What's more, I wouldn't assign my the majority of my behavior, attitude, and temperament to genetics. A big part of it is my upbringing and another big part is my immediate environment.
This might be the bit causing confusion, they (and also a lot of autisc people including me) assign a lot of who they are to how they perceive and engage with reality. Autistic people usually have different cognitive functioning, and at that point genetics is just a distant cause at best.
"Curing" autism would mean somehow changing that functioning to a neurotypical one, and that would definitely impact somebody's identity or behaviour. Also autism is often termed a "behavioural disorder", so if people are claiming to "cure" autism they most likely mean the behaviours go along with it.
There are plenty of syndromes that exhibit both as symptoms.
This might be just a mistake, but autism is not a symptom and even then the thing there isn't being advertised as a "tactile hypersensitivity jab" or something like that. Autism is at worst called a spectrum "disorder" with an assortment of "symptoms" in common
Epilepsy on the other hand is indeed a disease. Lot's of people (like me!) are really fine with staying autistic for the rest of their lives, and would much prefer research be directed at accommodating autistic people. On the other hand I think you'd struggle to find people who are glad to keep their epilepsy.
a lot of who they are to how they perceive and engage with reality
But that isn't just genetic. Two color-blind people can have very different aesthetic tastes despite both "seeing" the same spectrum of color.
"Curing" autism would mean somehow changing that functioning to a neurotypical one
In this case, the "cure" appears to involve treating secondary symptoms that are far more sever than simple perception. And, again, in mice. This is miles away from a holistic rewriting of consciousness to be neurotypical.
autism is not a symptom
It is diagnosed through its symptoms.
Epilepsy on the other hand is indeed a disease.
Its a disorder that's diagnosed by a particular brain disorder. And conditions within the brain can produce both epilepsy and autistic symptoms.
But that isn't just genetic. Two color-blind people can have very different aesthetic tastes despite both "seeing" the same spectrum of color.
Another bad equivalence, colourblind people clearly have "less" vision in that they see less information. Autistic people usually have "different" cognitive functions in a way that's hard to even describe in text to a neurotypical person.
But even then it doesn't matter whether the neurodivergence is genetic or not, it has obvious and direct impact in how people see reality and themselves.
And if this is advertised as an "anti-autism jab" treatment rather than say a "social anxiety" one, I hope you'll forgive me for disliking the obvious ableist implication that "curing" autism is desirable, even if it could be optimistically interpreted as "alleviating common autistic issues".
This is miles away from a holistic rewriting of consciousness to be neurotypical.
That is still the end goal of organisations like Autism Speaks and I'd rather actual sane people were more careful when talking about the medicalisation of neurodivergence. We live in a world where it's not even that hard to find stories about autistic people who basically grew up locked in medical institutions being put on all sorts of treatments because this is how our current systems treat neurodivergence. So we can't pretend that "voluntary" will actually mean "voluntary" when push comes to shove.
It is diagnosed through its symptoms.
And conditions within the brain can produce both epilepsy and autistic symptoms.
It's still not a symptom so "sharing symptoms" is a moot point. Some people with brain tumours experience sensory hypersensitivity, but that doesn't mean it's that related to autism (besides being neurological) or that some kind of autism cure will have any use for that. It's not even clear from the article if their treatment is directed at "symptoms" or just behaviour.
colourblind people clearly have "less" vision in that they see less information. Autistic people usually have "different" cognitive functions in a way that's hard to even describe in text to a neurotypical person.
I did not realize I was talking to a debate-bro. My apologies.
But even then it doesn't matter whether the neurodivergence is genetic or not, it has obvious and direct impact in how people see reality and themselves.
There are plenty of conditions that change how people see reality that aren't desirable.
I'd rather actual sane people were more careful when talking about the medicalisation of neurodivergence.
Are we going to medicalize the discussion of medicalization, then? You're a champion of neurodivergence who casually dismisses an intervention by denouncing the researchers as "insane"? Dafuq?
It's still not a symptom
It is diagnosed by its symptoms.
It's not even clear from the article if their treatment is directed at "symptoms" or just behaviour.
The article specifically calls out sever conditions associated with autism that they were seeking to treat in mice.
I did not realize I was talking to a debate-bro. My apologies.
I'm going to assume by this non-response that you're apologising for a faulty analogy. It's okay, I sometimes do it too.
There are plenty of conditions that change how people see reality that aren't desirable.
This was a response towards you claiming that autism being part of somebody's identity being "genetic-essentialism". Of course there are plenty of conditions, like colour blindness and brain tumours. But I wasn't arguing that autism is good because it's different. I was arguing why autism can be part of somebody's identity besides whatever genetic origins it has.
Are we going to medicalize the discussion of medicalization, then? You're a champion of neurodivergence who casually dismisses an intervention by denouncing the researchers as "insane"? Dafuq?
Obviously I could've chosen better words and I apologise. But by "actual sane" I meant people who aren't reactionary ableist bigots like those of Autism Speaks (who are not researchers). And at no point did I imply that the researchers themselves were such, though I wouldn't be surprised. But although the word I used was unfortunate, I'll still denounce interventions based on what I actually meant (bigoted/ableist/reactionary reasoning).
Diagnosed by symptoms
Which is different from being a symptom. You can't just lump a bunch of unrelated conditions with possibly very different underlying causes because they have common symptoms. Like I said for brain tumours.
The article specifically calls out sever conditions associated with autism that they were seeking to treat in mice.
Fair point, I missed it. Here's the line.
The male mice given the mutation were found to have lower levels of the MEF2C protein in the brain, and had symptoms that mimicked ASD-like hyperactivity, problems with social interaction and repetitive behaviour.
Those are definitely not what I'd associate with the worst of ASD. Nor are they very well defined ("problems").
It's strange though, this is a thread about autism erasure and "fixing" but you are the one getting flippant despite all major forces being at your side.
This might be the bit causing confusion, they (and also a lot of autisc people including me) assign a lot of who they are to how they perceive and engage with reality. Autistic people usually have different cognitive functioning, and at that point genetics is just a distant cause at best.
"Curing" autism would mean somehow changing that functioning to a neurotypical one, and that would definitely impact somebody's identity or behaviour. Also autism is often termed a "behavioural disorder", so if people are claiming to "cure" autism they most likely mean the behaviours go along with it.
This might be just a mistake, but autism is not a symptom and even then the thing there isn't being advertised as a "tactile hypersensitivity jab" or something like that. Autism is at worst called a spectrum "disorder" with an assortment of "symptoms" in common
Epilepsy on the other hand is indeed a disease. Lot's of people (like me!) are really fine with staying autistic for the rest of their lives, and would much prefer research be directed at accommodating autistic people. On the other hand I think you'd struggle to find people who are glad to keep their epilepsy.
But that isn't just genetic. Two color-blind people can have very different aesthetic tastes despite both "seeing" the same spectrum of color.
In this case, the "cure" appears to involve treating secondary symptoms that are far more sever than simple perception. And, again, in mice. This is miles away from a holistic rewriting of consciousness to be neurotypical.
It is diagnosed through its symptoms.
Its a disorder that's diagnosed by a particular brain disorder. And conditions within the brain can produce both epilepsy and autistic symptoms.
Another bad equivalence, colourblind people clearly have "less" vision in that they see less information. Autistic people usually have "different" cognitive functions in a way that's hard to even describe in text to a neurotypical person.
But even then it doesn't matter whether the neurodivergence is genetic or not, it has obvious and direct impact in how people see reality and themselves.
And if this is advertised as an "anti-autism jab" treatment rather than say a "social anxiety" one, I hope you'll forgive me for disliking the obvious ableist implication that "curing" autism is desirable, even if it could be optimistically interpreted as "alleviating common autistic issues".
That is still the end goal of organisations like Autism Speaks and I'd rather actual sane people were more careful when talking about the medicalisation of neurodivergence. We live in a world where it's not even that hard to find stories about autistic people who basically grew up locked in medical institutions being put on all sorts of treatments because this is how our current systems treat neurodivergence. So we can't pretend that "voluntary" will actually mean "voluntary" when push comes to shove.
It's still not a symptom so "sharing symptoms" is a moot point. Some people with brain tumours experience sensory hypersensitivity, but that doesn't mean it's that related to autism (besides being neurological) or that some kind of autism cure will have any use for that. It's not even clear from the article if their treatment is directed at "symptoms" or just behaviour.
I did not realize I was talking to a debate-bro. My apologies.
There are plenty of conditions that change how people see reality that aren't desirable.
Are we going to medicalize the discussion of medicalization, then? You're a champion of neurodivergence who casually dismisses an intervention by denouncing the researchers as "insane"? Dafuq?
It is diagnosed by its symptoms.
The article specifically calls out sever conditions associated with autism that they were seeking to treat in mice.
I'm going to assume by this non-response that you're apologising for a faulty analogy. It's okay, I sometimes do it too.
This was a response towards you claiming that autism being part of somebody's identity being "genetic-essentialism". Of course there are plenty of conditions, like colour blindness and brain tumours. But I wasn't arguing that autism is good because it's different. I was arguing why autism can be part of somebody's identity besides whatever genetic origins it has.
Obviously I could've chosen better words and I apologise. But by "actual sane" I meant people who aren't reactionary ableist bigots like those of Autism Speaks (who are not researchers). And at no point did I imply that the researchers themselves were such, though I wouldn't be surprised. But although the word I used was unfortunate, I'll still denounce interventions based on what I actually meant (bigoted/ableist/reactionary reasoning).
Which is different from being a symptom. You can't just lump a bunch of unrelated conditions with possibly very different underlying causes because they have common symptoms. Like I said for brain tumours.
Fair point, I missed it. Here's the line.
Those are definitely not what I'd associate with the worst of ASD. Nor are they very well defined ("problems").
It's strange though, this is a thread about autism erasure and "fixing" but you are the one getting flippant despite all major forces being at your side.
E: fixed a lot of bad grammar