I'm not able-bodied. Why do you imply that?
I did not imply that. Where do you think you see such implication?
Also, your comparisons with misogyny and apartheid are absurd. It emphasizes excessive entitlement.
No comparisons are absurd. Some things that are compared will have less in common than others, but 100% commonality indicates identical things, and to 'compare' something to itself
is absurd and only doesn't contradict the opening sentence of this paragraph because it isn't, in fact, a comparison.
Do, please, point out any and all dissimilar elements of any things I compare to other things. I'll promise not to be faintly patronising in response.
I am unsure what you mean by 'It emphasises excessive entitlement'. I'm guessing 'it' is '[my] comparisons', and they 'emphasises (sic) excessive entitlement'. Where is the excessive entitlement, whatever that may mean?
(By the by, I was talking of racism and sexism, not apartheid - which tends to imply South African politics - or misogyny, which is really very uncommon and has been appropriated as a misunderstood word to stand for 'witch' in the current mechanics of social outrage.)
If we could give working prosthetic legs to every wheelchair-bound person, I bet we would. Sadly, we can't. In the meanwhile, we make sure they can get where they need to.
Or, as you might more relevantly have said, "
Now, at last, and after much direct action by a disability lobby that inconvenienced the able-bodied community and raised awareness of the social disability model, we make sure they can get where they
want to.
Of course we need support groups, not just for Aspies and Auties but for all people who feel they don't fit in, neurological disorder or not. And if medication can help without severe side effects that outweigh the benefit then why not? I can understand why looking for a specific "cure" in this case is a bit absurd, however, especially when we don't even know the cause.
Again, for the hard of understanding: Aspergians do not 'feel' they don't fit in, any more than a square peg 'feels' it doesn't fit in a round hole. Disability rights groups (I'll skip the other examples you 'feel' show excessive entitlement) did not 'feel' disadvantaged by a societal attitude that said 'I can get up stairs, you can't, there are stairs, because I built them to get up there, so you are disabled by them and here's some happy pills for your hurt feelings'. They did not 'feel' disadvantaged, they
were disadvantaged.
The changes in society that enable not only wheelchair-users but also, for example, blind and deaf people were not the gift of some altruistic society, no matter how much you 'bet' on that result. The squeaky wheel eventually got some grease. I'm prepared to belief that since then awareness has grown such that a lot of voters would approve a policy of free prosthetic legs for all - but it would still be politicians deciding whether that happened...because let's face it, it
could happen. We put men on the moon, a massively expensive operation - we lack a similar compulsion to distribute free legs.
I'm on medication that quite drastically alters my behaviour, but I actually see the benefits from it, that is, being able to function among people without appearing completely crazy. Before that, I didn't expect people to "accept" the fact that I had very powerful mood swings (suicidal depression <-> hypomania within the hour), I explained it to them and then left it to them to hang around me or not. Some people avoided me, others hung in there. I destroyed my chances with the then-love of my life due to it, but I don't blame her for it. If you, for whatever reason, act in a way that it takes excessive amounts of energy, you are not entitled to any sort of special treatment.
Oh, I
see, you think autists are arguing for some law or other that would oblige people to like them. No wonder I've not been catching your drift. If you, for whatever reason, can't get up these steps, why should I expend excessive energy arranging special treament for you? Build your own ramp, whiner.
As for identifying a gene, once again, I don't see the problem. If parents feel that they don't want to raise a child that will require large efforts to function, or may in fact barely function at all in society, then that's their right, whatever the name of the diagnosis.
Where 'right' equals 'something I think people should have, because I would want it'. Terminating pregnanices due to unwanted genes is a right...whatever the name of the biosocial pseudoscience.
