

Is the idea that we are “disabled and hindered,” or that we are uniquely but ablely different, and thus, should utilize our differences to challenge (and transcend) societal norms. As Autism becomes ever more prevalent in the world, in the future, we will not be “disabled,” and if we are strong and use our own abilities, will prevail and Grow our own ways of independence and self sufficiency. Many already do.

Autism is a mental health issue, therefore it is defined as a disability.

 

[Mary Anne]

Autism is a mental health issue, therefore it is defined as a disability.

Explain that to autism activists. Here is the thing, one can cave in and live life as a “disabled” person with all the baggage and stigma that brings with it. Or, they can ignore that is a “disability,” and live with all the “Abilities” they have.

This is why there are blind people climbing Mount Everest, Special Olympic Gold Medalists, legglass people playing basketball, and running marathons, and other with physical or neurological challenges who refuse to mire in “disability” - they look only at the positive attributes they have. They see life positively, and have only “abilities.”

 

[sidd851]

@Mary Anne,
"Is the idea that we are “disabled and hindered,” or that we are uniquely but ablely different, and thus, should utilize our differences to challenge (and transcend) societal norms."
The two are not mutually exclusive.
What of a wheelchair bound, paraplegic
genius that contributes immensely to society,
and the knowledge base thereof?
Is he/she:
A-- disabled,
OR
B-- a heavily contributing genius?

This type of thinking, that an individual cannot be granted protections, if B,
Or,
Cannot be a productive member of
society, if A,
serves to benefit no-one.
There are laws prohibiting discrimination
based upon religious belief, as if religious
preference cannot be changed. Those
laws allow the "religiously hindered" to
exist, perform, and excel within "normal"
society, contributing as they will, within the
confines of their belief system.
Those same laws prohibit discrimination
based upon physical deformity/handicap, allowing those individuals afflicted thusly
to also exist, perform, excel, and contribute within their abilities.
Imagine our above genius unable to
enter the local university because there are
no wheelchair ramps.
Religious preference, a mental construct
that shapes the way an individual can
contribute, or not, within society,
can be voluntarily changed, yet is protected.
I note that religious preference can be the
sole determiner as to whether one pays
certain taxes without compromising or
disqualifying one from religious protection.
Simply because I have hindrances, does not
mean that because I am a viable contributor,
I cannot be afforded protections, or, that because I have a few "superpowers", cannot be handicapped.
Skewing this entire mess of false
equivalency, is that any AS identified
individual may or may not be able to
qualify, quantify, nor even describe, what
constitutes discrimination or
persecution, and, in some cases, may
not even be aware of it's existence.

We become engineers because we can.
As a mathematician that cannot grasp
fundamental, whole number computing(2+2=3?)
will probably not succeed,
so too, a society that allows for:
fear+difference=persecution,
pain+anger=violence,
envy+want=theft,
or any number of "logical" emotional
responses, will not, ultimately, succeed.

That we are different in very complex ways
with unique talents and skills should not
disqualify us from protection from abuse,
mentally, physically, or materially,
even though those differences are
sometimes not well defined, and are oft-
times radically varied, and even dis-similar
from case to case.

It seems to me that a fundamental societal change is needed.
Asking for individual protections is not
counter-productive to that goal.

That society at large is unable to
conceive of, let alone maintain, such strings
of complex thought and understanding,
doesn't desire to, does not justify the
degradation of those that can, albeit at great
personal cost, i.e. existing within a society that wants to be ruled by emotion as
opposed to logic.
Reap the benefits; pass, on the bill.
Our quandary is not "A or B", it is
"Quid Pro Quo?".

 

[Mr Allen]

Explain that to autism activists. Here is the thing, one can cave in and live life as a “disabled” person with all the baggage and stigma that brings with it. Or, they can ignore that is a “disability,” and live with all the “Abilities” they have.

This is why there are blind people climbing Mount Everest, Special Olympic Gold Medalists, legglass people playing basketball, and running marathons, and other with physical or neurological challenges who refuse to mire in “disability” - they look only at the positive attributes they have. They see life positively, and have only “abilities.”

I used to go on Adventure Holidays with Wheelchair bound guys with no legs a LONG time ago, they used to do stuff like Rock climbing with NO problems.

Whereas I was scared witless at the sheer concept of it

I also have great respect for Paralympians, they're literally a LOT more disabled than I am and do stuff I could never do like play football, Basketball etc.

 

[MoparThunder]

I'm 23 and have never told an employee of it for this very reason, i prefer to just slip under the radar, if they or any coworkers figure it out, they can think what they like, but i have yet to hear anyone mention it to me.

 

[Mary Anne]

I used to go on Adventure Holidays with Wheelchair bound guys with no legs a LONG time ago, they used to do stuff like Rock climbing with NO problems.

Whereas I was scared witless at the sheer concept of it

I also have great respect for Paralympians, they're literally a LOT more disabled than I am and do stuff I could never do like play football, Basketball etc.

Maybe stop continually posting in these threads that you are “disabled.” Start telling yourself only positive things. Keep practicing telling yourself all the the things you CAN do, and do not allow all the things you “can’t do” to control your mind. Soon - after practicing long enough- you will exude a “can do” successful positive persona that potential employers will pick up on. That’s when you will be hired. And be able to KEEP the job once hired.