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.
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