I watch this and realize that I don’t know a thing about autism…
Campaigners in the UK fear that new legislation may result in the erosion of rights of people with learning disabilities, autism and dementia, as it may take away many of their rights to make decisions for themselves, including how and where they are cared for.
This would be outrageous.
It makes me recall one case in which someone was moved 200 miles (off the top of my head, because the person turned 18) and the parents successfully took a human rights approach to reverse that. That is only one example of what could go wrong.
Legislation drawn up for the right reasons but drawn up badly can do a lot of harm.
I asked her if she would like it if I referred to her as a person living with femaleism. She said, "But being female is not a condition". Is she implying that her femaleism was a choice?
— Henny Kupferstein (@HennyKtweets) September 2, 2018
… playing with autism
See also this post, about tasering of patients.
And this gives even more food for thought:
The stereotypes of autistic people perpetuate a myth that they are socially inept. Yet non-autistics, also known as neurotypicals, portray ineptitudes on the basis of their susceptibility to body language, communication, and perceptual manipulations. How we learn these signals opens the debate for nature versus nurture, and the acquisition of social skill aptitude. Who is more socially equipped? The one who is capable of surrounding himself with pretentious body language, or the one who is mindful of her full spectrum of awareness? A neurotypical who communicates with learned body gestures is currently considered evolved, while the acquisition of those skills are a direct result of the inability to survive otherwise. The autistic who remains authentic in order to adapt to the current environment is potentially most equipped to function in society.
The cycle of life requires attracting a mate, reproduction, and adaptations for exploitation to those who threaten…
View original post 1,590 more words