Showing 4 of 4 comments.
Removed at request of poster. Double post.
Medical in the sense of something which needs “fixing,” no.
But, physical in the sense of evolutionary divergence leading to a population with slightly different different needs and priorities? Perfectly scientifically plausible. Inevitable, really.
Disentangling those divergences (normal, natural, and adaptive in the right circumstances) from trauma (injurious and non-adaptive) is very important. That’s all this article is about.
I mean, you’re right– the CURRENT mainstream construct of autism, relying on harmful stereotypes and ascribing trauma traits as core components of an autistic person’s being, that’s a myth.
But there are people who call themselves autistic (I tentatively include myself in this category) who are reclaiming the term to mean something different.
I’m just gonna be over here laughing nervously in “queer-kid-who-grew-up-in-a-conservative-christian-culture” over this ‘not letting kids do things which other people dislike them for’ stuff.
And as to ‘picky eaters,’ isn’t forcing kids to eat food they dislike another one of those things which is being linked to not-great outcomes?
Either way, I would argue that not forcing people to eat foods which make them feel nauseated IS “respecting others.”
“Do not let your children do anything which makes you dislike them.”
Who reads a hot mess of a line like that and thinks, ‘Oh, perfect, this is the guy I want to take parenting advice from!’?