Well said, except that 'autism' was already very widely used to describe the whole autistic spectrum, well before DSM-5. The specific subcategory you seem to be referring to here was officially 'Autistic Disorder' in DSM-IV, not 'autism'. It's true that the word 'autism' was sometimes used in this way, but it also has a long, long history of broader use (even though Wikipedia, bafflingly, went on using it to specifically mean what's sometimes called 'Kanner autism' or 'classic autism' until just a year or two back). Asperger, for example, referred to the kids he saw as 'autistic' (or 'autistisch', anyway)!
Yes, thank you! I was referring to "autistic disorder." Note to self, never rely on memory.
Did not know that about Hans Asperger!
At the time, I was starting to use "autism" in the broad sense myself. However, I thought that most non-autistic people who heard the word "autistic" imagined someone with autistic disorder and/or Kanner's autism.
Yeah, it's certainly true that most people thought of that when they heard the term until relatively - it definitely wasn't universal though! Asperger's was very often referred to as 'a form of autism'.
How sad RFKjr a man in a position to perpetrate a definition that is inaccurate for a very large group of citizens- the DSM a tool of control that is used to create policy that can help or deter the integration of the autistic into society. Please write more re autistic/Asperger’s lobby so your readers can support accurate science.
Sad -- for a government loudly supported by people who believe individual rights should apply to foetuses from conception, they clearly have no right to participate in any conversation about preventing people from being born for any reason. The extreme hypocrisy of those who oppose family planning and yet support eugenics is so obvious.
I also don’t see any consistency between supporting individualism and capitalism, and claiming to be concerned about children (unborn or born). If someone wants a say in whether a mother carries a child to term, then don’t leave that mother or any potential future children to fend for themselves under an individualistic/capitalist society.
It is so clear that all they want is control, and they don’t have any concern for life at all.
I agree, if human life is sacred, that includes all humans, with and without disabilities.
To my knowledge, some "pro-life" people choose to raise children with Down Syndrome, for that reason.
I also think, to the extent a culture cares about child-raising, it should support children and their parents.
People disagree on how to support families, because they disagree on political philosophy and on beliefs about how human behavior and the economy work. But that's where the debate should start.
Well said, except that 'autism' was already very widely used to describe the whole autistic spectrum, well before DSM-5. The specific subcategory you seem to be referring to here was officially 'Autistic Disorder' in DSM-IV, not 'autism'. It's true that the word 'autism' was sometimes used in this way, but it also has a long, long history of broader use (even though Wikipedia, bafflingly, went on using it to specifically mean what's sometimes called 'Kanner autism' or 'classic autism' until just a year or two back). Asperger, for example, referred to the kids he saw as 'autistic' (or 'autistisch', anyway)!
Yes, thank you! I was referring to "autistic disorder." Note to self, never rely on memory.
Did not know that about Hans Asperger!
At the time, I was starting to use "autism" in the broad sense myself. However, I thought that most non-autistic people who heard the word "autistic" imagined someone with autistic disorder and/or Kanner's autism.
Yeah, it's certainly true that most people thought of that when they heard the term until relatively - it definitely wasn't universal though! Asperger's was very often referred to as 'a form of autism'.
How sad RFKjr a man in a position to perpetrate a definition that is inaccurate for a very large group of citizens- the DSM a tool of control that is used to create policy that can help or deter the integration of the autistic into society. Please write more re autistic/Asperger’s lobby so your readers can support accurate science.
Sad -- for a government loudly supported by people who believe individual rights should apply to foetuses from conception, they clearly have no right to participate in any conversation about preventing people from being born for any reason. The extreme hypocrisy of those who oppose family planning and yet support eugenics is so obvious.
I also don’t see any consistency between supporting individualism and capitalism, and claiming to be concerned about children (unborn or born). If someone wants a say in whether a mother carries a child to term, then don’t leave that mother or any potential future children to fend for themselves under an individualistic/capitalist society.
It is so clear that all they want is control, and they don’t have any concern for life at all.
I agree, if human life is sacred, that includes all humans, with and without disabilities.
To my knowledge, some "pro-life" people choose to raise children with Down Syndrome, for that reason.
I also think, to the extent a culture cares about child-raising, it should support children and their parents.
People disagree on how to support families, because they disagree on political philosophy and on beliefs about how human behavior and the economy work. But that's where the debate should start.