TLDR: We can accommodate behavioural and neurological diversity, I just don't think you've picked the right horse to win the race.
Hehehehe. Ruffled feathers. You can tag me into rebuttals if you want. I don't mind being called out in person - I think it's a good thing. In case you're struggling to work out the social cues (which you might) I can state categorically that you're never going to get an angry response from me just because you disagree with things I've written. I am an argumentative person but so are you - and that's great, society needs this sort of thing. People need to see why two grown-ass adults disagree on things as important as this but can still have a discussion about it.
Now to business.
On this occasion I see your points and broadly we agree on the end point but not the mode of travel. I think anyone who needs help should be getting it. That's not quite the same thing as approving the message that everyone can identify as 'neurodivergent' if they want.
That is specifically what I'm railing against.
I rail against most identity based arguments because I think they're inherently flawed. What will be created is a competitive market of people all co-opting things to their own social advantage (probably via monetised content) - leaving people like yourself in a worse position in the long run. Let us presume for example everyone could label themselves as 'disabled' whether they're paraplegic or have an ingrown toenail. Linguistically speaking, both are correct and both are 'disabled', but we both know this is a nonsense - and if people with ingrown toenails can access disabled toilets, disabled parking spaces and benefits on the basis of self-identification then you've disadvantaged an already very marginalised group. When we allow everyone to self-identify as neurodivergent with whatever traits they believe fit some internal diagnostic criteria the same thing will happen, indeed I'd argue it's happening a lot already. We're diluting the meaning of words.
So my feather-ruffling was never aimed at autistic people, it was never aimed at people who are struggling with their mental health. My feather ruffling was aimed at a social system which will disadvantage them - ie, identity based arguments. The problem inherent with these movements is one simple question, who gets to speak? Why should I believe your story and struggle over someone who had autism briefly in their teens but was able to overcome it with reiki? Is it because you're speaking more 'truth' than the other person? How do I know that? If autistic traits can be defined by whoever holds the microphone then don't we have to be careful who holds the microphone? Isn't that in your interests? Isn't that a way of protecting people like you? This has always been the danger of individual identity movements and others don't seem to see it because they're too busy defining why they as an individual should be the voice of their particular identity group. Who becomes the spokesperson for de-pathologising and how do we stop that becoming a contradictory bunfight?
Spoiler: I don't think we can.
The correct answer (in my feathered opinion) is socialism. You need to provide more money to medical practitioners and social groups through taxes so they are able to diagnose people correctly at an earlier point. This needs to be followed with more educational support, better social provision and clubs. Wider workplace training training about autism in women. More consultants paid to inform managers about how to make 'reasonable adjustments' in the workplace to allow people to work in ways that suit them (we have that legislation here in the UK under the 2010 Equality Act) Better access to services and better mental health facilities to deal with people in crisis. This can only really be achieved by the redistribution of wealth into frontline services via taxation- something which seems so unpopular in the US that I may as well suggest going door-to-door and murdering your pets
Do I think you have a part to play in this? I sure do. Tell your story about being an undiagnosed autistic woman - it's a cacophony of errors and there's learning there - but let's find a way to embed the learning in a structured way that is valuable - let's not get you drowned out by someone with the neurodivergent equivalent of an ingrown toenail. The lessons are too important to learn. You've said 'stop trying to define us, and allow us to define ourselves and narrate our own experiences' - you haven't defined the 'us' you're talking about and I think that's dangerous and will disadvantage you and people like you in the long run - I don't want that to happen.
Until the next time Ms Rice, this has been pleasure. :o)
