The War on Autism is now a Crusade: Autism Speaks Doubles Down on Combative Language

 The idea of combative language is nothing new; I myself wrote a blog post three years ago decrying its use by most in the Autism Community (But not the Autistic Community. Big difference there.) In summary, I demonstrated that the use of those combative terms suggested that the people using thought that the autism was some external invader rather than a descriptor of what kind of person the autist actually is. But the war metaphor goes deeper than that.

When a person takes into account the major “combatant” in this war, Autism Speaks, and looks at their fund distribution, it really is apparent that they truly do seek to wage war on us. Most of their funds go to advertising. Propaganda at its finest.

They use divide et impera techniques by perpetrating the idea of functioning labels, trying to divide autists into two camps that they might fight each other rather than their true enemy. Using the innate desire for acceptance all humans have, they label the ones who can appear to not be autistic (regardless of what actual issues they face) as “high functioning” and place them on a pedestal, showing how these pillars of autism are almost human in their eyes. They may even employ a few in token positions to make it appear as if they want to help. They could never be a general or commander, though, that would be too much! They should just be happy to be a foot soldier fighting against their fellow autists, and that the gracious Autism Speaks even gave them a gun!

If anyone seeks to call them out on their war, however, they remove the pedestal from below us and use it as a cudgel instead, claiming that they're not really talking about that kind of autist, just the “low functioning” ones that “can't speak for themselves” (Though a great many autists incapable of vocalized speech do quite well using the written word.) However, this division is only made when an autist calls them out. Otherwise, their propaganda is quite happy to include us among the numbers of the growing autistic menace.

Their pieces are “calls to action,” reminding people of the burden we autistic people are to the world, and how much happier the place would be if only we were gone. “I am Autism” painted our neurotype as an enemy, in no uncertain terms declaring war on the way we are. Make no mistake, they want us gone. They just can't say it outright.

Even the fundraising walks themselves are oddly reminiscent of military marches; watching people walk along the streets, to both gain recruits and monetary funds for an organization that uses combative language against us scares me quite deeply.

Then there are the executive salaries. After all, you have to make sure your generals and commanders are well-fed, right? To them, funding the war effort is more important than helping autistic people, and it shows in their fund distributions. Only 4% of their funds go to actual autism services. This is a token effort, done only to create the facade of helping.

Then there is the research they fund, most if not all of which is funding ways for prenatal screening and early detection. They want to find us before we are born or at the very least when we're too young to be a viable threat to their rhetoric. Less soldiers that can join the opposition. And if they can brainwash a few of us to join their side, so much the better. And what better ways to brainwash than conversion therapies such as ABA and outright torture at the Judge Rotenberg Center, both of which the organization happily endorses.

But now, they have once again shown their battle fatigues in a recent “Heroes Among us” article from People Magazine featuring the founding members, Susanne and Bob Wright as the titular heroes. The cover title is “Crusading against Autism.” They're outright using combative language again. They've upgraded it from a simple war to a crusade, even! Now not only are they fighting us, they are showing that they believe their fight is righteous and holy and heroic! They have not backed down from combative language now, but have doubled down. Their actions and fund distribution are warlike. It's time to Boycott Autism Speaks.

I have drafted a petition to People Magazine asking them to publicly apologize for and retract the article. I hope you will sign it.

https://www.change.org/p/people-magazine-issue-a-public-apology-for-and-official-retraction-of-your-heroes-among-us-article-on-the-wrights-of-autism-speaks

Unity in the Autism Community

The entire controversy over Curtis Jackson's remarks seems to have brought an interesting facet to my understanding of the autism community: When faced with a common enemy and a common goal, they were able to set aside the differences they had with each other and unite to accomplish their intended goal. This posed the question to me: How, then, can we retain this unity and move forward to have common goals accomplished?

Having talked to a close friend of mine, we pondered the situation together and came up with a rule of thumb for a common goal: The common goal should not benefit one facet of the community, but the community as a whole. Extended, an ideal goal, for universal support, should have a way of benefiting all of humanity.

Therefore, this means that anything there is a massive divide over, no matter how important advocates of each party believe it is, should be shelved in favor of the common goal that benefits all. Ideally, if said partisan goal is a means to a universal end, there should be deliberation given towards how to approach that end universally as far as can be done before partisan debates are needed.

Clearly, the universal goal everyone involved with autism seeks is for the children to lead a better life. However, not all sides agree on how the better life is to be achieved. The neurodiversity advocates argue for autism to be seen as a differing mindset to be accommodated to by the community, and the biomedical advocates argue for autism to be seen as a disorder to be treated. However, I think, with a slight amount of compromise, there can be a common goal to be found.

I believe that common goal is to see autism as something to not be afraid of or feel hatred towards. It is something to be looked at and handled on the individual level. Some will choose to alter themselves or their children with drugs and other means, some will choose to keep their autism close to their heart and live with both its benefits and its drawbacks.

The compromise, however, is that the neurodiversity advocates must take a step back and allow the biomeds to do what they feel is needed to help their kids live a better life, and the biomeds must speak out when rhetoric of autism is fearmongering and combative. We cannot be using “war on autism” or call it a “emergency” or “national crisis” when the rates go up. We cannot see these children as an enemy to be fought, or the part of them that is autistic as something that needs to go away. If we're to fight for a better future for these kids, let's do it together, not as enemies. The world is tough enough on them as it is without people claiming to speak on their behalf fighting each other.

War on Autism?

Being an advocate for autism I find myself perusing a great deal of message boards and websites in general to get some idea of the zeitgeist surrounding the condition. What saddens me even more than the stories of children having to cope with the social isolation more often than not inflicted by their fellow children which society deems “innocent” and “precious” is the attitude most adults have towards autism and the wording they use for their struggles with it.

Too often the words “cure”, “defeat” and “fight” are used in terms of helping children with autism. While I am sure most of these parents and other adults mean well and only want the best for these children, the usage of these words tends to betray the stigmatization that autism has. By using these terms, there is the connotation that autism is a curable ailment, something that needs to be removed much like polio, smallpox or leprosy. Autism is more than a set of symptoms: it is an entirely different way of viewing the world. Perhaps it is a bit in the way of hyperbole, but when I hear people talking about fighting autism I cannot help but think of intolerance in the past.

For example, take the word sinister: Most people connote the term as meaning evil, untrustworthy and conniving, and due to the way language evolves, that has become the accepted meaning; however, the etymology of the word is a translation of “left-handed.” During the Middle Ages, people actually believed that being left-handed was a sign of demonic possession, something to be exorcised and cured. Even in my lifetime, being both left-handed and autistic, the schools attempted to drive traits of both from me; however, thankfully they did not believe me to be possessed by demons.

I have a feeling much is left to be done in the way of autism advocacy: I want society to eventually learn to have both parties come together in the middle, to accept the benefits autism has and cope with the drawbacks. But so long as words that divide the autists from the neurotypicals are used, words that imply autism is only bad and has nothing good to offer, that day will likely creep further and further away.

Some of you are probably asking, “Cisco, How do I indicate I want to help the autistic people I know while fostering a bridge between the two?” Well, the wording can change while keeping the intent; instead of cure, help can be used; instead of defeating or fighting autism, integrating and supporting could transmit the proper intentions. I, for one, fight for the integration of autists and do what I can to support the autists I know; what we need to defeat is not autism, but ignorance.