The Audacious Aspie Goes Shopping For An Identity

     Today on the Audacious Aspie, we will be looking at labels. No, not labels like what’s on food packages or instruction manuals (will, entirely anyways) but labels society has placed on us, making it easier to “identify” us, “characterize” us and how long till we expire (you know ,world, some people consider us a delicacy! Uh...so I’ve heard). But what exactly are the labels? Let's find out.  

 

     Ever feel like the word autism is used to label a person, supposedly describing their likes, dislikes and everything in between. A two dimensional description of a person like the word gay was, and perhaps still is? The blog “Autistic not weird” knows it, noting that for some people, the word “autistic” is a valid description, ready made to slap on any child or adult (figuratively, not literally. I know how much we take some things literally so please don't think that people are printing of sheets that say “autism”, sticking tape on the back and slapping them on random people. And please, PLEASE don't slap them if you think they are. It’s just an ugly circle).

 

Like this burning ring of fire, a slap will only lead to another slap, then another, until the whole world is slapping each other. Oh the humanity!

 

     Once deemed autistic, those slapped (figuratively) are deemed a two dimensional person with nothing else about them mattering. Now, I have heard, and the blog states, that the whole “labels/descriptive/adjective” debate can be a touchy subject for some. So, for the record, I have not, to my knowledge, faced this kind of situation before, I will stick to do what I started this blog for: Witty takes on a serious subject to not only start discussion, but to lighten people's days and bring to light some matters of the topic at hand. So please don't use this as an excuse to start an internet war with random strangers. That’s what Donald Trump is for (both for being the topic of and starting said wars) In short, to reference the movie “The Emperor's New Groove”, don’t throw off the emperors’ groves’.

 

     So, in that light, let us go to the meat of the blog which, the author states, is to describe the arguments for and against using the terms in the author's list. First couple on the list are “mild’, ‘moderate’ and ‘severe’ autism” (item number 5 on list). Why should we keep using the above labels: the author notes that the public don't exactly see autism as a diverse phrase, both one who is able to walk and talk like everyone else, and one needs assistance in those regards.

 

     It’s like a bunch of cats/dogs in a youtube video: if you're told only that they are all cute (and come on, only a heartless monster would think otherwise), you would want to bring them all back to your home, regardless of whether or not you have the cash, equipment or room for them any ways. As The Donald and his sons actions portray: “Thinking ahead is for losers!”.

 

See that chess piece right there? That represents people who stop and think, even for a second, before they do stuff. Its sad, really, really sad, the best people tell me this.

 

     But what if that person told you that some are wild animals? Some have lost limbs due to complications at birth or accidents? Some have been abused? Will, that would certainly make you stop and think. It's the same for autism, the labels help which persons needs how much care and resources. Stops it from becoming a one-program-fits-all kind of thing, which if you bought a shirt or hat recently with said marketing scheme, you know it's a lie.

 

     The case against: Mr. Speaker! You can't have mild autism Anymore than you can have a mild broken rib cage, a mild hurt ego or a mild loud, annoying voice! This IS my indoor voice! For those who believe that autism is a large part of their personality, calling them, or someone, mildly autistic is like saying they are mildly human.

 

     Hooh boy, feels like we are only going deeper and deeper into this raging sea of rage, strong feelings and the use of WMD’s: Words of Mass Destruction on the internet (maybe Dubya should have gone looking for those instead of bombs, I'm sure he would have found a lot even during his presidency). The author notes that, from what he noticed, this debate on being polite often ends being impolite. I can only imagine what that must be like.

 

loveislove69: we should use “person with autism” because a person is a person, regardless of what they may or may-not be or have.

 

Feelgoodtrain1: but if you say “person with autism”, your disassociating them from their autism! What does that mean? It means that the persons who says it thinks autism is bad!

 

Loveislove69: So you would call a person with a broken bone a broken-boned person would you? Or a persons who is racist a racist...okay forget that one.

 

Feelgoodtrain1: no because we know that a broken bone is bad thing to have, hence the term “persons with a broken bone”. That's why we put the broken bone bit after the persons, whereas autism should be made a part of the person. Idiot.

 

Loveislove69: no, your an idiot!

 

Feelgoodtrain1: no, you are!

 

Loveislove69: go crawl in a hole and die.

 

Feelgoodtrain1: how dare you! You take that back!

 

Randomperson1000: what are you to arguing about?

 

Feelgoodtrain1: how to be polite!

 

Loveislove69: how to be polite!

 

Randomperson1000: ...oh.

 

     Okay, there would be a lot more spelling mistakes, like a bunch of kids took over and just typed the words however they sounded like, and that random person might be “that guy” and join in the conversation like he knows anything about it, but only ends up making him look like an idiot. And like a true idiot, he does not realize how dumb he's making himself look, but just keeps on going. You get the idea.

 

This is the guy. Don’t be this guy. See this guy? Don’t be him. Be anyone but him. Even if you're female, don’t be this guy.

 

     But what about this: maybe we should have no labels at all! Sounds crazy right? Will those at THE NEW YORKER (all caps are theirs, not mine. You’d think for a newspaper that they would know proper spelling) probably thought so as will, until they heard of a psychologist Enrico Gnaulati, who believes that the increase in children being diagnosed with things A.D.H.D or autism has less to do with the outside world (i.e. too much coffee, not enough sleep or babysitters who do not speak the families language. OR caffeine fueled, sleep deprived babysitters who do not speak the families language, causing delayed language skills) and more with systemic issues like doctors who are given a financial “incentive” and access to special education which, as I have been told by my parents, earn the schools who are lucky enough to have special needs children extra money.

 

     We are seen more as walking cash cows than human beings is what Gnaulati is afraid of, he even came up with a term for it: “Dragnet diagnosis” (paragraph 3). And who are his victims of choice put in the interrogation room? Schools, represented by teachers, and even clinicians. You might have heard of the school's bit, how children are forced to sit still for hours on end and put under academic pressure to boost the almighty test scores. But what about Clinicians?

     Will, according to Gnaulati, clinicians are given “little time for extensive assessments” (paragraph 4), they are, at times, more inclined to prescibe drugs and/or diagnos (you could say they...prescribe diagnosis! Eh? Eh? Poor joke okay moving on). The New Yorker sees financial incentives as plaguing the land of disabilities like a shadow encompassing everything in its path (or a green, noxious gas poisoning the very air. Or a rainbow bridge leading an army of angry leprechauns sent to punish the wicked #alludingtoamericanandcanadianmoney).

 

They may look professional and positive, but some are forces for evil and willing victims of bribery! Oops, not this one. She’s one of the good ones (and yes, I mean she).  

 

     This shadow (or gas, or army of leprechauns) could lead to more labelling, noting a doctor who has called for a wider definition of bipolar disorder, receiving a large payments from pharmaceutical companies (you know, hardly enough to sway his opinion). Likely contributing to increasing rates of diagnosis and greater use of drugs, with cautionary side effects.

 

     Not only do financial incentives murky the water for diagnosis, but so can services, as someone who was interviewed by The New Yorker states: “children that don't need services, don't need labels” (paragraph 5). Gnaulati adds that, quite often, children need a diagnosis to get any support at all, education or other wise. The label is not so much a label, more like a food stamp of sorts. To read the rest of the source, copy and paste the link.

 

     Will, this has been an interesting topic for the blog. We have gone into territory I never thought we would go. Quite the pair of adventurers we are! We did not lose anyone on the way here, did we? I'm sure they’re fine. In anycase, this has been The Audacious Aspie, signing off to gather a rescue party.

 

This is me, getting ready to go save the others who are lost. Defintily not to go and hunt them down, one by one, catching and eating them. Nope.

 

 

Sources used:

http://autisticnotweird.com/labels/       

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-no-label-movement