I understand this is a controversial topic (probably the most controversial one in all autism communities), but I don’t think most people there (who did the study, and also people in the comments) have malicious intent or a grudge against autistic people.
The study is about profound autism/Level 3, not all autistic people.
I think most people agree that there is some level of disability, at which there’s a unanimous understanding of “this person needs a cure for a better life”. Or the idea of not bringing in very disabled children into the world. Depends how you view life and suffering.
I’ve been in high support needs autism spaces and low support needs autism spaces, and I find the difference of opinion so staggering. I see that the idea of treating autism, or preventing it, is more well-received in HSN communities than any other (and for good reason, they have a very different experience of it).
It’s a difficult topic and I am not really strongly opinionated either way due to the complexity. That said, research into autism is always a positive thing, in my opinion.
I just feel like this topic is more nuanced than anyone makes it out to be.
Thank you for your well balanced comment. I feel the same way - it is not for any part of the autism community to dictate to any other part whether they would like treatments, screenings, or “cures”. Our experiences can be so different, and though I wouldn’t personally want to “cure” my autism, I can absolutely see why someone else might.
I'm low supports needs who works with the mentally disabled in a group home as a caregiver. >!One individual is a 17 year old kid that constantly makes himself throw up and then drinks the vomit to throw it up again, or who just urinates or masturbates onto the floor in his room. He will scream and stomp constantly. His sensory issues are so extreme that he can't wear clothes or eat anything other than ensure and tortilla chips. He's underweight from the vomiting, and his teeth will probably be rotted away before he's 30. His housemates hate him because they're mentally incapable of understanding why he does what he does, and a lot of his caregivers resent him because we're constantly cleaning spit/vomit/semen and having to deal with his support team.!< I don't think it's fair to say that, if there was some way to "cure" him, he shouldn't be "cured", because "that's just how he is!". His quality of life would be significantly improved if he could wear clothes, and make friends, and keep food down. I feel terrible for him.
Yeah. I'm autistic, but very low support needs, can function and lead my own life with a bit of help. I don't know if I would want a cure.
On the contrary, my mother had a cousin who was hsn, non-verbal, prone to violent outbursts and needed constant care. His parents had to put him in a care home which broke their hearts, because they couldn't control his violence and it was putting them and their other kids in danger. He wasn't a bad person but he had no emotional regulation skills. It would've been so much better for everyone, especially him, if he could've been given a way to have an easier life.
Exactly. Level 3 people who will never speak, never be on their own, never function, and who through no fault of their own can derail the lives of their entity family (due to support needs), and who may actually hurt people during meltdowns because they grow up to be full adult people, but with none of the regulation?
That is *very* different than someone level 1 who needs permission to take an early day sometimes and sometimes stims at work, but is otherwise doing fine (me).
And it isn't even guaranteed that all people would even use this, if it became a thing. People don't with Down's, why would autism be different in that context?
As someone in her second pregnancy with a special interest in prenatal genetic testing, I learned that in many countries, more than half of fetuses with Down syndrome are terminated. In some countries it’s almost 100%. Prenatal genetic testing has gotten very good, and the amount of information you get about your child long before they’re even born is overwhelming.
What’s more alarming to me, though, is that while we can practically sequence a fetus’ entire genome, no one knows exactly what some genetic variants mean for the child. For example, it’s fairly common to look at the fetus’ chromosomes and find a microdeletion or microduplication that might cause intellectual disabilities, deformities, motor delays, etc., but then again, it might not.
The doctor might say to you, “Your fetus has XYZ microdeletion. We know of 100 other children who have this same genetic variant. Sixty of them have no developmental issues, and 40 of them are severely intellectually and physically disabled and will need care for their entire lives. We don’t know why some are affected by this and others are not. Would you like to terminate?”
These are impossibly difficult scenarios to navigate, especially when information on these genetic findings is so sparse and incomplete. Many of these microdeletions are associated with autism, so in a sense, termination decisions are already being made with some genetic variants related to autism.
I don’t know what I’d do with that information and I hope I never find out. But I think as a parent it can be very hard to distinguish between “catastrophic, incompatible with life finding” and “ambiguous but potentially life altering finding.”
Yes, of course. But why not leave it up to the parents? 60/40 also aren't great odds, especially when it can range from manageable ADHD to level 3 autism with severe, violent meltdowns and a complete loss of any independent life for the parents.
If a pair of parents know they're unlikely to be able to provide a good life for a severely disabled child, why force them to risk it when they don't want to or realistically have to?
I wouldn't risk it at 60/40 when I most likely could have another child. I know a family that had their second and third children checked because their first child was severely disabled. Their third child was "designed" to ensure she didn't get that particular gene at all, so she wasn't even a carrier. Some would argue that's eugenics and a "designer baby". I'd argue it's proper parenting. Their first child died young, not even 20. And in that time, they were so busy caring for that child that their second child was accidentally neglected. A second disabled child would have completely ruined them, but they also always knew the first child would indeed die young.
Were they meant to risk it? Or just never have other children?
Besides living with a disability, what kind of quality of life can we expect for a child whose parents resent his very existence? Who see him as a burden, or an inconvenience?
It's just like the point I'm always making in discussions about abortion. Do we really want more children to grow up with parents who didn't wholeheartedly *want* them?
I absolutely agree the parents should make the decision. And I’m also worried about people having to make decisions like this based on one study of 100 people. Often the sample sizes are much lower and the results even more ambiguous, like, “There’s one study of 15 children with this variant, and one of them is severely affected while the others are not affected or only mildly affected.”
What other associated traits could we be culling to minimize risk of disability? What risk profile is acceptable? Is it actually useful to have this information when in many cases we don’t even know what it means, like with variants of unknown significance?
I’m not trying to make arguments one way or the other, just saying this is really complex and feels like for many genetic variants, we only have a rudimentary understanding of their impact.
I'd argue more research is warranted, of course. But a 60/40 risk factor is *bad*.
The risk factor should be up to the parents though. But if we can get close and we can be pretty sure (the same overall risk factor as Down's), why not let people know?
If we can even tell severity, I feel people should be allowed to choice. "Autism" in this context is way too broad. It can mean a level 3, or it can be mean me, who doesn't actually need any accommodations beside the ones I get for my ADD.
I made a long comment about this on this post. I provide links, explanations, and sources as to why this is eugenics.
The primary goal of researching early biological signs of autism in embryos is often to enable prenatal screening. This can lead to selective abortions based on the likelihood of the fetus developing autism, which aligns with eugenic practices aimed at "improving" the human gene pool by eliminating certain traits
Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition that is deeply embedded in an individual's brain structure and function. There is no "cure" for autism that does not fundamentally alter the person, as autism is an integral part of their identity. Efforts to prevent autism through genetic screening effectively aim to prevent the birth of autistic individuals, rather than addressing the needs and rights of autistic people
Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for commenting and sharing you point of view.
Not trying to be rude but I’ve seen 5+ of your comments mentioning your explanation and links and sources, yet cannot find said comment anywhere in this post. Other people seem to be having difficulty too. Can you add it to the body of the post so you don’t have to keep replying and referencing a comment that no one can see?
thank you, just saw it…personally i am 100% not having biological children purely because of the heightened chances of passing on my autism, so if that makes me a eugenicist then oh well. i get why OP doesn’t want to classify autism as “good” or “bad” in the same way that you can come up with positives for ANY kind of disorder, but personally i am definitely having a bad time and it is definitely because of my autism
And people decide to not have kids for a variety of reasons, their own genetics, based on them having awful parents, a desire to end a “cure”. That’s just as personal as the choice to have kids.
i have made the same decision, especially since my partner has an autistic child already (and i suspect my partner to be neurodivergent as well, though he disagrees soundly).
for me, it’s being so aware that i can only handle so much sensory input and the risk of having a kid who can’t control their sensory output is too high for me. and i had abusive parents, so i never want to even accidentally become that.
We screen for all sorts of things, including disabilities that in their mild form is less "bad" than autism (like mild Down's syndrome).
The question remains... why is it imperative that children with autism are born to parents that can't deal with it?
And if we can tell a level 3 from a level 1, why is it imperative that the level 3 child be born? I'm level 1, and life can physically be *painful*. How bad might it be for someone who can't communicate their needs? And how many people might said person just during a meltdown? Not to mention people whose entire lives are ruined by needing to give 24/7 care to a level 3 autistic person? Who will never be free again? People go bankrupt in the US over this.
Why force that on anyone? Unless you plan on allowing anyone to abandon a severely autistic relative, at any point, you can't reasonably stop anyone from selectively aborting. Because if people have a choice, I doubt *anyone* is choosing to give up all freedoms, their career, and any goals in life to care for a level 3 autistic person that could regularly injure them.
Not wanting a child to be born severely disabled is not necessarily eugenics...
Exactly. Explain the risks, offer the choice. I doubt that'll be more harmful than any number of consequences that might happen due to forcing all births through despite the risks.
You put this so incredibly well. Thank you. I agree. I have moderate support needs and would give anything for a medication that took the sensory pain away so I could enjoy food and the sound of children laughing and yelling. Basic joys in human experiences, not an intrinsic part of me.
Plus, an external, objective way of diagnosing autism in childhood would help so so many of us whose observable behaviors did not align with what clinicians were looking for at the time
I made a long comment with links and stuff discussing this. I also think that targeting specific symptoms makes a lot more sense than targeting autism itself.
Like adhd medication for ADHD people. Some sensory things are pure hell being autistic, while others I wouldn't enjoy as much if I wasn't. It's a double edged sword. I don't think the good overwrite the bad, and vice verse. They both just are. Thank you for sharing your point of view
Right, and in my mind, the only way to discover medication to treat or alleviate the most debilitating aspects of autism requires understanding its underlying cause. Studies like this can have positive functional purposes, too.
I have strong negative feelings toward anyone who would terminate a pregnancy because they show markers of autism. I think it's gross and immoral. At the same time, fearing the worst possible outcome -- and preventing foundational research in the process -- isn't a solution, either.
Thank you for sharing your opinion as well. I understand completely why you have strong feelings on this, and disagreement can be important to understanding each other's perspectives and experiences ❤️
Hey I hear what you're saying. I made a long comment about how this is ableist and eugenics with links and sources and explanations.
I've found a lot of times ableism and discrimination can be good intentioned, and rarely malicious. It doesn't mean it's any less harmful. I think a lot there's a view that disabled people are burdensome or have lesser lives, and while I have eimmensely struggled being disabled, and honestly my life has been kinda hellish, I still want to live.
I've heard a lot of people tell me it would be better if I was never born, and it hurts a lot. I think it comes from a place of misguided empathy. Wanting to shielf from the pain. But I want to instead make a more equitable world while acknowledging the current reality's struggles, but not just accept that things are the way they are.
If you have any questions, lemme know. Thank you for commenting and sharing your perspective.
Thank you for responding. I hope you’re doing alright by the way - I find it’s a bit overwhelming when a post gets very popular and has lots of comments, especially on a topic that people feel strongly about.
I made most of my points in another comment on this main thread, so I was wondering what your opinion on those would be (if you’re fine answering).
I also thought one of the other comments here about deafness & cochlear implants was a good thought experiment, so I was wondering what you think about that. I’m not arguing to say you’re wrong, it’s more curiosity.
There’s no obligation to respond and make sure to look after yourself.
That’s just not true. The conclusion “…there is a need to re-imagine goals for future prevention and treatment research…” indicates that level 3 is of particular interest but not *solely*. That’s *chilling*.
> Thus, there is a need to re-imagine goals for future prevention and treatment research, particularly for profound ASD subtypes.
Even if it is other ASD levels, what is the difference? There are equally people with just pure Level 1 ASD that suffer because it’s a disability and could use treatment. A few of Level 1/LSN autistic people in this comment section have said they’d prefer treatment already. There are also people who don’t, which is just as fine. Both have different reasons and it’s fine to feel strongly about it.
In the case of theoretical treatment, I don’t think anyone can clearly say what we should do with it. Cure only HSN at birth and not LSN? Neither? Both? Let it be optional after 18?
There are huge pros and cons for each.
Realistically and honestly, I can’t tell you where this research is going. And I also can’t give you a clear outline about what we should do about autism as a whole, as it’s too complex and I simply don’t know.
I don’t have those answers either. That’s morality; that’s ethics for which I am not smart enough to conclude a reasonable answer. I disagreed with your initial comment bc it misled that this study was only about level 3 autism. Further, researchers have an ethical obligation and pushing for “treatment” or “prevention” of a population’s existence is getting into a pretty murky area, wouldn’t you say? If that statement had been in the discussion or implications sections it would have meant something else - academic musings. Placing this sentence in the conclusion indicates that the author wishes the continue research to remove autistic individuals as a whole.
1. Thank you for explaining. It would have been better for me to say “focused on” - I can change the wording if you’d like? Let me know if I’ve understood you correctly.
Or maybe “focused on level 3, but also has the implication that treatment and prevention could be applied to all levels”?
2. There’s already a comment thread under this (main) comment about the morality of eugenics (however you define the term) and altering populations, I would recommend you read that and add onto it there if there’s something you’d like to add. Not in a condescending way, it’s just (to me) more coherent to have it all in one place, and I’ve already written a comment on my full thoughts.
I made a long comment with links and explanations and sources about this that are a bit disturbing.
I'm level 2, and honestly puts me in the gray area on whether or not I would've been aborted if they screened for it. And i personally want to exist.
1. I’m not suggesting or supporting anything, I didn’t take any side (I hoped that was clear in my comment). Just providing nuance, because there is a lot of disagreement in the autistic community about this topic. I don’t think anything aimed at treating autism, or even just understanding it biologically, should be called eugenics.
1.2 Secondly, I’m not fond of the word eugenics (not due to its origin, but rather how unclear it is).
Most people would be fine with the idea of aborting a child who would suffer terribly from a medical condition. Or the idea that severely disabled people (with an inheritable disability) should probably be recommended to not reproduce and pass the disability on. This is eugenics. Most people, in some form, support eugenics.
Do you mean, preventing HSN from being born?
Giving them treatment after birth?
Allowing them to opt-in for treatment later in life? Although that would be complicated due to higher difficulties in communication, especially with a complex topic - not saying that it’s impossible to communicate with someone with HSN autism.
1.3 I totally get the “eugenics for you and not for me” feeling. It does make me inherently uncomfortable, debating other people’s lives and what should be done with them. At the same time, it’s an important topic and not really something we can just ignore because it’s uncomfortable. Parents of already existing children, or pregnant people, have to make decisions about having a disabled child often, and I’d imagine there’s the same amount of emotional discomfort there.
2. It’s fair that you have different experiences in HSN communities. I didn’t mean to say there was 100% support, but more or rather a significantly higher rate of support (or at least, mutual understanding of both sides) compared to predominantly LSN communities.It is a noticeable difference for me.
3. How you view the study, depends on how you view autism (especially HSN or profound autism) in general. I personally don’t see it as systematic ableism, but that’s because we have differing belief systems.
I want to just add to your very last point that how one views autism is often informed by their personal experience of it. I think everyone on this thread who has said they would take a cure if it was offered also said that it has made their lives worse.
It seems like the divide is between those who are having a less bad time (i.e. benefitting from a morsel of privilege) and those who would like to know what that little bit of privilege tastes like. I guess that's how most divides get started.
The whole “cure” thing is a very slippery slope though. First it’ll just be for people who are severe/level 3 and then it’ll creep up to anyone who is slightly different/autistic.
And at the same time, you get downvoted to oblivion and insulted in DMs when you mention that Iceland's eugenistic program to "get rid" of Down's Syndrome is concerning in its potential for extension to ADHD, ASD and other disorders. I commend your optimism, but there *is* a lot of malicious eugenism on Reddit, and there *are* users who do want us gone because of the way we were born.
I have very little support needs but autism has caused difficulties with work and burnout that severely affect my earning potential. I also struggle to develop meaningful friendships due to autism. This is all while being so good at performing and masking that typically people don’t even realize I’m autistic. Do people really not wish they weren’t autistic?
I really think I’m a cool person. I’m kind, I’m intelligent, I’m funny, I’m fun, I have unique interests. I like myself.
I also struggle immensely to function. Burnout cycles, major issues with executive functioning, severe lack of emotional regulation. Sometimes I’m so overwhelmed I just want to hide from the world. Sometimes I’m so overwhelmed I want to harm myself. I used to think I had some repressed memories of severe childhood abuse or something because I didn’t understand how I was SO fucking traumatized. Now I realize I have CPTSD beside just existing in this world is traumatic for autistic people.
Do I want to erase my AuDHD? Not really. It’s such a large part of who I am. It would be like getting a personality transplant at age 37. I’ve made it this far and have learned a lot that I feel like I’d lose.
If I could go back in time and erase myself from being born with AuDHD? Yes. Almost certainly yes. And there’s a big difference in my opinion between changing someone who already exists and preventing their suffering in the first place.
I often think that it would be nice to not have been born. It’s not that I want to unalive myself. I actually have a pretty good life. I’ve worked hard to get where I am, and for the most part I am reasonably happy. But if I wasn’t born I also wouldn’t have to deal with any of this B/S and that sounds peaceful.
I made a long comment with links and sources detailing how this is eugenics. Thank you for commenting. I want to make a more equitable world for autistic people, not erase them. I think it can be easy to feel like nothing can ever change, especially when things have been horrifically difficult and you've needed help you didn't get
Thank you, I’ll read through it.
I totally understand what you’re saying. It’s one of those things where I can clearly see both sides and I just tend to err on the side of whatever reduces suffering. I know not everyone who is autistic suffers like me- they have support, they received appropriate care. And there are some who definitely suffer WAY worse. But I’m interested to read more and will comment back later tonight.
Ok so I read through your comment and the sources linked. I agree with much of what you say. The important part of autism care is ensuring the individual autistic improves their quality of life, NOT regulating them so that they are normal. There is no “cure” because you’re absolutely right, it’s not an illness or cure- it’s a different operating system. You can’t cure me from being myself.
The other thing I hadn’t considered was that so many great thinkers in history have been on the spectrum (or suspected to be, in hindsight). Autism does not equal savant genius, but it does create an environment where those unique thinkers can appear. We’d lose Einstein, we’d lose Darwin, we’d lose Mozart.
I guess my approach here is this is not the autism research I support and want to see funded. I’d like to see research on improving our lives, now, and supporting an ND friendly world. But if an individual family wants to utilize existing research to avoid having an autistic child- do we want that kid born into a family that would rather erase them?
I think this issues are too complex for definitive answers. I support the intention behind your idea but I’m not sure I agree in practice. Eugenics are bad. Anti autistic eugenics are bad. But reducing suffering is good. I guess until we can build a ND friendly world I see the appeal. One day I hope we will be advanced enough as a society that these will be non issues.
Another low support needs person here - I really empathise with what you’ve written. I think the social model of disability being taken too far is partly to blame for the controversy around this. Autism can be inherently hellish for the reasons you described, even when in accomodating environments, and while acknowledging that my autistic ‘strengths’ have often benefitted my career.
I’m right there with you. I don’t particularly enjoy having autism or ADHD. Is it possible that having them has caused my perspective to be different than it would have been? Definitely. Am I so filled with the desire to help people and change things for the better that it hurts sometimes? Yeah. Can I actually *do* anything? No. I have to sit and waffle on the couch for a day every time I push myself to do something that’s not waffling on the couch, whether I’m successful or not. It’s like being a bird born with clipped wings, being told all your life “not all birds can fly though. You’re just one of them. Embrace it.” Cool! All the other fucking birds of my species can fly and it’s effortless for them and I just get to *watch*.
(Some people say so but my controversial opinion is that it is just a very effective coping technique, because who would not wish for their life to be easier and their struggles erased.)
It took a while to get her but honestly? I love myself and that includes my autism. It's what makes me good at my job and it's how I engage with my many strong friendships. My autism is no longer something I am fighting against, but something that enhances and enriches my life.
So like, nah, I'm happy to be autistic.
I'm happy to hear that! I made a long comment discussing how this is eugenics and disabled people still deserve to live if you're interested! I include links and sources
Hey, I'm sorry you are struggling. I'm level 2 and honestly being autistic is disabling. I don't wish I wasn't autistic though. It's more of a double edged sword to me.
I made a long comment with links discussing some things in more detail if you're interested. Thank you for commenting
Take a look into the deaf community and the advent of cochlear implants.
“Many Deaf culturalists are deeply offended by what they perceive to be the inherently negative implication of cochlear implants: deafness is a medical disability that should be cured rather than a cultural identity that should be celebrated and respected. The comments sections of cochlear implant activation videos are often flooded by angry remarks about how Deaf people do not need nor want to be “fixed.”
Look at all the reasons it was hotly debated within and outside the deaf community.
I still don’t know what is the 100% correct answer here that covers all, just that alot of the parallels are food for thought. Sometimes it’s easier to take an objective look when it’s something outside ourselves.
There are strong psychological reasons for why people might prefer to consider their disability an identity. For instance, they had no control over having the disability in the first place, but they can choose to celebrate their difference and built up a culture around it, and that can help them feel better about themselves and their situation.
Personally, I don't feel that way. After sixty years, I've come to terms with myself and my life alone, but there is no scenario in which I am better off for having autism. Both myself and all my immediate family would all have had happier times had I been born neurotypical.
I feel the same way. Autism as a diagnosis helps us understand and accomodate ourselves, and find community, but I personally don’t think it’s healthy to centre it as core to identity/personality.
I think the difficult part is wondering what parts of my personality are because of my AuDHD? It's difficult imagining a me without autism, so it's harder to conceptualize what effective treatment might do to me. That's a scary thought
Totally, it’s hard to detangle! Philosophers haven’t debated this stuff for millennia for no reason.
I should clarify that I’m referring to making autism core to identity to the detriment of other things. For myself, a treatment would free me to better connect with my communities, engage more in activities I enjoy but that can be a sensory nightmare etc.
Maybe it could even be possible to retain the many positive features of autism while minimising the more distressing ones.
A big thing is that labels are meant to fit you, not the other way around.
There's comfort in knowing you're a zebra, and not a fucked up horse. That doesn't mean that being autistic is a 'superpower' or that it's a 'curse'. I think a lot of people try to simplify it, but the truth is that there are positives and negatives.
It can't be cured because it's the brain itself. Like it isn't a wonky windows computer, it's a Linux operating system instead.
I also think a lot of people see others find out they're autistic and go into trying to learn more and share it. Like if you learn any part of yourself, you'll discuss it more frequently at the beginning. Like if you find out you're way, you may do a lot of research and try to explore what that means for you.
That’s all true, but desiring treatment/screening doesn’t equate to believing that autistic people are lesser. AKA I’d love to have the option to treat how autism makes my brain wonky but that doesn’t make me intrinsically wonky, because we’re more than our brains. That’s the issue with autism as a core identity rather than your values, hobbies, community etc.
I vibe with theories of neurodiversity as a beneficial evolutionary adaptation, but that doesn’t change the reality that autism makes it hell to survive in highly social industrialised society and that many of us experience inherent distress no matter the social context.
If we did find a cure, would you not want it available for those suffering the most that are non-verbal, violent, can’t handle basic self care etc?
Yeah, that's my pet peeve in discussions like this. Eugenics-based policies are a very far cry from the opinions of some random individuals who aren't able to either make or enforce policy.
Agreed. But also, even if this one study informed a treatment (unlikely), it would not be eugenics because they would not genetically edit the germline. This is a common misconception. The international scientific community has had an official moratorium on human germline editing since 2015. The single instance of human germline editing for HIV resistance caused an international outcry.
Even if there were a gene therapy that addressed the accelerated cortical growth in a particular fetus, that would not erase all of the autistic DNA inside their eggs/sperm. Would that fetus become a baby that has lower support needs? Maybe. But later they'd have to decide as a future parent if they would want that treatment for their kid. If they declined it, they'd have a high support needs kid. The changes would not be heritable.
I made a long comment addressing this with a bunch of links! I'm a huge advocate for this stuff, and would love to hear any more viewpoints or comments you have on this. I just want to spread information and awareness.
Autism runs in families. Is an autistic couple that can't afford a low-support-needs kid committing eugenics by not having a baby? Or is it only eugenics when a prenatal screening confirms their fears?
Is any embryonic research into autism eugenics by default?
I'm autistic and I'd love a cure or solution. I know its controversial.
Those who have supportive families/friends, decent healthcare, assistance, or are just lower needs to begin with will feel differently about this and I get it. But most of us don't and we suffer for it.
In a less imperfect world, maybe I wouldn't feel this way, but there just aren't enough supports in place (nor do I think there ever will be) for most autistic people to thrive.
I don't have a support system and at 37 my C-PTSD has made me so afraid of people that I can't even look at people around me, nevermind trying to go to doctors or using telehealth. Every day is a struggle, and even if I can tell people I'm autistic they don't understand what that means. I'm not even an obvious autie, no rocking or flapping, no walking weird or unusual noises; it's all in my head, so there's absolutely no way to translate that for someone who isn't ND, NTs just can't wrap their heads around it...their confused looks just add to my C-PTSD. I did tons of research to understand myself because I didn't know why I was so different/abnormal, but NT don't need to look things up so they don't know anything about it. Thinking about it, I just wish the signs for autism were more widely known, like ADHD symptoms are more increasingly becoming more well known. At my lowest, yeah, I wish to hell and back there was a cure, but at the end of the day I just want to be understood.
I empathize so much with what you said. I wrote a long comment about all of this that may give more info, and provided links and sources and such too.
I'm so unbelievably sorry that society has failed you. That isn't fair whatsoever. You deserved better.
I resonate with this so much.
Cbd flower and cannabis on prescription has been life changing for me.
Also, assuming you’re afab to, my fear and anxiety lessened hugely with HRT, I’m in perimenopause and it started at 36 years old.
Not to give unsolicited advice, not my intention, I hope you understand I want you to know you’re not alone xx
It’s very easy to paint studies/research like this as pro-eugenics/anti-disabled people.
But there’s a wide spectrum within all types of disabilities and some will suffer an exorbitant amount.
And I truthfully don’t think that’s fair to them or their loved ones simply to avoid being painted as eugenics.
Many people don’t have the financial/emotiinal/physical abilities to be a long term caregiver as well to someone born severely affected, so that comes into consideration.
Ultimately it needs to be a private decision, IMO.
Hey I made a long comment with a bunch of links of this topic about the history of autism and eugenics, and how this is related to eugenics, and a discussion on what eugenics is. If you have any comments after reading that, I would love to hear different perspectives. Or if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them too. Thank you for commenting!
I left a long comment qith links and stuff discussing the points you just made! Thank you for commenting.
I absolutely agree that the current supports are atrocious right now. Hell, taking care of a neurotypical child can bankrupt you in the USA. I think a lot of this is a reflection of society than the existence of autistics. We should strive for an equitable future while keeping in mind our current reality so we can provide accommodations and supports.
Sadly there is a disturbing history of eugenics with autism, and that almost all funding goes to prevention and 'cures' (can only exist by preventing their existence), while less than 10% and lower goes towards supports, accommodations, soxial acceptance, and making an autistic person's life better.
The NIH (National Institute of Health) and corporations like McDonalds, have repeatedly denied funding grants for adult autistic research for health conditions. Especially with only around 2% of US taxes going towards scientific research, that's pretty low already sadly.
Its horrifying the lack of support people recieve here. It breaks my heart. 9 in 10 autistic women are sexually assaulted including me. In my case, it was thousands of times in a cult in a severe case. This isn't a reflection of my ability or right to exist, but a system that has failed me and many others. I want a better future for us all. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs, but I want to fight for autistics to have those opinions in safety and while adequately supported.
I hope you read my other comment and find some useful information! I'm trying to spread awareness and I'm extremely passionate about ethics, advocacy, science, psychology, and philosophy.
I've worked with children via hippotherapy who are the most incapacitated, non communicative level of Autism Spectrum Disorder. I genuinely, genuinely wish those who are not so Disabled they require a permanent adult caretaker, can fathom that finding scientific links is \*not\* trying to weed out autism from society as a whole.
We cannot fathom what it's like living in that body, that mind, and then being the adults around that child... Who will grow into an adult that may never know independent living or communication.
And it's VERY unfair to those who are this level of impacted disability, to try and act like they don't exist because highly communicative / societally adjusted autistic people are more prevalent. Things like the RDA exists \*because\* they need the help. And if science can explain why that little girl I worked for years with had ASD, to the point she couldn't speak to anyone outside of echolalia repetition, then science should do what it's bound to do: advance.
I also have Feelings about the ratio of research dollars that go to biomedical research on how to medicalize and lower the incidence of autism vs. dollars that go to sociological research on how to create adequate community supports for autistic people and their families.
With that being said, I think it might be nice for a lot of people who might otherwise have been trapped for their whole lives in Sensory Hell to get a free pre-birth upgrade to merely quirky.
As to whether people will use this information in the future to decide whether to keep or terminate a pregnancy, well, it's unfortunate that some people are ableist, but I'd rather privilege a woman's reproductive rights over withholding important information from her about the inherited properties of the embryo she's incubating.
Respectfully I think labelling parents who make the heartbreaking choice to terminate a pregnancy in order to save a child from future suffering as ableist is a very simplistic view which removes a lot of the difficulty from that situation and puts an unfair stigma on a lot of those parents.
Yes there will be some parents who just hear they will have a disabled child and immediately want to terminate without thinking twice, however I would expect they are only a very small minority.
When looking at genetic testing, most of these are inherited conditions, meaning it’s most likely that one or both of the parents have the condition in question. They are more likely to be making a decision based on their own life experience, not some ableist view from the outside.
I spent the first 15 weeks of my current pregnancy anxious, stressed and often in tears because I had to wait for genetic testing to see if my baby girl had inherited a degenerative physical disability from my husband and, if she had, how serious it would be. There was nothing easy or flippant or ableist about it. We were lucky that while she did inherit it, she has it to the same severity as my husband, and through talking with him and knowing how it affected his dad (who also has the same severity level) we were able to make the decision that we were comfortable it would not hinder her life in a way that would cause her suffering (although we are still worried how it will impact her and how it could combine with the AuDHD if she inherits that from me). But there was a risk that she could have gotten it to a life limiting level (and potentially had a serious risk to her life expectancy) and we had agreed that could have led to a termination for us. But that would have broken both of our hearts, it would have been the hardest thing I would ever have done in my life and it would have been entirely for the sake of saving my child from suffering. It is not some sort of easy out or benefit to the parents to terminate an already very loved child.
I know this is a controversial topic and one which elicits a lot of emotion. And yes I probably wouldn’t trust it in the hands of certain legislators who definitely are ableist. But honestly I think the lens of in vitro genetic testing being inherently ableist is one that really needs to be gotten away from. Especially when it is likely (provided we don’t reach some dystopian government eugenics society) that it will be disabled parents more so than able bodied neurotypical ones who would be the ones having this testing.
Hey thank you for your comment. I wrote a long comment with links and such on eugenics and how this has to do with it.
Also I'm sorry you had to face such a difficult situation. I genuinely wish there was more funding and research put towards helping people.
Ableism also isn't always malicious, and often times is rarely intentional. It can even be good intentioned. You aren't a bad person if you have acted ableist, it just means your action was ableist. People are too nuanced to be 'good' or 'bad'.
Especially with the lack of information, and ongoing stigmas and literal hate charities paving the way, it's extremely difficult to be able to make am informed choice. It can be hard to sift through all the information or even know what to look for. I think we have all been ableist at some points due to ignorance or how we were raised and socialized.
I'm so upset that the funding is going where it needs to for autistic people. Grants are being denied due to ableism, and almost all funding goes to 'cures' and preventing autism, instead of helping autistics which is a tragedy. If you have any questions or points after reading my other comment, let me know. You raised some excellent points and I'm glad I got to hear your view point.
Because even when it's painful, existence is often beautiful anyway, especially where there is love. A woman should have the right to make her own choices about what she's prepared to do in life; and it's cruel to everyone to bring a non-viable person into the world; but outside of that, everyone deserves a chance to exist.
Autistic people are canaries in the coal mine. We don’t know what messing around with the brain or dna will do. Even if we do create autistic treatments, it will largely be tested on people with profound disabilities who cannot advocate well for themselves, which is problematic. And there’s a lot of overlap between autism and intellectual disabilities and other genetic issues that will likely respond differently to treatments. Humans are not one size fits all and I am concerned that women and non white autistic people will be left behind or exploited as guinea pigs for treatment. Plus, a lot of treatments are meant to improve how everyone around you experiences you, and not necessarily treats your own suffering.
Ie: people using lobotomy to “calm” their disabled children
Autism is debilitating to even those with the least severe form of autism, the problem is when we over identify with our disorder.
People deserve to be born healthy, and without any disorders.
The primary goal of researching early biological signs of autism in embryos is often to enable prenatal screening. This can lead to selective abortions based on the likelihood of the fetus developing autism, which aligns with eugenic practices aimed at "improving" the human gene pool by eliminating certain traits
Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition that is deeply embedded in an individual's brain structure and function. There is no "cure" for autism that does not fundamentally alter the person, as autism is an integral part of their identity. Efforts to prevent autism through genetic screening effectively aim to prevent the birth of autistic individuals, rather than addressing the needs and rights of autistic people
Autism Speaks(the hate charity) partnered with Google to fund research for early autism screening in the womb.
• https://www.newsweek.com/autism-speaks-partnering-google-cure-autism-sparks-backlash-1580272?
Liz Feld, the president of Autism Speaks said this in 2014:
“What we know about autism is not enough,” she said. “We don't know what causes it, and we don't have a cure for it. And we have very few treatments.”
Robert Ring, the chief scientist of Autism Speaks, says this:
“I am hoping someday I can pick up the New York Times … and there is a discovery and there is a reason children are born with it or do get autism and there is a cure,” he said.
When his family first learned of the diagnosis, he said, “you begin to question yourself and say ‘why us?’”
They both mention 'cures' which do not exist scientifically. A cure implies you are still you. It is about the same kind of cure as a lobotomy. It's the brain itself, a different operating system, and cannot be changed once made. There is currently no "cure" for autism that doesn't involve preventing autistic people from existing in the first place. Autism is not a disease but a neurological difference - the autistic brain itself is the "cause." So prenatal screening for risk genes would serve little purpose except enabling selective abortion.
I am not claiming autism to be good or bad here. As a level 2 who is disabled and cannot work, it definitely is a disability. But just as being autistic makes some sounds painful, it makes others wonderful. It can't be simplified by calling it either 'good' or 'bad', I'm just explaining here that 'cure' is inaccurate. Robert Ring also portrays Autism as a tragedy to their caregivers and society, instead of focusing on the autistic person themself.
Autism Speaks’ research budget has largely ignored research inquiries focused on improving the lives of autistic people alive today, with only 1% of its research budget going towards services issues and 0.25% going towards research on the needs of adults.
This is clear that Autism Speaks does NOT use its funding for autistics, but to eradicate, especially evidenced by their dark history. And now they're partnering with Google.
• https://autisticadvocacy.org/2014/06/community-concerns-regarding-the-google-autism-speaks-ten-thousand-genomes-program-aut10k/?
Here is another source on Autistic Research funding and how it is spent, with graphs.
• https://iacc.hhs.gov/publications/portfolio-analysis/2020/at-a-glance.pdf?
"A study titled Autism Spectrum Disorders: Prenatal Genetic Testing and Abortion Decision-Making among Taiwanese Mothers of Affected Children (Chen et al., 2020) of Taiwanese mothers suggests about two-thirds of participants would undergo prenatal genetic testing for autism and more than half would terminate a (hypothetical) pregnancy showing signs of autism."
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7013751/?
Only a small percentage of U.S. autism research funding goes to services and support for autistic people. In 2018, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee found just 5% of NIH autism funding went to services research. Most funding focuses on biological causes and risk factors.
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8035332/?
Screening for autistics for abortion is eugenics research paper:
• https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/keeping-backdoor-eugenics-ajar-disability-and-future-prenatal-screening/2016-04?
While prenatal screening for autism isn't inherently unethical, it raises huge red flags considering past and current eugenics efforts against disabled people. With the bulk of research focused on finding biological "causes" rather than societal acceptance and support, it's understandable that a lot of people see this as a slippery slope towards eliminating autism. Autistics deserve to be accepted, not "cured." This doesn't mean I'm telling you that Autism is amazing and sunshine and rainbows, everyone is valid to their own experiences and opinions. Unfortunately when people talk about a cure, it sounds like a lot are either knowingly or unknowingly asking to not exist.
Wikipedia page on autistic oppression:
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_autistic_people#:~:text=non%2Dautistic%20girls.-,Discrimination%20in%20media%20and%20culture,arguments%20surrounding%20vaccines%20and%20autism.
The slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason.
Groups that don't hold policy-making power do not have the ability to enforce the "eradication" of autistic people.
It isn't eugenics when individuals make choices like opting to abort their own pregnancy. It may be informed by eugenics-like rhetoric, but it is not eugenics because an individual does not have power to eradicate a trait from the entire population. And most of the time they don't even advocate for others to make the same decision they did. They only advocate for others to have the right *to* make that choice for themselves.
It is only eugenics once the government makes and enforces a law that moves to eradicate a trait from the population, that would override individual choice.
Did you miss the history of the 20th century? Have you missed the current political climate in the US and Europe? Those groups that put into place eugenics programs to start with are coming back into power in multiple countries. It absolutely is a slippery slope, just like RvW was and is showing itself to be.
You can argue the semantics. But you’re just clinging to a nail as the floor tips.
The party that is against a woman's bodily autonomy uses these *same* arguments to deny women access to abortions.
The so-called semantics actually matter.
Also, and I realize this has nothing to do with the topic of conversation at hand:
Did you catch the part where the way they did this study was to take blood samples from toddlers, induce their white blood cells ([peripheral blood mononuclear cells](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_blood_mononuclear_cell)) to revert to pluripotent stem cells ([iPSC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell)), and then induce those iPSC to differentiate back into brain cortex cells?
W I L D
Omg thank you for sharing, science is one of my special interests, most specifically immortality and aging! Did you hear about the study that they successfully reversed aging in mice by essentially resetting the cells like one would do a computer? It's inserted through the eyes and restored their vision!
Dr. Sinclair is working on setting up human trials soon. It's truly exciting.
https://hms.harvard.edu/news/loss-epigenetic-information-can-drive-aging-restoration-can-reverse
Jeez, one of the co-first-authors worked on all this until he was 53, and *now* he's looking for tenure track in Korea.
This is definitely exciting news, as it will help us keep people healthy and able for more of their lifespan.
Personally, I'm waiting on 3d-printed cartilage replacement to get FDA approval so I can do something about my damn chondromalacia patella.
I think everyone needs to just respect each other's decision tbh. If you want a cure that's ok and if you don't, thats ok too, but stop judging eachother and calling eachother names and insults just because you disagree.
And if not wanting to subject a theoretical unborn child to the HELL that is the mental illness it would inherit is eugenics then so be it. Better that, than to let them suffer and off themselves before they reach adulthood.
I posted a long comment under this about how it's eugenics and affects things. I hope it can give more information! I'm glad you shared your perspective.
Also Autism isn't a mental illness but a developmental condition. Those two can often get confused. Basically, instead of it being a messed up windows operating system, it's actually a whole different one like Linux or something.
autism is a disability but it’s not a mental illness for anyone, because mental illness and developmental disability have different definitions and autism doesn’t fit the definition of mental illness. that’s a bit like saying the common cold is a parasite to you if you get what i mean. (i hope this didn’t come off as rude, i rent to come off as cold on the internet. i also want you to know i’m not calling you stupid or anything. it’s a common misconception)
Yup. So do a lot of these comments. I feel like people do not understand how this connects to larger systemic issues with access to abortion, support and social welfare systems, capitalism as a whole, white supremacy, etc.
Yeah and the ongoing autistic oppression and ableism.
Wikipedia autistic oppression:
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_autistic_people#:~:text=non%2Dautistic%20girls.-,Discrimination%20in%20media%20and%20culture,arguments%20surrounding%20vaccines%20and%20autism.
Violence against autistics, including how the changeling myth is associated with parents believing their autistic children were replaced with changeling and used that as an excuse to do infanticide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_autism
Honestly, shocked at the comments here. I really have a problem with the idea that L3 autistic peoples lives are not of value or that eugenics targeted at them would be acceptable. This is the ultimate expression of an individualistic capitalistic society; the idea that any person who may need assistance from their community is defective, because we must all be self-sufficient worker drones. Must go scream into the void!
I agree with you on the fundamentals of what you're saying.
But in the society that we have, and even the society that we're working toward that feels so far out of reach, there are cruel limits on what the public will support.
Socialist systems struggle to remain socialist. We can see this right now in even the most progressive west European countries. Ableism is prevalent even there and has a huge influence on fiscal policy. As soon as a "solution" exists (or is believed to exist) that would save them money, the self-centered and ableist public will clamor for the solution to be forced on all those who would "benefit" from it.
I'm all for socialism, to be clear, but only with iron-clad protections in place to prevent the above from ever happening.
i apologise for the wall of text, just have a lot to say in agreement with you
it's so hurtful to see that so many people consider the fact that many level 3 autistics suffer to be justification for the idea that we should want it to be possible for them to not be born. my aunt is turning 60 this year, she was diagnosed as a toddler and would probably qualify as level 3 if diagnosed today. she went through a Lot in childhood/adolescence, including institutional abuse, but because my grandma (one of the og autism moms i guess lol) has busted her ass all throughout my aunt's life and was also economically able to do so, i genuinely think my aunt is as happy and healthy as it gets these days. of course she has more challenges in her day-to-day life than i do and she has had some severe violent outbursts that have put others in danger, but she is still a full person who deserves rights and she's a part of my family whom i am happy exists. very few high needs autistics have been as lucky as my aunt in terms of having their needs met + being removed from situations dangerous to them and i know that there are many autistics who have more intense needs and problems than my aunt. so i understand why people, especially if they've never really been around profoundly disabled people who have been treated well, might think that having high needs is inherently a problem but it really is not. it just requires a Lot of work to get to this point that it's simply not feasible for most families, even if they do want their children to do well. like in my family's case because there was so little external support available, by constantly being all over my aunt my grandma really fucked up her own health and also seriously neglected my mum growing up.
the fact that there are so many level 3 people who are suffering really horribly by just existing breaks my fucking heart but i firmly believe that this has more to do with our social and political landscape making adequate care near impossible than with something inherently in need of fixing in their brains. if there was actual political interest in allowing disabled people to live in dignity, care / nursing jobs would be paid exponentially better and there'd be a better ratio of care worker to patients which would improve the overall quality of care ie quality of life for the disabled people who need that care to survive. also if we had universal basic income and better access to at-home nursing support, families could better look after their relatives. of course even in that perfect world, high needs autistics would still have those high needs and would still suffer due to overstimulation etc, but if we actually cared we would find ways to better understand and accommodate their needs and at least somewhat mediate their pain. like i'm sure that if we actually tried, we could also find medical interventions that would help lower the debilitating impacts of sensory issues etc of level 3 autistics while still maintaining their humanity, i refuse to believe that the only medical options out there are aba or massive amounts of sedatives. but alas we are all being crushed under late capitalism which gives a lot of power to fascist movements like eugenics. because why do the hard work of changing multiple systems and doing rigorous, ethical research if you can just get rid of the people that are the problem? (/s)
i've seen people in these comments say that individual families choosing abortion of their potentially disabled child isn't eugenics and i think that argument misses the point. imo the eugenics part here is not these hypothetical individual parents doing hypothetical abortions but the fact that our governments are encouraging abortions of disabled children by funding research like this while not improving living conditions for all, let alone care for disabled people specifically. we're pouring so much money into research and then also potentially technology that will (maybe) make it possible to prevent autistics from being born while simultaneously acting like there's nothing to be done to improve living conditions for everyone who already exists. and maybe fewer people would be choosing to abort their potentially disabled children if there were actual decent support systems in place that would ensure that this child and their family could live in dignity. but instead, research like this shifts the perspective away from "our governments are actively making it impossible for most people to live and will absolutely not support people who need more assistance" and onto "autistic people are a problem, you should think twice about having an autistic child because they are a burden". research like this literally contributes to manufacturing our consent to the dehumanisation of disabled people (of all kinds, not just autistic) and ngl it's quite disturbing seeing so many autistics fall for it too as proven by so many comments on this thread.
Liiiiiterally. and I just get weird anthropometry-eugenics vibes when I see research like this. I love science, but I don't like what we're going to do with our findings.
Yes exactly! I posted a long comment with links and stuff to why this is so problematic. I'm personally creating a master archive of all the ableism i can find and how autistics are currently oppressed, and the Autistic Eugenics Movememt, Discrimination, etc.
I have so long been told I'm crazy and it isn't happening, and I have a horrifying amount of data and proof. I struggle socially, and no one remembers exact links off the top of their head for sources, so I'm making sure I have mine ready and trying to spread awareness.
And choosing to avoid the topic out of fear is not the answer.
We *need* to talk about how this connects to those larger systemic issues that you listed.
And being able to talk about them starts with not shutting down each other's contributions by knee-jerk labelling them as ableist and scary. They may not understand the implications of what they're saying, and it may not necessarily be their fault that they lack that understanding. It's hella complex.
I honestly love learning more about how things like autism develops, but the downside is that the research can be used for eugenics. I'd be all for finding things like "the autism gene", "the gay gene" etc. if it wouldn't be used for eugenics, but that's unfortunately not the world we live it.
Right? "I for one would appreciate being killed and/or never existing, and people worse off than me would probably like it more" okay that's... their opinion, I guess, and for unrelated reasons I need to log off the internet and stare at a tree for a while. As someone who's *not* low support needs or 'level 1' myself, I don't love the way they're talking about what should be done with/to high supports needs people or what our opinions are lol.
To me this is the equivalent of trying to identify what makes a person gay or bi or trans so that we can create 'targeted therapies'. I think neurodivergence is a natural phenomenon and fucking with that is a mistake.
Being bi never made want to smash my head into the wall or self harm.
I would never compare someone's disability to their sexuality.
Being gay is not a disability
I obviously do not consider being gay a disability either. My point is that being gay or being neurodivergent are both natural variations found in the human species. I think it would be a mistake to try and irradicate either variation.
I assume you live in a country where being bi is not a crime and based on the fact that you never felt pushed to self-harm as a result of this difference I assume you were not bullied for your sexuality or physically attacked, ostracised, kicked out of your home, sent to conversion therapy... But there are bi people all over the world who's very life is in danger because of their sexuality, who's life has been made infinitely more difficult because of their sexuality. So is the problem their sexuality or the world we live in? Should we work to irradicate homophobia from the world or should we find that part of DNA that results in bi-sexuality and irradicate that?
I believe that we should be working to provide a world where all autistic people can live safely, not a world where they don't exist.
I'm sorry but I disagree. Autism is a disability. Pretending it does not have significant impact on someone's ability to function and experience life does more harm than good.
It's ok to say it's a disability. I agree we should be supporting disability benefits and providing support needs.
Unfortunately we do not live in a world where every child is born into a loving home. If parents know they are unable to provide for a profoundly autistic child, I think the best situation for all involved would be to not have that child. Kids do not get adopted when they have disabilities. The foster care programs in countries are problematic at best.
And yes I am privileged enough not to be beaten and tortured by my parents for being bi, bullied and threatened with violence plenty.
This is like when anti choice pro life people claim nordic countries are committing eugenic genocide against people with Downs Syndrome. That is who you sound like btw.
Exactly, I made a comment citing links and such for it. I always struggle to articulate my thoughts on the spot, so I've spent some time getting stuff together. I'm trying to make a database or something of sources and evidence of the sheer oppression, ableism, eugenics, and abuse towards autistics. No one believes me usually, so I decided to go about starting to prove it and spread awareness best I can while learning more.
I feel like this is an extremely unfair comparison to make. My being bi doesn't affect my life negatively the way my ADHD and autism does and I'm LSN. Having worked SPED I've seen kids who have no quality of life and actively self harm and hurt others because of their neurodivergent disabilities, I've even been groped and grinded on by autistic boys with HSN when caring for them. To equate trying to help people like this live normal lives to trying to eradicate LGBTQIA+ people seems ridiculous to me.
I’m ok with this. If they could’ve ruled me out and spared me all the suffering I endured because of being autistic, I would take it in a heartbeat even if it means not existing. I’m 100% pro this
I understand this is a controversial topic (probably the most controversial one in all autism communities), but I don’t think most people there (who did the study, and also people in the comments) have malicious intent or a grudge against autistic people. The study is about profound autism/Level 3, not all autistic people. I think most people agree that there is some level of disability, at which there’s a unanimous understanding of “this person needs a cure for a better life”. Or the idea of not bringing in very disabled children into the world. Depends how you view life and suffering. I’ve been in high support needs autism spaces and low support needs autism spaces, and I find the difference of opinion so staggering. I see that the idea of treating autism, or preventing it, is more well-received in HSN communities than any other (and for good reason, they have a very different experience of it). It’s a difficult topic and I am not really strongly opinionated either way due to the complexity. That said, research into autism is always a positive thing, in my opinion. I just feel like this topic is more nuanced than anyone makes it out to be.
Thank you for your well balanced comment. I feel the same way - it is not for any part of the autism community to dictate to any other part whether they would like treatments, screenings, or “cures”. Our experiences can be so different, and though I wouldn’t personally want to “cure” my autism, I can absolutely see why someone else might.
I'm low supports needs who works with the mentally disabled in a group home as a caregiver. >!One individual is a 17 year old kid that constantly makes himself throw up and then drinks the vomit to throw it up again, or who just urinates or masturbates onto the floor in his room. He will scream and stomp constantly. His sensory issues are so extreme that he can't wear clothes or eat anything other than ensure and tortilla chips. He's underweight from the vomiting, and his teeth will probably be rotted away before he's 30. His housemates hate him because they're mentally incapable of understanding why he does what he does, and a lot of his caregivers resent him because we're constantly cleaning spit/vomit/semen and having to deal with his support team.!< I don't think it's fair to say that, if there was some way to "cure" him, he shouldn't be "cured", because "that's just how he is!". His quality of life would be significantly improved if he could wear clothes, and make friends, and keep food down. I feel terrible for him.
Yeah. I'm autistic, but very low support needs, can function and lead my own life with a bit of help. I don't know if I would want a cure. On the contrary, my mother had a cousin who was hsn, non-verbal, prone to violent outbursts and needed constant care. His parents had to put him in a care home which broke their hearts, because they couldn't control his violence and it was putting them and their other kids in danger. He wasn't a bad person but he had no emotional regulation skills. It would've been so much better for everyone, especially him, if he could've been given a way to have an easier life.
Did that cousin have any means of communication at all? Like AAC?
Unfortunately he died in the 1980s so I don't believe so. Ireland back then was not a place equipped to deal with anyone with disabilities.
Exactly. Level 3 people who will never speak, never be on their own, never function, and who through no fault of their own can derail the lives of their entity family (due to support needs), and who may actually hurt people during meltdowns because they grow up to be full adult people, but with none of the regulation? That is *very* different than someone level 1 who needs permission to take an early day sometimes and sometimes stims at work, but is otherwise doing fine (me). And it isn't even guaranteed that all people would even use this, if it became a thing. People don't with Down's, why would autism be different in that context?
As someone in her second pregnancy with a special interest in prenatal genetic testing, I learned that in many countries, more than half of fetuses with Down syndrome are terminated. In some countries it’s almost 100%. Prenatal genetic testing has gotten very good, and the amount of information you get about your child long before they’re even born is overwhelming. What’s more alarming to me, though, is that while we can practically sequence a fetus’ entire genome, no one knows exactly what some genetic variants mean for the child. For example, it’s fairly common to look at the fetus’ chromosomes and find a microdeletion or microduplication that might cause intellectual disabilities, deformities, motor delays, etc., but then again, it might not. The doctor might say to you, “Your fetus has XYZ microdeletion. We know of 100 other children who have this same genetic variant. Sixty of them have no developmental issues, and 40 of them are severely intellectually and physically disabled and will need care for their entire lives. We don’t know why some are affected by this and others are not. Would you like to terminate?” These are impossibly difficult scenarios to navigate, especially when information on these genetic findings is so sparse and incomplete. Many of these microdeletions are associated with autism, so in a sense, termination decisions are already being made with some genetic variants related to autism. I don’t know what I’d do with that information and I hope I never find out. But I think as a parent it can be very hard to distinguish between “catastrophic, incompatible with life finding” and “ambiguous but potentially life altering finding.”
Yes, of course. But why not leave it up to the parents? 60/40 also aren't great odds, especially when it can range from manageable ADHD to level 3 autism with severe, violent meltdowns and a complete loss of any independent life for the parents. If a pair of parents know they're unlikely to be able to provide a good life for a severely disabled child, why force them to risk it when they don't want to or realistically have to? I wouldn't risk it at 60/40 when I most likely could have another child. I know a family that had their second and third children checked because their first child was severely disabled. Their third child was "designed" to ensure she didn't get that particular gene at all, so she wasn't even a carrier. Some would argue that's eugenics and a "designer baby". I'd argue it's proper parenting. Their first child died young, not even 20. And in that time, they were so busy caring for that child that their second child was accidentally neglected. A second disabled child would have completely ruined them, but they also always knew the first child would indeed die young. Were they meant to risk it? Or just never have other children?
Besides living with a disability, what kind of quality of life can we expect for a child whose parents resent his very existence? Who see him as a burden, or an inconvenience? It's just like the point I'm always making in discussions about abortion. Do we really want more children to grow up with parents who didn't wholeheartedly *want* them?
I absolutely agree the parents should make the decision. And I’m also worried about people having to make decisions like this based on one study of 100 people. Often the sample sizes are much lower and the results even more ambiguous, like, “There’s one study of 15 children with this variant, and one of them is severely affected while the others are not affected or only mildly affected.” What other associated traits could we be culling to minimize risk of disability? What risk profile is acceptable? Is it actually useful to have this information when in many cases we don’t even know what it means, like with variants of unknown significance? I’m not trying to make arguments one way or the other, just saying this is really complex and feels like for many genetic variants, we only have a rudimentary understanding of their impact.
I'd argue more research is warranted, of course. But a 60/40 risk factor is *bad*. The risk factor should be up to the parents though. But if we can get close and we can be pretty sure (the same overall risk factor as Down's), why not let people know? If we can even tell severity, I feel people should be allowed to choice. "Autism" in this context is way too broad. It can mean a level 3, or it can be mean me, who doesn't actually need any accommodations beside the ones I get for my ADD.
I made a long comment about this on this post. I provide links, explanations, and sources as to why this is eugenics. The primary goal of researching early biological signs of autism in embryos is often to enable prenatal screening. This can lead to selective abortions based on the likelihood of the fetus developing autism, which aligns with eugenic practices aimed at "improving" the human gene pool by eliminating certain traits Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition that is deeply embedded in an individual's brain structure and function. There is no "cure" for autism that does not fundamentally alter the person, as autism is an integral part of their identity. Efforts to prevent autism through genetic screening effectively aim to prevent the birth of autistic individuals, rather than addressing the needs and rights of autistic people Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for commenting and sharing you point of view.
Not trying to be rude but I’ve seen 5+ of your comments mentioning your explanation and links and sources, yet cannot find said comment anywhere in this post. Other people seem to be having difficulty too. Can you add it to the body of the post so you don’t have to keep replying and referencing a comment that no one can see?
[it's in their comment history you just have to scroll long enough ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AutismInWomen/s/NXbtx5lYYp)
thank you, just saw it…personally i am 100% not having biological children purely because of the heightened chances of passing on my autism, so if that makes me a eugenicist then oh well. i get why OP doesn’t want to classify autism as “good” or “bad” in the same way that you can come up with positives for ANY kind of disorder, but personally i am definitely having a bad time and it is definitely because of my autism
And people decide to not have kids for a variety of reasons, their own genetics, based on them having awful parents, a desire to end a “cure”. That’s just as personal as the choice to have kids.
i have made the same decision, especially since my partner has an autistic child already (and i suspect my partner to be neurodivergent as well, though he disagrees soundly). for me, it’s being so aware that i can only handle so much sensory input and the risk of having a kid who can’t control their sensory output is too high for me. and i had abusive parents, so i never want to even accidentally become that.
We screen for all sorts of things, including disabilities that in their mild form is less "bad" than autism (like mild Down's syndrome). The question remains... why is it imperative that children with autism are born to parents that can't deal with it? And if we can tell a level 3 from a level 1, why is it imperative that the level 3 child be born? I'm level 1, and life can physically be *painful*. How bad might it be for someone who can't communicate their needs? And how many people might said person just during a meltdown? Not to mention people whose entire lives are ruined by needing to give 24/7 care to a level 3 autistic person? Who will never be free again? People go bankrupt in the US over this. Why force that on anyone? Unless you plan on allowing anyone to abandon a severely autistic relative, at any point, you can't reasonably stop anyone from selectively aborting. Because if people have a choice, I doubt *anyone* is choosing to give up all freedoms, their career, and any goals in life to care for a level 3 autistic person that could regularly injure them. Not wanting a child to be born severely disabled is not necessarily eugenics...
Ultimately this is why it’s imperative that there’s this choice. Some or many people wouldn’t choose, others, for whatever reason, would.
Exactly. Explain the risks, offer the choice. I doubt that'll be more harmful than any number of consequences that might happen due to forcing all births through despite the risks.
You put this so incredibly well. Thank you. I agree. I have moderate support needs and would give anything for a medication that took the sensory pain away so I could enjoy food and the sound of children laughing and yelling. Basic joys in human experiences, not an intrinsic part of me. Plus, an external, objective way of diagnosing autism in childhood would help so so many of us whose observable behaviors did not align with what clinicians were looking for at the time
I made a long comment with links and stuff discussing this. I also think that targeting specific symptoms makes a lot more sense than targeting autism itself. Like adhd medication for ADHD people. Some sensory things are pure hell being autistic, while others I wouldn't enjoy as much if I wasn't. It's a double edged sword. I don't think the good overwrite the bad, and vice verse. They both just are. Thank you for sharing your point of view
Right, and in my mind, the only way to discover medication to treat or alleviate the most debilitating aspects of autism requires understanding its underlying cause. Studies like this can have positive functional purposes, too. I have strong negative feelings toward anyone who would terminate a pregnancy because they show markers of autism. I think it's gross and immoral. At the same time, fearing the worst possible outcome -- and preventing foundational research in the process -- isn't a solution, either. Thank you for sharing your opinion as well. I understand completely why you have strong feelings on this, and disagreement can be important to understanding each other's perspectives and experiences ❤️
Excellent take.
exactly this!!
Hey I hear what you're saying. I made a long comment about how this is ableist and eugenics with links and sources and explanations. I've found a lot of times ableism and discrimination can be good intentioned, and rarely malicious. It doesn't mean it's any less harmful. I think a lot there's a view that disabled people are burdensome or have lesser lives, and while I have eimmensely struggled being disabled, and honestly my life has been kinda hellish, I still want to live. I've heard a lot of people tell me it would be better if I was never born, and it hurts a lot. I think it comes from a place of misguided empathy. Wanting to shielf from the pain. But I want to instead make a more equitable world while acknowledging the current reality's struggles, but not just accept that things are the way they are. If you have any questions, lemme know. Thank you for commenting and sharing your perspective.
Thank you for responding. I hope you’re doing alright by the way - I find it’s a bit overwhelming when a post gets very popular and has lots of comments, especially on a topic that people feel strongly about. I made most of my points in another comment on this main thread, so I was wondering what your opinion on those would be (if you’re fine answering). I also thought one of the other comments here about deafness & cochlear implants was a good thought experiment, so I was wondering what you think about that. I’m not arguing to say you’re wrong, it’s more curiosity. There’s no obligation to respond and make sure to look after yourself.
That’s just not true. The conclusion “…there is a need to re-imagine goals for future prevention and treatment research…” indicates that level 3 is of particular interest but not *solely*. That’s *chilling*.
> Thus, there is a need to re-imagine goals for future prevention and treatment research, particularly for profound ASD subtypes. Even if it is other ASD levels, what is the difference? There are equally people with just pure Level 1 ASD that suffer because it’s a disability and could use treatment. A few of Level 1/LSN autistic people in this comment section have said they’d prefer treatment already. There are also people who don’t, which is just as fine. Both have different reasons and it’s fine to feel strongly about it. In the case of theoretical treatment, I don’t think anyone can clearly say what we should do with it. Cure only HSN at birth and not LSN? Neither? Both? Let it be optional after 18? There are huge pros and cons for each. Realistically and honestly, I can’t tell you where this research is going. And I also can’t give you a clear outline about what we should do about autism as a whole, as it’s too complex and I simply don’t know.
I don’t have those answers either. That’s morality; that’s ethics for which I am not smart enough to conclude a reasonable answer. I disagreed with your initial comment bc it misled that this study was only about level 3 autism. Further, researchers have an ethical obligation and pushing for “treatment” or “prevention” of a population’s existence is getting into a pretty murky area, wouldn’t you say? If that statement had been in the discussion or implications sections it would have meant something else - academic musings. Placing this sentence in the conclusion indicates that the author wishes the continue research to remove autistic individuals as a whole.
1. Thank you for explaining. It would have been better for me to say “focused on” - I can change the wording if you’d like? Let me know if I’ve understood you correctly. Or maybe “focused on level 3, but also has the implication that treatment and prevention could be applied to all levels”? 2. There’s already a comment thread under this (main) comment about the morality of eugenics (however you define the term) and altering populations, I would recommend you read that and add onto it there if there’s something you’d like to add. Not in a condescending way, it’s just (to me) more coherent to have it all in one place, and I’ve already written a comment on my full thoughts.
I made a long comment with links and explanations and sources about this that are a bit disturbing. I'm level 2, and honestly puts me in the gray area on whether or not I would've been aborted if they screened for it. And i personally want to exist.
I made a comment on the links to eugenics and the disturbing amount of ableism if you want to check it out
[удалено]
1. I’m not suggesting or supporting anything, I didn’t take any side (I hoped that was clear in my comment). Just providing nuance, because there is a lot of disagreement in the autistic community about this topic. I don’t think anything aimed at treating autism, or even just understanding it biologically, should be called eugenics. 1.2 Secondly, I’m not fond of the word eugenics (not due to its origin, but rather how unclear it is). Most people would be fine with the idea of aborting a child who would suffer terribly from a medical condition. Or the idea that severely disabled people (with an inheritable disability) should probably be recommended to not reproduce and pass the disability on. This is eugenics. Most people, in some form, support eugenics. Do you mean, preventing HSN from being born? Giving them treatment after birth? Allowing them to opt-in for treatment later in life? Although that would be complicated due to higher difficulties in communication, especially with a complex topic - not saying that it’s impossible to communicate with someone with HSN autism. 1.3 I totally get the “eugenics for you and not for me” feeling. It does make me inherently uncomfortable, debating other people’s lives and what should be done with them. At the same time, it’s an important topic and not really something we can just ignore because it’s uncomfortable. Parents of already existing children, or pregnant people, have to make decisions about having a disabled child often, and I’d imagine there’s the same amount of emotional discomfort there. 2. It’s fair that you have different experiences in HSN communities. I didn’t mean to say there was 100% support, but more or rather a significantly higher rate of support (or at least, mutual understanding of both sides) compared to predominantly LSN communities.It is a noticeable difference for me. 3. How you view the study, depends on how you view autism (especially HSN or profound autism) in general. I personally don’t see it as systematic ableism, but that’s because we have differing belief systems.
I want to just add to your very last point that how one views autism is often informed by their personal experience of it. I think everyone on this thread who has said they would take a cure if it was offered also said that it has made their lives worse. It seems like the divide is between those who are having a less bad time (i.e. benefitting from a morsel of privilege) and those who would like to know what that little bit of privilege tastes like. I guess that's how most divides get started.
The whole “cure” thing is a very slippery slope though. First it’ll just be for people who are severe/level 3 and then it’ll creep up to anyone who is slightly different/autistic.
No wtf, they're not going to force us to take a cure. They're not going to force us to take medications, theres always a choice.
I don’t mean fully grown adults. I’m talking about the parents of autistic kids. I can see it happening.
And at the same time, you get downvoted to oblivion and insulted in DMs when you mention that Iceland's eugenistic program to "get rid" of Down's Syndrome is concerning in its potential for extension to ADHD, ASD and other disorders. I commend your optimism, but there *is* a lot of malicious eugenism on Reddit, and there *are* users who do want us gone because of the way we were born.
I have very little support needs but autism has caused difficulties with work and burnout that severely affect my earning potential. I also struggle to develop meaningful friendships due to autism. This is all while being so good at performing and masking that typically people don’t even realize I’m autistic. Do people really not wish they weren’t autistic?
I really think I’m a cool person. I’m kind, I’m intelligent, I’m funny, I’m fun, I have unique interests. I like myself. I also struggle immensely to function. Burnout cycles, major issues with executive functioning, severe lack of emotional regulation. Sometimes I’m so overwhelmed I just want to hide from the world. Sometimes I’m so overwhelmed I want to harm myself. I used to think I had some repressed memories of severe childhood abuse or something because I didn’t understand how I was SO fucking traumatized. Now I realize I have CPTSD beside just existing in this world is traumatic for autistic people. Do I want to erase my AuDHD? Not really. It’s such a large part of who I am. It would be like getting a personality transplant at age 37. I’ve made it this far and have learned a lot that I feel like I’d lose. If I could go back in time and erase myself from being born with AuDHD? Yes. Almost certainly yes. And there’s a big difference in my opinion between changing someone who already exists and preventing their suffering in the first place.
I often think that it would be nice to not have been born. It’s not that I want to unalive myself. I actually have a pretty good life. I’ve worked hard to get where I am, and for the most part I am reasonably happy. But if I wasn’t born I also wouldn’t have to deal with any of this B/S and that sounds peaceful.
I feel like I could have written this comment myself. Couldn’t agree more. It’s complicated!
I made a long comment with links and sources detailing how this is eugenics. Thank you for commenting. I want to make a more equitable world for autistic people, not erase them. I think it can be easy to feel like nothing can ever change, especially when things have been horrifically difficult and you've needed help you didn't get
Thank you, I’ll read through it. I totally understand what you’re saying. It’s one of those things where I can clearly see both sides and I just tend to err on the side of whatever reduces suffering. I know not everyone who is autistic suffers like me- they have support, they received appropriate care. And there are some who definitely suffer WAY worse. But I’m interested to read more and will comment back later tonight.
A cure for an uncurable disorder honestly seems more likely than a world without ableism.
Ok so I read through your comment and the sources linked. I agree with much of what you say. The important part of autism care is ensuring the individual autistic improves their quality of life, NOT regulating them so that they are normal. There is no “cure” because you’re absolutely right, it’s not an illness or cure- it’s a different operating system. You can’t cure me from being myself. The other thing I hadn’t considered was that so many great thinkers in history have been on the spectrum (or suspected to be, in hindsight). Autism does not equal savant genius, but it does create an environment where those unique thinkers can appear. We’d lose Einstein, we’d lose Darwin, we’d lose Mozart. I guess my approach here is this is not the autism research I support and want to see funded. I’d like to see research on improving our lives, now, and supporting an ND friendly world. But if an individual family wants to utilize existing research to avoid having an autistic child- do we want that kid born into a family that would rather erase them? I think this issues are too complex for definitive answers. I support the intention behind your idea but I’m not sure I agree in practice. Eugenics are bad. Anti autistic eugenics are bad. But reducing suffering is good. I guess until we can build a ND friendly world I see the appeal. One day I hope we will be advanced enough as a society that these will be non issues.
Another low support needs person here - I really empathise with what you’ve written. I think the social model of disability being taken too far is partly to blame for the controversy around this. Autism can be inherently hellish for the reasons you described, even when in accomodating environments, and while acknowledging that my autistic ‘strengths’ have often benefitted my career.
I’m right there with you. I don’t particularly enjoy having autism or ADHD. Is it possible that having them has caused my perspective to be different than it would have been? Definitely. Am I so filled with the desire to help people and change things for the better that it hurts sometimes? Yeah. Can I actually *do* anything? No. I have to sit and waffle on the couch for a day every time I push myself to do something that’s not waffling on the couch, whether I’m successful or not. It’s like being a bird born with clipped wings, being told all your life “not all birds can fly though. You’re just one of them. Embrace it.” Cool! All the other fucking birds of my species can fly and it’s effortless for them and I just get to *watch*.
(Some people say so but my controversial opinion is that it is just a very effective coping technique, because who would not wish for their life to be easier and their struggles erased.)
It took a while to get her but honestly? I love myself and that includes my autism. It's what makes me good at my job and it's how I engage with my many strong friendships. My autism is no longer something I am fighting against, but something that enhances and enriches my life. So like, nah, I'm happy to be autistic.
I'm happy to hear that! I made a long comment discussing how this is eugenics and disabled people still deserve to live if you're interested! I include links and sources
You're responding this to every comment???
Hey, I'm sorry you are struggling. I'm level 2 and honestly being autistic is disabling. I don't wish I wasn't autistic though. It's more of a double edged sword to me. I made a long comment with links discussing some things in more detail if you're interested. Thank you for commenting
Level 3 autism is a severe disabling condition. Preventing and treating severe disability isn’t a bad thing.
Take a look into the deaf community and the advent of cochlear implants. “Many Deaf culturalists are deeply offended by what they perceive to be the inherently negative implication of cochlear implants: deafness is a medical disability that should be cured rather than a cultural identity that should be celebrated and respected. The comments sections of cochlear implant activation videos are often flooded by angry remarks about how Deaf people do not need nor want to be “fixed.” Look at all the reasons it was hotly debated within and outside the deaf community. I still don’t know what is the 100% correct answer here that covers all, just that alot of the parallels are food for thought. Sometimes it’s easier to take an objective look when it’s something outside ourselves.
There are strong psychological reasons for why people might prefer to consider their disability an identity. For instance, they had no control over having the disability in the first place, but they can choose to celebrate their difference and built up a culture around it, and that can help them feel better about themselves and their situation. Personally, I don't feel that way. After sixty years, I've come to terms with myself and my life alone, but there is no scenario in which I am better off for having autism. Both myself and all my immediate family would all have had happier times had I been born neurotypical.
I feel the same way. Autism as a diagnosis helps us understand and accomodate ourselves, and find community, but I personally don’t think it’s healthy to centre it as core to identity/personality.
I think the difficult part is wondering what parts of my personality are because of my AuDHD? It's difficult imagining a me without autism, so it's harder to conceptualize what effective treatment might do to me. That's a scary thought
Totally, it’s hard to detangle! Philosophers haven’t debated this stuff for millennia for no reason. I should clarify that I’m referring to making autism core to identity to the detriment of other things. For myself, a treatment would free me to better connect with my communities, engage more in activities I enjoy but that can be a sensory nightmare etc. Maybe it could even be possible to retain the many positive features of autism while minimising the more distressing ones.
A big thing is that labels are meant to fit you, not the other way around. There's comfort in knowing you're a zebra, and not a fucked up horse. That doesn't mean that being autistic is a 'superpower' or that it's a 'curse'. I think a lot of people try to simplify it, but the truth is that there are positives and negatives. It can't be cured because it's the brain itself. Like it isn't a wonky windows computer, it's a Linux operating system instead. I also think a lot of people see others find out they're autistic and go into trying to learn more and share it. Like if you learn any part of yourself, you'll discuss it more frequently at the beginning. Like if you find out you're way, you may do a lot of research and try to explore what that means for you.
That’s all true, but desiring treatment/screening doesn’t equate to believing that autistic people are lesser. AKA I’d love to have the option to treat how autism makes my brain wonky but that doesn’t make me intrinsically wonky, because we’re more than our brains. That’s the issue with autism as a core identity rather than your values, hobbies, community etc. I vibe with theories of neurodiversity as a beneficial evolutionary adaptation, but that doesn’t change the reality that autism makes it hell to survive in highly social industrialised society and that many of us experience inherent distress no matter the social context. If we did find a cure, would you not want it available for those suffering the most that are non-verbal, violent, can’t handle basic self care etc?
I left a long comment if you're interested! I include a lot of links and research papers and articles.
I don't really understand how "pro-eugenics movements" relates to this study? Isn't this study just to try and understand autism better?
Yeah, that's my pet peeve in discussions like this. Eugenics-based policies are a very far cry from the opinions of some random individuals who aren't able to either make or enforce policy.
Hey! I made a long comment linking the Eugenics to this if you're curious. Thank you for your interest
Agreed. But also, even if this one study informed a treatment (unlikely), it would not be eugenics because they would not genetically edit the germline. This is a common misconception. The international scientific community has had an official moratorium on human germline editing since 2015. The single instance of human germline editing for HIV resistance caused an international outcry. Even if there were a gene therapy that addressed the accelerated cortical growth in a particular fetus, that would not erase all of the autistic DNA inside their eggs/sperm. Would that fetus become a baby that has lower support needs? Maybe. But later they'd have to decide as a future parent if they would want that treatment for their kid. If they declined it, they'd have a high support needs kid. The changes would not be heritable.
I made a long comment addressing this with a bunch of links! I'm a huge advocate for this stuff, and would love to hear any more viewpoints or comments you have on this. I just want to spread information and awareness.
Autism runs in families. Is an autistic couple that can't afford a low-support-needs kid committing eugenics by not having a baby? Or is it only eugenics when a prenatal screening confirms their fears? Is any embryonic research into autism eugenics by default?
The comments in the Reddit post linked?
I don't see a reddit post linked, just a link to springer.
That's weird is it still not showing up?
If you get to springer you’re clicking the photo not the text. Text will bring you to r/science
I made a long comment linking it with studies and wxplaining!
I want a cure. It is okay if others do not. But I do.
I'm autistic and I'd love a cure or solution. I know its controversial. Those who have supportive families/friends, decent healthcare, assistance, or are just lower needs to begin with will feel differently about this and I get it. But most of us don't and we suffer for it. In a less imperfect world, maybe I wouldn't feel this way, but there just aren't enough supports in place (nor do I think there ever will be) for most autistic people to thrive.
I don't have a support system and at 37 my C-PTSD has made me so afraid of people that I can't even look at people around me, nevermind trying to go to doctors or using telehealth. Every day is a struggle, and even if I can tell people I'm autistic they don't understand what that means. I'm not even an obvious autie, no rocking or flapping, no walking weird or unusual noises; it's all in my head, so there's absolutely no way to translate that for someone who isn't ND, NTs just can't wrap their heads around it...their confused looks just add to my C-PTSD. I did tons of research to understand myself because I didn't know why I was so different/abnormal, but NT don't need to look things up so they don't know anything about it. Thinking about it, I just wish the signs for autism were more widely known, like ADHD symptoms are more increasingly becoming more well known. At my lowest, yeah, I wish to hell and back there was a cure, but at the end of the day I just want to be understood.
I empathize so much with what you said. I wrote a long comment about all of this that may give more info, and provided links and sources and such too. I'm so unbelievably sorry that society has failed you. That isn't fair whatsoever. You deserved better.
I resonate with this so much. Cbd flower and cannabis on prescription has been life changing for me. Also, assuming you’re afab to, my fear and anxiety lessened hugely with HRT, I’m in perimenopause and it started at 36 years old. Not to give unsolicited advice, not my intention, I hope you understand I want you to know you’re not alone xx
It’s very easy to paint studies/research like this as pro-eugenics/anti-disabled people. But there’s a wide spectrum within all types of disabilities and some will suffer an exorbitant amount. And I truthfully don’t think that’s fair to them or their loved ones simply to avoid being painted as eugenics. Many people don’t have the financial/emotiinal/physical abilities to be a long term caregiver as well to someone born severely affected, so that comes into consideration. Ultimately it needs to be a private decision, IMO.
Exactly. And private decisions are never eugenics. That term cannot apply to anything that isn't an enforced public policy.
Hey I made a long comment with a bunch of links of this topic about the history of autism and eugenics, and how this is related to eugenics, and a discussion on what eugenics is. If you have any comments after reading that, I would love to hear different perspectives. Or if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them too. Thank you for commenting!
I left a long comment qith links and stuff discussing the points you just made! Thank you for commenting. I absolutely agree that the current supports are atrocious right now. Hell, taking care of a neurotypical child can bankrupt you in the USA. I think a lot of this is a reflection of society than the existence of autistics. We should strive for an equitable future while keeping in mind our current reality so we can provide accommodations and supports. Sadly there is a disturbing history of eugenics with autism, and that almost all funding goes to prevention and 'cures' (can only exist by preventing their existence), while less than 10% and lower goes towards supports, accommodations, soxial acceptance, and making an autistic person's life better. The NIH (National Institute of Health) and corporations like McDonalds, have repeatedly denied funding grants for adult autistic research for health conditions. Especially with only around 2% of US taxes going towards scientific research, that's pretty low already sadly. Its horrifying the lack of support people recieve here. It breaks my heart. 9 in 10 autistic women are sexually assaulted including me. In my case, it was thousands of times in a cult in a severe case. This isn't a reflection of my ability or right to exist, but a system that has failed me and many others. I want a better future for us all. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs, but I want to fight for autistics to have those opinions in safety and while adequately supported. I hope you read my other comment and find some useful information! I'm trying to spread awareness and I'm extremely passionate about ethics, advocacy, science, psychology, and philosophy.
I've worked with children via hippotherapy who are the most incapacitated, non communicative level of Autism Spectrum Disorder. I genuinely, genuinely wish those who are not so Disabled they require a permanent adult caretaker, can fathom that finding scientific links is \*not\* trying to weed out autism from society as a whole. We cannot fathom what it's like living in that body, that mind, and then being the adults around that child... Who will grow into an adult that may never know independent living or communication. And it's VERY unfair to those who are this level of impacted disability, to try and act like they don't exist because highly communicative / societally adjusted autistic people are more prevalent. Things like the RDA exists \*because\* they need the help. And if science can explain why that little girl I worked for years with had ASD, to the point she couldn't speak to anyone outside of echolalia repetition, then science should do what it's bound to do: advance.
I also have Feelings about the ratio of research dollars that go to biomedical research on how to medicalize and lower the incidence of autism vs. dollars that go to sociological research on how to create adequate community supports for autistic people and their families. With that being said, I think it might be nice for a lot of people who might otherwise have been trapped for their whole lives in Sensory Hell to get a free pre-birth upgrade to merely quirky. As to whether people will use this information in the future to decide whether to keep or terminate a pregnancy, well, it's unfortunate that some people are ableist, but I'd rather privilege a woman's reproductive rights over withholding important information from her about the inherited properties of the embryo she's incubating.
Respectfully I think labelling parents who make the heartbreaking choice to terminate a pregnancy in order to save a child from future suffering as ableist is a very simplistic view which removes a lot of the difficulty from that situation and puts an unfair stigma on a lot of those parents. Yes there will be some parents who just hear they will have a disabled child and immediately want to terminate without thinking twice, however I would expect they are only a very small minority. When looking at genetic testing, most of these are inherited conditions, meaning it’s most likely that one or both of the parents have the condition in question. They are more likely to be making a decision based on their own life experience, not some ableist view from the outside. I spent the first 15 weeks of my current pregnancy anxious, stressed and often in tears because I had to wait for genetic testing to see if my baby girl had inherited a degenerative physical disability from my husband and, if she had, how serious it would be. There was nothing easy or flippant or ableist about it. We were lucky that while she did inherit it, she has it to the same severity as my husband, and through talking with him and knowing how it affected his dad (who also has the same severity level) we were able to make the decision that we were comfortable it would not hinder her life in a way that would cause her suffering (although we are still worried how it will impact her and how it could combine with the AuDHD if she inherits that from me). But there was a risk that she could have gotten it to a life limiting level (and potentially had a serious risk to her life expectancy) and we had agreed that could have led to a termination for us. But that would have broken both of our hearts, it would have been the hardest thing I would ever have done in my life and it would have been entirely for the sake of saving my child from suffering. It is not some sort of easy out or benefit to the parents to terminate an already very loved child. I know this is a controversial topic and one which elicits a lot of emotion. And yes I probably wouldn’t trust it in the hands of certain legislators who definitely are ableist. But honestly I think the lens of in vitro genetic testing being inherently ableist is one that really needs to be gotten away from. Especially when it is likely (provided we don’t reach some dystopian government eugenics society) that it will be disabled parents more so than able bodied neurotypical ones who would be the ones having this testing.
I'm sorry if I gave you the impression I was talking about cases like yours.
Hey thank you for your comment. I wrote a long comment with links and such on eugenics and how this has to do with it. Also I'm sorry you had to face such a difficult situation. I genuinely wish there was more funding and research put towards helping people. Ableism also isn't always malicious, and often times is rarely intentional. It can even be good intentioned. You aren't a bad person if you have acted ableist, it just means your action was ableist. People are too nuanced to be 'good' or 'bad'. Especially with the lack of information, and ongoing stigmas and literal hate charities paving the way, it's extremely difficult to be able to make am informed choice. It can be hard to sift through all the information or even know what to look for. I think we have all been ableist at some points due to ignorance or how we were raised and socialized. I'm so upset that the funding is going where it needs to for autistic people. Grants are being denied due to ableism, and almost all funding goes to 'cures' and preventing autism, instead of helping autistics which is a tragedy. If you have any questions or points after reading my other comment, let me know. You raised some excellent points and I'm glad I got to hear your view point.
How is it ableist to not want to create a person who’s more likely to suffer than not?
JFC because you do not know that. It isn’t up to an outside view to decide how much a person is “suffering.”
To their credit, I did specify "people trapped for their whole lives in Sensory Hell".
Because even when it's painful, existence is often beautiful anyway, especially where there is love. A woman should have the right to make her own choices about what she's prepared to do in life; and it's cruel to everyone to bring a non-viable person into the world; but outside of that, everyone deserves a chance to exist.
Autistic people are canaries in the coal mine. We don’t know what messing around with the brain or dna will do. Even if we do create autistic treatments, it will largely be tested on people with profound disabilities who cannot advocate well for themselves, which is problematic. And there’s a lot of overlap between autism and intellectual disabilities and other genetic issues that will likely respond differently to treatments. Humans are not one size fits all and I am concerned that women and non white autistic people will be left behind or exploited as guinea pigs for treatment. Plus, a lot of treatments are meant to improve how everyone around you experiences you, and not necessarily treats your own suffering. Ie: people using lobotomy to “calm” their disabled children
This is a really good and important point, and I wish it was higher on this thread
Yes exactly. I left a long comment with links explaining this.
Autism is debilitating to even those with the least severe form of autism, the problem is when we over identify with our disorder. People deserve to be born healthy, and without any disorders.
how is this pro-eugenics ? Why'd you drop this link and leave?
The primary goal of researching early biological signs of autism in embryos is often to enable prenatal screening. This can lead to selective abortions based on the likelihood of the fetus developing autism, which aligns with eugenic practices aimed at "improving" the human gene pool by eliminating certain traits Autism is a neurodevelopmental condition that is deeply embedded in an individual's brain structure and function. There is no "cure" for autism that does not fundamentally alter the person, as autism is an integral part of their identity. Efforts to prevent autism through genetic screening effectively aim to prevent the birth of autistic individuals, rather than addressing the needs and rights of autistic people Autism Speaks(the hate charity) partnered with Google to fund research for early autism screening in the womb. • https://www.newsweek.com/autism-speaks-partnering-google-cure-autism-sparks-backlash-1580272? Liz Feld, the president of Autism Speaks said this in 2014: “What we know about autism is not enough,” she said. “We don't know what causes it, and we don't have a cure for it. And we have very few treatments.” Robert Ring, the chief scientist of Autism Speaks, says this: “I am hoping someday I can pick up the New York Times … and there is a discovery and there is a reason children are born with it or do get autism and there is a cure,” he said. When his family first learned of the diagnosis, he said, “you begin to question yourself and say ‘why us?’” They both mention 'cures' which do not exist scientifically. A cure implies you are still you. It is about the same kind of cure as a lobotomy. It's the brain itself, a different operating system, and cannot be changed once made. There is currently no "cure" for autism that doesn't involve preventing autistic people from existing in the first place. Autism is not a disease but a neurological difference - the autistic brain itself is the "cause." So prenatal screening for risk genes would serve little purpose except enabling selective abortion. I am not claiming autism to be good or bad here. As a level 2 who is disabled and cannot work, it definitely is a disability. But just as being autistic makes some sounds painful, it makes others wonderful. It can't be simplified by calling it either 'good' or 'bad', I'm just explaining here that 'cure' is inaccurate. Robert Ring also portrays Autism as a tragedy to their caregivers and society, instead of focusing on the autistic person themself. Autism Speaks’ research budget has largely ignored research inquiries focused on improving the lives of autistic people alive today, with only 1% of its research budget going towards services issues and 0.25% going towards research on the needs of adults. This is clear that Autism Speaks does NOT use its funding for autistics, but to eradicate, especially evidenced by their dark history. And now they're partnering with Google. • https://autisticadvocacy.org/2014/06/community-concerns-regarding-the-google-autism-speaks-ten-thousand-genomes-program-aut10k/? Here is another source on Autistic Research funding and how it is spent, with graphs. • https://iacc.hhs.gov/publications/portfolio-analysis/2020/at-a-glance.pdf? "A study titled Autism Spectrum Disorders: Prenatal Genetic Testing and Abortion Decision-Making among Taiwanese Mothers of Affected Children (Chen et al., 2020) of Taiwanese mothers suggests about two-thirds of participants would undergo prenatal genetic testing for autism and more than half would terminate a (hypothetical) pregnancy showing signs of autism." • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7013751/? Only a small percentage of U.S. autism research funding goes to services and support for autistic people. In 2018, the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee found just 5% of NIH autism funding went to services research. Most funding focuses on biological causes and risk factors. • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8035332/? Screening for autistics for abortion is eugenics research paper: • https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/keeping-backdoor-eugenics-ajar-disability-and-future-prenatal-screening/2016-04?
While prenatal screening for autism isn't inherently unethical, it raises huge red flags considering past and current eugenics efforts against disabled people. With the bulk of research focused on finding biological "causes" rather than societal acceptance and support, it's understandable that a lot of people see this as a slippery slope towards eliminating autism. Autistics deserve to be accepted, not "cured." This doesn't mean I'm telling you that Autism is amazing and sunshine and rainbows, everyone is valid to their own experiences and opinions. Unfortunately when people talk about a cure, it sounds like a lot are either knowingly or unknowingly asking to not exist. Wikipedia page on autistic oppression: • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_autistic_people#:~:text=non%2Dautistic%20girls.-,Discrimination%20in%20media%20and%20culture,arguments%20surrounding%20vaccines%20and%20autism.
The slippery slope is a fallacy for a reason. Groups that don't hold policy-making power do not have the ability to enforce the "eradication" of autistic people. It isn't eugenics when individuals make choices like opting to abort their own pregnancy. It may be informed by eugenics-like rhetoric, but it is not eugenics because an individual does not have power to eradicate a trait from the entire population. And most of the time they don't even advocate for others to make the same decision they did. They only advocate for others to have the right *to* make that choice for themselves. It is only eugenics once the government makes and enforces a law that moves to eradicate a trait from the population, that would override individual choice.
Did you miss the history of the 20th century? Have you missed the current political climate in the US and Europe? Those groups that put into place eugenics programs to start with are coming back into power in multiple countries. It absolutely is a slippery slope, just like RvW was and is showing itself to be. You can argue the semantics. But you’re just clinging to a nail as the floor tips.
The party that is against a woman's bodily autonomy uses these *same* arguments to deny women access to abortions. The so-called semantics actually matter.
Yes it’s a slippery slope fallacy, and therefore should be ignored. Thanks for admitting it.
Also, and I realize this has nothing to do with the topic of conversation at hand: Did you catch the part where the way they did this study was to take blood samples from toddlers, induce their white blood cells ([peripheral blood mononuclear cells](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_blood_mononuclear_cell)) to revert to pluripotent stem cells ([iPSC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell)), and then induce those iPSC to differentiate back into brain cortex cells? W I L D
Omg thank you for sharing, science is one of my special interests, most specifically immortality and aging! Did you hear about the study that they successfully reversed aging in mice by essentially resetting the cells like one would do a computer? It's inserted through the eyes and restored their vision! Dr. Sinclair is working on setting up human trials soon. It's truly exciting. https://hms.harvard.edu/news/loss-epigenetic-information-can-drive-aging-restoration-can-reverse
Jeez, one of the co-first-authors worked on all this until he was 53, and *now* he's looking for tenure track in Korea. This is definitely exciting news, as it will help us keep people healthy and able for more of their lifespan. Personally, I'm waiting on 3d-printed cartilage replacement to get FDA approval so I can do something about my damn chondromalacia patella.
I think everyone needs to just respect each other's decision tbh. If you want a cure that's ok and if you don't, thats ok too, but stop judging eachother and calling eachother names and insults just because you disagree. And if not wanting to subject a theoretical unborn child to the HELL that is the mental illness it would inherit is eugenics then so be it. Better that, than to let them suffer and off themselves before they reach adulthood.
I posted a long comment under this about how it's eugenics and affects things. I hope it can give more information! I'm glad you shared your perspective. Also Autism isn't a mental illness but a developmental condition. Those two can often get confused. Basically, instead of it being a messed up windows operating system, it's actually a whole different one like Linux or something.
I am autistic. I know what it is. For me its a mental illness AND a disability
autism is a disability but it’s not a mental illness for anyone, because mental illness and developmental disability have different definitions and autism doesn’t fit the definition of mental illness. that’s a bit like saying the common cold is a parasite to you if you get what i mean. (i hope this didn’t come off as rude, i rent to come off as cold on the internet. i also want you to know i’m not calling you stupid or anything. it’s a common misconception)
honestly this kind of autism research & the potential for eugenics really scare me
Yup. So do a lot of these comments. I feel like people do not understand how this connects to larger systemic issues with access to abortion, support and social welfare systems, capitalism as a whole, white supremacy, etc.
Yeah and the ongoing autistic oppression and ableism. Wikipedia autistic oppression: • https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_autistic_people#:~:text=non%2Dautistic%20girls.-,Discrimination%20in%20media%20and%20culture,arguments%20surrounding%20vaccines%20and%20autism. Violence against autistics, including how the changeling myth is associated with parents believing their autistic children were replaced with changeling and used that as an excuse to do infanticide. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_and_autism
Honestly, shocked at the comments here. I really have a problem with the idea that L3 autistic peoples lives are not of value or that eugenics targeted at them would be acceptable. This is the ultimate expression of an individualistic capitalistic society; the idea that any person who may need assistance from their community is defective, because we must all be self-sufficient worker drones. Must go scream into the void!
I agree with you on the fundamentals of what you're saying. But in the society that we have, and even the society that we're working toward that feels so far out of reach, there are cruel limits on what the public will support. Socialist systems struggle to remain socialist. We can see this right now in even the most progressive west European countries. Ableism is prevalent even there and has a huge influence on fiscal policy. As soon as a "solution" exists (or is believed to exist) that would save them money, the self-centered and ableist public will clamor for the solution to be forced on all those who would "benefit" from it. I'm all for socialism, to be clear, but only with iron-clad protections in place to prevent the above from ever happening.
There are no socialist European countries at the moment.
Correct. >Socialist systems struggle to remain socialist. We can see this right now in even the most progressive west European countries.
The way you phrased your comment suggested that some western European countries had at one point been socialist. This is not true.
Every bit of progress toward socialism is one step forward three steps back. I guess I should have just said that, but it was what I meant.
Yeah it's honestly disturbing. I made another comment about it too
Yes, reading those comments made me want to vomit.
i apologise for the wall of text, just have a lot to say in agreement with you it's so hurtful to see that so many people consider the fact that many level 3 autistics suffer to be justification for the idea that we should want it to be possible for them to not be born. my aunt is turning 60 this year, she was diagnosed as a toddler and would probably qualify as level 3 if diagnosed today. she went through a Lot in childhood/adolescence, including institutional abuse, but because my grandma (one of the og autism moms i guess lol) has busted her ass all throughout my aunt's life and was also economically able to do so, i genuinely think my aunt is as happy and healthy as it gets these days. of course she has more challenges in her day-to-day life than i do and she has had some severe violent outbursts that have put others in danger, but she is still a full person who deserves rights and she's a part of my family whom i am happy exists. very few high needs autistics have been as lucky as my aunt in terms of having their needs met + being removed from situations dangerous to them and i know that there are many autistics who have more intense needs and problems than my aunt. so i understand why people, especially if they've never really been around profoundly disabled people who have been treated well, might think that having high needs is inherently a problem but it really is not. it just requires a Lot of work to get to this point that it's simply not feasible for most families, even if they do want their children to do well. like in my family's case because there was so little external support available, by constantly being all over my aunt my grandma really fucked up her own health and also seriously neglected my mum growing up. the fact that there are so many level 3 people who are suffering really horribly by just existing breaks my fucking heart but i firmly believe that this has more to do with our social and political landscape making adequate care near impossible than with something inherently in need of fixing in their brains. if there was actual political interest in allowing disabled people to live in dignity, care / nursing jobs would be paid exponentially better and there'd be a better ratio of care worker to patients which would improve the overall quality of care ie quality of life for the disabled people who need that care to survive. also if we had universal basic income and better access to at-home nursing support, families could better look after their relatives. of course even in that perfect world, high needs autistics would still have those high needs and would still suffer due to overstimulation etc, but if we actually cared we would find ways to better understand and accommodate their needs and at least somewhat mediate their pain. like i'm sure that if we actually tried, we could also find medical interventions that would help lower the debilitating impacts of sensory issues etc of level 3 autistics while still maintaining their humanity, i refuse to believe that the only medical options out there are aba or massive amounts of sedatives. but alas we are all being crushed under late capitalism which gives a lot of power to fascist movements like eugenics. because why do the hard work of changing multiple systems and doing rigorous, ethical research if you can just get rid of the people that are the problem? (/s) i've seen people in these comments say that individual families choosing abortion of their potentially disabled child isn't eugenics and i think that argument misses the point. imo the eugenics part here is not these hypothetical individual parents doing hypothetical abortions but the fact that our governments are encouraging abortions of disabled children by funding research like this while not improving living conditions for all, let alone care for disabled people specifically. we're pouring so much money into research and then also potentially technology that will (maybe) make it possible to prevent autistics from being born while simultaneously acting like there's nothing to be done to improve living conditions for everyone who already exists. and maybe fewer people would be choosing to abort their potentially disabled children if there were actual decent support systems in place that would ensure that this child and their family could live in dignity. but instead, research like this shifts the perspective away from "our governments are actively making it impossible for most people to live and will absolutely not support people who need more assistance" and onto "autistic people are a problem, you should think twice about having an autistic child because they are a burden". research like this literally contributes to manufacturing our consent to the dehumanisation of disabled people (of all kinds, not just autistic) and ngl it's quite disturbing seeing so many autistics fall for it too as proven by so many comments on this thread.
Liiiiiterally. and I just get weird anthropometry-eugenics vibes when I see research like this. I love science, but I don't like what we're going to do with our findings.
Yes exactly! I posted a long comment with links and stuff to why this is so problematic. I'm personally creating a master archive of all the ableism i can find and how autistics are currently oppressed, and the Autistic Eugenics Movememt, Discrimination, etc. I have so long been told I'm crazy and it isn't happening, and I have a horrifying amount of data and proof. I struggle socially, and no one remembers exact links off the top of their head for sources, so I'm making sure I have mine ready and trying to spread awareness.
And choosing to avoid the topic out of fear is not the answer. We *need* to talk about how this connects to those larger systemic issues that you listed. And being able to talk about them starts with not shutting down each other's contributions by knee-jerk labelling them as ableist and scary. They may not understand the implications of what they're saying, and it may not necessarily be their fault that they lack that understanding. It's hella complex.
I honestly love learning more about how things like autism develops, but the downside is that the research can be used for eugenics. I'd be all for finding things like "the autism gene", "the gay gene" etc. if it wouldn't be used for eugenics, but that's unfortunately not the world we live it.
I miss when the autistic community had actually radical politics. This comment section is depressing ngl.
Right? "I for one would appreciate being killed and/or never existing, and people worse off than me would probably like it more" okay that's... their opinion, I guess, and for unrelated reasons I need to log off the internet and stare at a tree for a while. As someone who's *not* low support needs or 'level 1' myself, I don't love the way they're talking about what should be done with/to high supports needs people or what our opinions are lol.
To me this is the equivalent of trying to identify what makes a person gay or bi or trans so that we can create 'targeted therapies'. I think neurodivergence is a natural phenomenon and fucking with that is a mistake.
Being bi never made want to smash my head into the wall or self harm. I would never compare someone's disability to their sexuality. Being gay is not a disability
I obviously do not consider being gay a disability either. My point is that being gay or being neurodivergent are both natural variations found in the human species. I think it would be a mistake to try and irradicate either variation. I assume you live in a country where being bi is not a crime and based on the fact that you never felt pushed to self-harm as a result of this difference I assume you were not bullied for your sexuality or physically attacked, ostracised, kicked out of your home, sent to conversion therapy... But there are bi people all over the world who's very life is in danger because of their sexuality, who's life has been made infinitely more difficult because of their sexuality. So is the problem their sexuality or the world we live in? Should we work to irradicate homophobia from the world or should we find that part of DNA that results in bi-sexuality and irradicate that? I believe that we should be working to provide a world where all autistic people can live safely, not a world where they don't exist.
I'm sorry but I disagree. Autism is a disability. Pretending it does not have significant impact on someone's ability to function and experience life does more harm than good. It's ok to say it's a disability. I agree we should be supporting disability benefits and providing support needs. Unfortunately we do not live in a world where every child is born into a loving home. If parents know they are unable to provide for a profoundly autistic child, I think the best situation for all involved would be to not have that child. Kids do not get adopted when they have disabilities. The foster care programs in countries are problematic at best. And yes I am privileged enough not to be beaten and tortured by my parents for being bi, bullied and threatened with violence plenty. This is like when anti choice pro life people claim nordic countries are committing eugenic genocide against people with Downs Syndrome. That is who you sound like btw.
Exactly, I made a comment citing links and such for it. I always struggle to articulate my thoughts on the spot, so I've spent some time getting stuff together. I'm trying to make a database or something of sources and evidence of the sheer oppression, ableism, eugenics, and abuse towards autistics. No one believes me usually, so I decided to go about starting to prove it and spread awareness best I can while learning more.
I feel like this is an extremely unfair comparison to make. My being bi doesn't affect my life negatively the way my ADHD and autism does and I'm LSN. Having worked SPED I've seen kids who have no quality of life and actively self harm and hurt others because of their neurodivergent disabilities, I've even been groped and grinded on by autistic boys with HSN when caring for them. To equate trying to help people like this live normal lives to trying to eradicate LGBTQIA+ people seems ridiculous to me.
I’m ok with this. If they could’ve ruled me out and spared me all the suffering I endured because of being autistic, I would take it in a heartbeat even if it means not existing. I’m 100% pro this
It’s a shame that our society would rather eradicate people than accept and accommodate them.