Talk:Autism rights movement/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Autism rights movement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

NPOV-dispute and other tags

I have decided to place a number of tags on this article because of—but not limited to—these following issues:

Written from a far-from-neutral POV
- Lacks an encyclopedic tone, sounding closer to advocacy than objectiveness (e.g. [...] which give them distinct strengths and weaknesses, and are capable of succeeding when appropriately accommodated and supported. This is not to belittle the challenges that autistic people face, but rather to point out that many of these challenges are due to structural inequities that can be remedied through equal access and acceptance of autistic differences)
- Biases the reader to believe there are only two sides (medical vs. social model of disability), no in-between
- Gives undue weight to certain viewpoints and controversies and excludes context (e.g. "Curing" autism is a controversial and politicized issue. Doctors and scientists are not sure of the causes of autism yet many organizations like Autism Research Institute and Autism Speaks have advocated researching a cure)
- Sections that discuss criticisms of the movement do so without adequately presenting counterarguments nor the context of the criticisms
- States opinions as facts (e.g. Neurodiversity advocates are opposed to research for a cure, as this aim is a form of eugenics, and instead support research that helps autistic people thrive as they are)
Focused too much on Autism Speaks
Relies too much on biased and outdated sources
Cites sources that don't back up the statement
Repeats the same thing over and over (specifically that the movement believes that autism is a natural difference, not a disorder)

I'd love to be able to fix all these issues myself, but this article is huge. Pinecone23 (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Deleted some content not supported by the source in the "Opposition Perspectives" section: I think that's the most egregious problem in the article. The content there needs to be sourced to each sentence, which it is not, and it definitely needs to be presented in context with counterarguments. This is especialy important because the organization one of the former quotees was from advocated (from the above) for people to be "put to death by lethal injection" who were part of the neurodiversity movement. These kinds of views should not be presented without at least criticism. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Good call on deleting that content! I completely agree; each sentence, especially in sections that are controversial or present opposing views, needs to be sourced and presented in context with counterarguments. To be honest, I do not see the use for this article. Its content is pretty much the same as Neurodiversity, although I believe that article also has similar issues to this one. Anyhow, I am putting Autism rights movement on my agenda for next month (August), so I'll see if I can give it some work then. Kindly, Pinecone23 (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of making some changes, but don't want to just jump in and make things more muddled. Hi! I am an Autistic advocate. I also am working on a paper (tentatively accepted for publication) building a philosophy-based argument as to why neither behaviorists not neuropsychologists have anything useful to offer to Autistic people.

In this I also make the point that the tired old "what about the 'severely Autistic' kids" (not my langauge, the language of people like Simon Baron-Cohen) argument. The clear intent of this frame is to imply that because there are some Autistic kids with more complex co-occurring conditions they should be left to the arguments. Part of my rebuttal of that is to point out that the 'experts' still largely equate being a non-speaker (and they haven't even changed their language about this) with having intellectual challenges. So I believe that this sort of counter-argument mades to me to the claims that more complex cases are things the 'experts' should control. I've got a good quote from Melanie Yergeau on this (from 'Authoring Autism').

I also would advocate for framing the question of the Autistic Rights movement, in line with pretty much every other human rights movement, as having a baseline an insistence that the community fighting for rights should be granted deference in deciding who they are, what language should be used to describe them, and who should be allowed to speak for them.

Let me ask a devil's advocate sort of question: why should the page about the Autistic Rights movement have a tone and slant different from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States which seems to be almost entirely written from a perspective of LGBT Rights are positive things, and has a tiny section on opposition.

I think that allowing the voices in opposition to Autistic Rights the amount of deference currently represented on this page is actually badly out of step with any basic principles of Human Rights. The position of the Autistic Rights movement, and this is the crux of my article, is that things like Behavior Therapy (ABA) are fundamentally incompatible with the Human Rights of Autistic People.

Shouldn't it be up to the Autistic Community to decide what the neutral point of view of Autistic Rights should be?

There is massive overlap between Gender Theory, Queer Theory, and Neuroqueer theory, why is Autism the one of these three where there is such strong support for an opposition voice and balance? Zenmasterbear (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clearer: I am happy to help with the process of cleaning this all up! I'm not just offering complaints! Zenmasterbear (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I've gone through and reworked a bunch of this. My basic approach was to make this look more like the other articles which are documenting human rights movements. This means that I don't think this is the right place to be elevating the views of people who are at odds with the concept of the autistic rights movement.

I also took out some amount of the stuff which seemed to be more about arguing points of advocacy, which I agree this isn't the place for that. I tried to make things about statements of principles, rather than disputes with external voices. Because, look, we're talking human rights here, there shouldn't be external voices.

I'm happy to put something in about current thinking which holds that Neurodivergence (of which, of course Autism is just one piece) has significant overlap with the LGBQT+ space both in terms of the fluidity of the labels, and the insistence that only the communities, and the individuals in the community, get to decide what that labels mean. There's articles out there about the intersection of Queer and Neuroqueer theory. And of course the historical parallel there is that psychiatry used to label things like being gay as a 'disorder' and eventually that got taken out of the DSM. So if we're talking about Autistic Rights, we're talking about a realm where the DSM isn't actually very relevant at all.

I also removed the bit about the puzzle piece logo because, again, wrong place. Parents want to put together something about their support for the puzzle piece, fine. But it's pretty soundly rejected by the Autistic Rights movement, so not really relevant here.

IF we want something at the end (and I did move some stuff there) about 'controversies' I think that's where it should be. But I would vote for removing those bits entirely. There is a separate page about controversies in Autism elsewhere, and I think there is a standard of not presenting conflicting views in articles like this.

As a corollary, I do think that the other pages should be reworked to make it clear that the tension is one between people speaking from a human rights perspective, and others arguing from a medical viewpoint. Which, sure, it serves my advocacy goal of making the medical people look evil, but we don't offer balanced perspectives on misogyny and racism, right? Or do we? I haven't seen any sign of that being okay. Zenmasterbear (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

How would you define 'Autistic Rights movement' ? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I would define it as a loosely-coupled set of groups and individuals forming a social rights movement and advocating for broad changes in society to bring understanding of autism and neurodivergence in line with the Neurodiversity Paradigm and an understanding that the Autistic community is a minority group deserving, and currently largely deprived of, full human rights. This movement is in alignment with both the disability rights movement, and the broader neurodivergence rights movement.

Lots more details below, but in case you wanted just a short form answer, you can stop here. Please let me know if this is helpful and/or at least responsive to your question.

One of the central ideas of the Autistic Rights movement is that, contrary to the dominant narratives coming from the medical community and a subset of very vocal parents, Autistic lived experience is the most important information in understanding Autism. This is expressed in the slogan, borrowed from the Disability Rights movement, "Nothing About Us Without Us."

The dominant paradigm, espoused by the medical community generally, Psychiatry specifically, and embraced by a subset of parents is that Autism is best understood by external observation by trained observers. The Autistic rights movement strongly rejects this paradigm, and especially rejects the claims by non-Autistic people that Autistic people are sub-human, and that Autistic behavior is aberrant (or 'maladaptive' as the behaviorists have it).

The Autistic Rights movement believes that the dominant view is incompatible with the Neurodiversity Paradigm, and that one cannot both have a view that Autism is a disorder, defect, or disease, and have the idea that it is a naturally occurring and sometimes advantageous form of human neurotype.

Because autism is framed by the Autistic Rights movement as a natural and equally valid way of being human (relative to neurotypicality), any talk of symptoms, treatment, or cure, is seen as offensive.

There is significant diversity within the movement as to specific goals and strategies. The movement sees the medical establishment and better-known charities (yes, such as Autism Speaks) to be oppressors of the human rights of Autistics. One of the flashpoints for this conflict is the use of Applied Behavior Analysis which the Autistic Rights movement considers abuse, even torture, and believes should be banned. Similarly, the theories espoused by mainstream psychologists, such as Theory of Mind, have been rejected by Autistic scholars (such as Damian Milton) who argue that rather than there being an Autistic deficit in Theory of Mind there is mutual misunderstanding, something Milton calls The Double Empathy Problem.

One of the implications of The Double Empathy Problem is that non-Autistic people are bad at understanding Autistic people through external observation, and that the only way to understand Autistic people is to listen to how they describe what behaviors and interactions mean to them. Because almost the entire body of research, especially in the fields of psychology and Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), is purely based on observation and takes no account of the Autistic viewpoint, some advocates argue that none of this research is valid.

Theorists, such as the rhetorician, and Autistic scholar, Melanie Yergeau, have argued (in their book 'Authoring Autism' for example) that psychologists and behaviorists deny the ability of Autistic people to speak for themselves. It should thus be understood that critiques of Autistic Rights which take the form of a claim that there is a level of 'too Autistic' to speak for themselves coupled with an appeal to expertise seated in medicine and psychology, are simply a continuation of decades of attempts to deny the relevance of Autistic lived experience. This too is well-documented in Yergeau's book.

Within this framework, the voices of doctors and scientists, such as Simon Baron-Cohen are suppressors of the voices of Autistic people, which places them in an untenable position relative to the concept of human rights. Baron-Cohen occasionally paying lip service to the framing of the Autistic Rights movement, while persisting in support of his own research and academic record, is viewed as an attempt to co-opt the language of the movement to try to regain control, rather than actual support for Autistic Rights (Yergeau again). Similarly, the group Autism Speaks, by lobbying in favor of interventions (specifically ABA) is seen as a group lobbying against the concept of Autistic Identity, which seems to make them de facto, if not de jure (yet), a hate group. There is also concern in the Autistic Movement that both Baron-Cohen, many scientists, and Autism Speaks are connected to a eugenics-based approach to 'eliminating Autism.'

While the Autistic Rights movement has a strong interest in supporting parents, especially non-Autistic parents, of Autistic children, there is a strong belief that this support requires parents to accept the Autistic Rights perspective. As one example, I am unaware of any Autistic-moderated group where non-Autistic people can ask for advice and assistance which allows for any advocacy for ABA. Zenmasterbear (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, although I'm still finding it hard to definitively answer my real question (perhaps I should have asked it more directly!)

Do you think the Autistic Rights movement is a good or a bad thing?

Do you see Autism Speaks as part of it, or contrary to it?

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I think it is very much a good thing. Honestly, I think you would have a hard time finding an Autistic person who didn't. From my perspective, and the perspective of many others, this really is a question between one side arguing that Autistic people are fully human and entitled to human rights and should be allowed to define who they are; and the other side arguing that Autistics are not fully human and that nothing they have to say matters, and that they disagree that the questions being raised (such as access to education, employment, bodily autonomy, etc.) are relevant because Autistic voice is an oxymoron.

Autism Speaks is a hate group. One of the co-founders spoke about favoring using eugenics to eliminate Autistic people. They advocate strongly for viewing autism as a problem to be solved. The way they talk about autism on their website is very negative and very much rooted in the medical pathology viewpoint. I would say that Autism Speaks only speaks for the non-Autistic parents who think that having an Autistic child is a blight on their life, and that the 'victim' (if there must be one) is the parent.

In the same way that presumably the viewpoint of most or all people contributing to articles about feminism and LGBQT rights and anti-racism believe that those are good things, and believe that there is a significant human rights issue with presenting critiques of those concepts as equally valid.

Again, if I've answered your question you can stop reading here.

Here's a simple real-world example: one of the common things that behavior therapy is used for is to teach Autistic people to make more eye contact. Something that Autistics (myself included) find uncomfortable, intrusive, and often creepy. The defense for doing this is that many job interviewers will hold it against someone if they don't make eye contact.

I would frame this as being an instance where job interviewers routinely discriminate against Autistic people because they make (false) assumptions about what lack of eye contact means. The correct solution to this is to do a better job of educating the general population about the importance of seeing Autistic people as being 'foreign' not 'broken.' Eye contact isn't actually a universal human thing. The Japanese, for example, tend not to make eye contact and think it rude. And I think it would be considered racist (rightly) to either punish Japanese people for not making eye contact, or to force Japanese people to make more eye contact.

I can see an argument in favor of a short-term plan of helping Autistic people overcome their discomfort purely within a job interview setting. But this should be done in a way which respects the discomfort and distress this might cause. But ABA approaches this as seeing a lack of eye contact as 'maladaptive' and seeking to make Autistic people always make more eye contact. Also, such a short-term approach should be accompanied with messaging about why employers are wrong to place the value they do on eye contact when they are interacting with Autistic people, not accepting and boosting that practice. Similarly, teaching Autistic kids how to behave differently in situations where the Autistic person perceives it as worth the cost to them of 'masking' is radically different from ABA's approach (and what mainstream thinking holds up as 'progress' of 'treatment') of coercing kids into always masking (and then denying that that is what ABA is doing, adding gaslighting to their transgressions).

Autism Speaks and the medical community have decided that not making eye contact is a 'deficit' and advocate for 'correcting' it.

Ironically, given the false mythology about Autistic people 'lacking empathy' one key issue here is that non-Autistic people generally demonstrate a significant lack of empathy regarding Autistic people.

The more I look into these questions, the more dubious the critiques of Autistic rights are.

I really do think that bringing these arguments into the conversation, other than acknowledging them at the very end (as is done, for example, in the article about feminism), or as examples of what the Autistic Rights movement is in response to, is suggesting a false equivalence.

I also note that the article on racism seems not to have any contemporary viewpoints of racist viewpoints offered as a counterweight, although surely we are all aware that these viewpoints are very much out there.

There are extensive historical parallels with the ways that medicine and psychiatry have sought to define and limit women, black people in America, and the LGBQT+ communities. I do not believe that articles about any of the rights movements associated with those groups contains any sort of balance arguing on behalf of medicine and psychiatry other than in a historical context or at the very end of the article.

I haven't been able to find a clear statement around how wikipedia is supposed to balance 'neutral point of view' with human rights, but the pages I have looked at seem to indicate that there is generally acceptance that perspectives arguing against human rights need not be given equal billing, and can be marginalised.

So, no offense intended, but to me arguing that Simon Baron-Cohen should be placed on the same level as Damian Milton is like arguing that Andrew Tate should be seen as a legitimate counterpoint to Judith Butler on a page about gender theory. Zenmasterbear (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. A simple direct statement there was very helpful and avoids any possible misunderstanding.

I would agree with you on all this. Except that I'm unaware of any 'Autistic Rights' movement – to the extent that a single group could be identified and given a capitalised proper name like that. I'm in the UK BTW, which might explain some differences. It's hard to look at the UK and identify anything concrete in that direction. Any broad movement towards 'autistic rights' is just part of a general liberal fluffiness. In particular it's now getting rolled up as part of LGBTQ acceptance (hey, it's all rainbows, innit?) and the two merged under one banner of 'neurodiversity'. Which is far from a good thing, on many levels. But here in the UK we're just emerging from 14 years of defunding healthcare, mental health funding is a distant memory and most people are just caught up in a sad daily grind to try and keep hold of any PIP funding. Maybe it'll get better now, but probably not. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Andy, I'm also in the UK! I've been here since 2009, so totally agree with your points about what has been going on here. I'm in London, btw.

One of my recent edits was to remove the National Autistic Society from the list of Autistic Rights groups because they aren't. Zero Autistic leadership. OK with behavior therapy (actually involved with it in some schools they are connected to, or so I'm told). Mates with Simon Baron-Cohen. Complete rubbish. I think we should add in As I Am in Ireland as they are actually Autistic-founded and led.

There are a few groups around, some of them quite local. There is a group called the London Autism Group which was 4.5K members in their Facebook group. Which isn't exactly massive, but I mention them because their rules and guidelines are very much aligned with what I am saying.

One of the challenges, as I frequently point out to people, is that I think the Neurodivergent communities are going to be the last people on the planet to organise themselves. But that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people talking, doing advocacy, etc. Like me!

It should also be noted that Damian Milton is at the University of Kent. Robert Chapman is at Durham. There are some number of other Autistic academics doing welcome theory work here.

I think the broader case is that there is leadership in the theory world, and my experience has been that when I have interacted with other Autistic people and discussed these things they generally feel uncomfortable with what they have been told by doctors, and much happier with the Neurodiversity Paradigm framing.

I also think that there is a real problem with a lot of neurodivergent people being afraid to be out of the closet. Which makes them much less inclined to do anything overt around advocacy.

Anyway, glad that we are more or less on the same page. :) Zenmasterbear (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Apologies for my late reply—I wrote a comment but forgot to post it, and now it is long gone :(

Regarding your question about the page LGBT rights in the United States, I would be elated if we could get this article up to the same standard as that one! It presents facts on what is and what has happened without arguing for a side, while this article does not. If you feel like the LGBT article is too "positive", I urge you to either edit the page or leave a comment on that talk page.

Moving on. I see you have done extensive work on this article, and your initiative is very much appreciated! However, valuable and relevant information was removed during the process (e.g., information about the puzzle piece symbol, pathology paradigm, and controversy). I believe that the content could (and should) have been rewritten instead of completely cut.

You bring up the point of modeling this article after articles about human rights organizations/movements, which can be a good idea; however, the issue I see is that autism is not comparable with some of the groups brought up (e.g., black people, homosexuality, and women) since autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder that inherently involves disability—being black, gay, or female is not. The ARM can be considered related to a traditional human rights movement but should not be treated the same.

I do think that the other pages should be reworked to make it clear that the tension is one between people speaking from a human rights perspective, and others arguing from a medical viewpoint. Which, sure, it serves my advocacy goal of making the medical people look evil, but we don't offer balanced perspectives on misogyny and racism, right?
— User:Zenmasterbear 22:37, 18 August 2024

No, I think that would worsen the issue of biasing the reader to believe that there are only two sides to choose from. In the kindest way possible, I strongly suggest reading through Neutral Point of View FAQ to answer some of your questions and understand better what needs to be done and why.

You state that you have an agenda of making "medical people" look "evil". To keep Wikipedia as neutral as possible, I suggest you take extra caution when editing articles you are so closely related to. It is easy to confuse one's opinion as fact, especially when one is well-read on it.

Again, thank you for assisting in improving this article!

Kindly, Pinecone23 (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I have read the NPOV FAQ and I simply think it doesn't answer my questions. Let's start with the basics: does Wikipedia have a viewpoint on Human Rights? Is there a need to balance viewpoints between those who believe in Human Rights and those who don't? There is nothing in what I have seen in a number of pages about other human rights-related issues which suggests that there is a perceived need for an NPOV when we are talking about Human Rights.

If you think that there is evidence that NPOV is consistently applied throughout the human rights space, I am not seeing it.

As I have already brought up, as examples, there seems to be broad tolerance for presenting racism and sexism as bad, and anti-racism and feminism as good.

I think the fundamental disconnect here is that you are, in your comment, espousing a viewpoint which is itself inconsistent with both the Neurodiversity Paradigm and the concepts of Autistic Rights and Autistic Identity.

So, again, starting with basics, I completely reject your contention that there is no similarity between Autistic Rights, women's rights, LGBQT+ rights, Black rights, etc. In fact, this is exactly the point of the Autistic Rights movement: to assert the principle that Autistic Rights ARE human rights.

Who is it that defines autism as "a neurodevelopmental disorder that inherently involves disability?" Oh, hey, that's the medical community. Not the Autistic Community. That same medical community that defined women's dissatisfaction with their limited role in society as a disorder. That defined Black rage against the injustice of their limited role in society as a disorder. That defined being gay as a disorder.

I will also point out the strong correlations with the broader Disability Rights movement, who also generally reject the idea that the medical community has the right to define who they are and what they need.

So, coming back to that basic question, I am going to counter with this: taking the position that Autistic Rights are not human rights is NOT a neutral position. It is, actually, taking a side of the more powerful of the two forces and adding to the marginalisation of an already deeply marginalised community.

I understand that you think you are taking a neutral position, but you aren't. Here's an excerpt from the current academic project I am working on (which should be appearing as a book chapter next year in a volume of Philosophy of Autism):

"There is a fundamental incompatibility between Autistic identity and rights and the frame of Autism as a disorder advanced by the medical community and enshrined in the DSM. Autism cannot both be a natural and valuable way of being human on a par with all other forms of neurocognition, and be a developmental disorder. The belief that autism is a disorder has led to a variety of efforts to find explanations for what is wrong with Autistic people. These explanations often involve some framing which portrays Autistics as not only defective, but sub-human."

So, by stating that autism is a neurodevelopmental disorder you are rejecting the Neurodiversity Paradigm, and asserting that being Autitic means that there is something wrong with you. In exactly the same way that racists argue that being Black makes someone less human, misogynists argue that being a woman makes someone a lesser form of human, etc.

So, I don't think you can take a position that you are pushing for NPOV when your frame for doing this is rejecting the idea that Autistic brains are natural and normal, just different.

So I am completely fine with the idea that somewhere in Wikipedia there is a place for putting forth the medical view of Autism. And perhaps that place is here within a history section showing the evolution from the 1930s to today, and demonstrating the rise of the Neurodiversity Paradigm, and portraying the medical viewpoint as an anachronism that is on its way out (and, I would argue, largely based on bad science, which there will be at least one reference for once the project I am working on is published). But that is completely different from bringing the medical viewpoint to the forefront as the basic frame in which the conversation is being held. But presenting this viewpoint as the correct definition of what Autism is is deeply problematic.

The whole point of the Autistic Rights movement is a rejection of the medical frame, so it is senseless to base an article on the Autism Rights movement upon that frame.

Seriously, this reduces all of us working at the forefront of thinking about autism to a circus sideshow of freaks who don't understand that they are freaks. Because that is basically what that whole "neurodvelopmental disorder" thing says.

Let me give you another context on this. Every time someone hears that autism is a disorder it reinforces their belief that the way Autistic people behave and communicate is not just inferior to how other people communicate but is wrong and thus appropriate to correct. So every time an Autistic person gets expelled from school for 'behavior' (which happens something like 17 times as often to ND kids as it does to non-ND kids in America, and something like twice the rate here in the UK) it is because of the medical view of Autism. Every time an Autistic job applicant doesn't get hired because they didn't "make enough eye contact" in the interview, it is because of the medical view of Autism (one of the common defences of behavior therapy is that is teaching 'useful skills' such as increased eye contact, rather than us having a conversation about what is wrong with the assumption that all people should be expected to make eye contact). Every time Autistic people are disciplined or marginalised within a workplace because others don't understand the benefits of how our minds work (which, trust me, happens al the time), it is because of the medical view of Autism.

And we aren't just talking about autism, by the way. There's an argument to be made that Neurodivergence is actually a unifying thing and that all of the DSM labels are wrong, and all of us ND types have more in common than we have in difference. And at the same time have a distinct difference from the other 80% of the human race.

So I really believe you need to rethink your assumptions about what autism is, and where you learned that from. You also need to rethink your understanding about what a disability is, as you seem to think that Disability Rights are also not considered human rights, which places you at odds with things like the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

So, back to basics: I say that Autistic Rights are Human Rights. One of the general precepts about Human Rights is a right to self-determination. Which, if one accepts that Human Rights are not debatable, means that Autism is what the Autistic Community says it is, not what medicine says, not what parents say, what Autistic people say.

Just to be clear, none of this is meant to be defending the state of the article, or the need to make it better, but part of the muddle of the article is that the debate we are having right now seems not to have happened, so the people who put the article together felt the need to bring the advocacy onto the page itself.

I think it would be great if I could get the rest of you to understand that the positions you are taking are actually anti-human rights. Then perhaps we can work in the same direction to make this page a good representation of what the Autistic Rights movement is, what the history against which it is responding is, and the ways in which the current understanding (which you have espoused) is both deeply ingrained, harmful, and (very slowly) on its way out.

NPOV is great. Rejection of Human Rights can't be what you are trying to achieve. Zenmasterbear (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this discussion is drifting out of focus. I am not interested in "picking sides" nor engaging in a debate on pathology vs. neurodiversity.

My point was not to in any way indicate that people with autism do not deserve human rights, nor was it to suggest that this article be written from a medical point of view. Perhaps I have been unclear. Either way, I ask you to please refrain from "putting words into my mouth" (to speak figuratively).

To try to steer this discussion back on topic, I agree with your statement that some of the editors of the ARM article have brought advocacy onto the article's page itself. That is what we should be working to fix!

About your question regarding viewpoints and human rights: A neutral point of view is essential, and that includes discussions on human rights. NPOV does not mean giving equal space to all opinions and views; it means representing them proportionally to their prominence.

Other articles not meeting the standard does not justify this one falling short.

Again, I point you to the Neutral point of view FAQ, specifically the subsection WP:OUTRAGE. Another great resource is the full page on Neutral point of view—the subsection WP:WEIGHT is especially relevant and hopefully helpful!

If you have any further questions, I am happy to answer them, discuss, or point you in the right direction to find more information.

Kindly, Pinecone23 (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't putting words into your mouth. You provided a definition of autism which is part of what the Autism Rights movement is trying to get seen as a relic of the past, and I was responding to that. Thank you for your suggested reading, that did help clarify. I'm happy to focus on how to fix this page!

So, back to this page, this is an article about the Autistic Rights movement. So I presume that we can agree that this is not the place to be presenting arguments about what is autism, and the point of this article is to document what the thinking is about what 'Autistic Rights' means?

Within such a context we should presumably disambiguate and explicitly clarify that while there are many organisations that present themselves as working for the benefit of Autistic people, few of those organisations do so within a rights framework. So I would think that there is space to explain what Autism Speaks is and to discuss some of their problematic views, but in a neutral way (of course).

I would suggest that there also be disambiguation that the Autism Rights movement is not concerned about the rights of Autistic parents, and in some areas is explicitly opposed to positions for which parents advocate (ABA being the most common example).

Similarly, I think that there should be a history section, as seems to be common in similar pages, which can present the medical view as the frame against which the Autistic Rights movement is defined. I think this can be done in a similar vein to how the feminism page does it, and honestly in a similar vein to how the entry on autism does it (I will reserve my thinking about that page for the talk section of that page. :) )

But I would think that the "proportionally to their prominence" standard would be applied in terms of how fully things are presented within writing about what Autism Rights means, and not prominence in everything written everywhere about Autism, does that sound right? 185.225.44.16 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong browser tab!! That above comment from 185.225.44.16 was me. Zenmasterbear (talk) 06:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the point of the article is to document what the ARM is, how it has changed over the years, what the ARM believes, and criticism of the movement. Since the ARM has a different view on what autism is than the majority, that should also be brought up.

From what I have seen, there are no explicit rules for what the ARM counts as an organization that works within a "rights framework" (apart from having autistic people involved in leadership roles and not promoting a "cure"). To me, that makes it difficult to formulate.

Since many (presumably the majority) involved in the ARM are opponents of Autism Speaks, including the ARM's opinions on the organization is appropriate. I cannot imagine this taking up much space, though.

I do not understand what you mean by your comment on "autistic parents" and their positions; I need some clarification. By "autistic parents", do you mean parents of autistic children or parents with autism? What positions are the ARM opposed to when it comes to parents? I am aware that the ARM believes that parents should not speak over their children and that the ARM is against ABA therapy for autism.

I see a "history section" as an inappropriate place for presenting the medical view of autism. I suggest that the ARM's views and their criticism of the mainstream view of autism should be grouped (although under different subheadings).

Regarding your question on proportion, I think it depends on what part you are writing about. If you are writing about the ARM's views, it should be proportional to what people who are part of the ARM believe. If you are writing about what autism is and how it is defined in general, then it should not solely include the ARM. —Pinecone23 (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. The article, at least in its current form, seems to be promoting this rather than describing it. And, sure, I broadly agree with what's being promoted, but Wikipedia still doesn't allow promotion of anyone or anything, even good causes. It could do with a fair bit of trimming back (it kind of meanders all over the place, and is rather too blow-by-blow rather than summarizing on some of the historical parts), and if the "movement's" view of autism diverges from or disagrees with the mainstream view of it, we should certainly note that, but we should also be clear that it does diverge from it and how so, not present it as though it were actually so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree that the current form of the article is advocacy and is inappropriate.

In terms of the definition of the ARM, and I say this as someone who does work in the theory space, I think the essence of the modern ARM is the Neurodiversity Paradigm (NP). There are essays by Dr. Nick Walker from the early 2010s which I believe are some of the earliest places where this paradigm is proposed. This is explicitly in opposition to the pathology model proposed by the medical community which is based on the idea that there is a 'correct' form of neurocognition and that deviations from this "normal" are 'disorders.'

In the theory space the medical viewpoint and the NP cannot co-exist.

I also think that there is an inflection point in the movement which aligns with the publication of Damian Milton's original work on 'Double Empathy' as this is the point where a direct assault on the medical model became possible. While we can definitely talk about the impact of Double Empathy, and how it has changed a lot of things, today; the next piece might need to wait for my current work to be published (which will hopefully be sometime next year), as I am actually launching that direct assault. Although perhaps more research will turn up others having beaten me to it!

This current definition of the ARM is not what the ARM always was (and a great deal, perhaps enough, of this is on the page already, phew!), and that there is a story to be told about the historical progression from earlier advocacy to more modern theory. And, of course, there are still groups out there who are very much in that earlier advocacy mode and so there is some tension within the movement (as in most such movements) between those who are focused on improving the lives of people today, and those who are seeking broad social change and an overthrow of the medical model. But I am unconvinced that these differences rise to the level of favouring the medical view over the NP, more a question of pragmatism and improving lives today vs. broader systems change.

I think that can all be laid out fairly dryly and with appropriate attributions.

I will also note that if one looks at this from the perspective of medical community vs. NP, things like Autism Speaks are really just sideshows as they aren't adding anything to the theory conversation.

In terms of parents, my apologies for using unclear language. The problematic group is a subset of those people who are non-Autistic parents of Autistic kids. Specifically those parents who have fully embraced the medical model and try to use their position as parents of Autistic kids to speak about what they think Autistic people need. I would liken these people to fathers of daughters who are themselves sexist and try to use the fact that they have a daughter to try to make themselves sound not sexist.

So parents who are speaking out from a viewpoint rooted in the medical/pathology model are, I think by definition, not part of the ARM. And this is why I keep bringing up the fathers of daughters thing. Just because these parents are asserting that they should be allowed to speak on behalf of Autistic people doesn't mean that their viewpoint is part of the ARM story. Does that make sense? I guess they could be pitched as part of the critique of the movement?

In terms of the mainstream view of Autism, can't we just link to a page like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism as the status quo which is incompatible with what the ARM is advocating? Zenmasterbear (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

We could link to that in addition to noting in the article that it's incompatible with mainstream views. Not "instead of". Minority views should not be presented as though they are true, they should be framed appropriately as a minority viewpoint. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

as an actual diagnosed autistic person I find everything you are saying deeply disturbing, distressing, ignorant, and insulting please stop trying to misappropriate my disability for your political crusades “neuroqueer theory” and the “neurodiversity paradigm” are utterly incompatible with the human rights of autistic people. Real autism is not an identity and your attacks against crucial lifelines like therapy show your ignorance. If the “arm” rejects medicine than they are not truly for the rights of autistic people but are merely a bunch of posers. “Broad societal changes” will not solve the problems I endure because of my autism. Stop trying to pigeonhole autistic people into your radical extremist politics and stop attacking science that actually helps real autistic people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.180.219.133 (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand why you find some of the comments disturbing and distressing. The bias towards a minority view (neurodiversity paradigm) in the article is what we are discussing and working to resolve.

I see that you have made some (now reverted) edits on the page. If you would like to help resolve some of the issues (as stated in my initial comment in this thread), you are more than welcome to do so! I suggest creating an account to make it easier for you to edit and comment and for others to contact you without you having to sign your comments with your IP address.

Your feelings regarding some comments and the article's content are understandable; however, I suggest editing when you are less distressed, as this will lower the risk of your edits being reverted. Kindly, Pinecone23 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

@Pinecone23 I don't think the neurodiversity paradigm viewpoint is a minority viewpoint within the ARM. I agree that the ARM is a minority viewpoint relative to the medical/pathology model, although there is research which seems to indicate that the ARM is gaining traction and is shifting the mainstream viewpoint, in both the research and the therapy world, as well as within the broader conversations around schools and workplaces.

I thought what we were trying to resolve was that this page is too full of activist's opinions with poor attribution, as well as being generally poorly written. Zenmasterbear (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Please point to exactly what you are responding to as I cannot find where I have stated anything that contradicts your comment. —Pinecone23 (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

You wrote "The bias towards a minority view (neurodiversity paradigm) in the article is what we are discussing and working to resolve." :) Zenmasterbear (talk) 12:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

This was in your comment a just above in response to the comment from the person only identified with an IP address. Zenmasterbear (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. If I am not mistaken, that is one of the things we are discussing in this thread. —Pinecone23 (talk) 12:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we are discussing it, but I had not understood this as being an issue within this article, but as a question of how this article gets properly contextualised. By which I mean that I think we are arriving at some consensus (I hope) that within the ARM the NP is mainstream, but the ARM itself is a minority movement relative to the medical community, and the broader community of "people who have some connection to autism but are not themselves Autistic." And obviously being mainstream and/or majority within the ARM does not mean that there is complete support for this by everyone who is Autistic.

I also think it is uncontroversial to say that there is tension between the ARM and many non-Autistic parents of Autistic kids.

Where there is controversy is the question of whether the ARM is minority amongst Autistic people; as well as the significant question as to who should be given deference in discussing the interests and care of Autistic people who are not involved in the ARM conversation: Autistic people, or the medical community in conversation with parents and caregivers.

Does that sound anywhere near right to you? Zenmasterbear (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the NP is mainstream within the ARM, and I believe I have not said anything to contradict this.

In my comment that started the thread, one of the points I bring up is "Gives undue weight to certain viewpoints". Your phrasing "this page is too full of activist's opinions" is another way to say it (albeit not downright synonymous).

We are in agreement regarding there being tension between the ARM and non-autistic parents of autistic kids.

I had not noticed a discussion on whether the ARM is a minority view among people with autism; either way, I am not sure how relevant it is when determining what weight should be given to different perspectives, as it is still the minority view overall.

I feel that you often misinterpret my comments and assign opinions and statements to me that I do not identify with or recognize. To avoid this in the future, please double-check that I have explicitly stated what you have interpreted. If you are unsure what I mean, please ask for clarification.

Thank you, Pinecone23 (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

It also should be noted that the Neurodiversity Paradigm itself is now mainstream within Autism advocacy, and seems to be becoming mainstream in a much broader context. It is increasingly cited in academic autism research, and becoming more widely embraced in education. It is also gaining traction within the broader culture. Zenmasterbear (talk) 12:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning the promotion issue in the article (and wikilinking the policy)! Even if the promotion may be for a good cause, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

I agree about being clear that the ARM's view diverges from the mainstream view of autism (by mainstream, I mean a more psychiatry-aligned perspective) and how it diverges from it, and (as you eloquently phrased it) "not present it as though it were actually so." Kindly, Pinecone23 (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV-dispute and other tags

I have decided to place a number of tags on this article because of—but not limited to—these following issues:

Written from a far-from-neutral POV
- Lacks an encyclopedic tone, sounding closer to advocacy than objectiveness (e.g. [...] which give them distinct strengths and weaknesses, and are capable of succeeding when appropriately accommodated and supported. This is not to belittle the challenges that autistic people face, but rather to point out that many of these challenges are due to structural inequities that can be remedied through equal access and acceptance of autistic differences)
- Biases the reader to believe there are only two sides (medical vs. social model of disability), no in-between
- Gives undue weight to certain viewpoints and controversies and excludes context (e.g. "Curing" autism is a controversial and politicized issue. Doctors and scientists are not sure of the causes of autism yet many organizations like Autism Research Institute and Autism Speaks have advocated researching a cure)
- Sections that discuss criticisms of the movement do so without adequately presenting counterarguments nor the context of the criticisms
- States opinions as facts (e.g. Neurodiversity advocates are opposed to research for a cure, as this aim is a form of eugenics, and instead support research that helps autistic people thrive as they are)
Focused too much on Autism Speaks
Relies too much on biased and outdated sources
Cites sources that don't back up the statement
Repeats the same thing over and over (specifically that the movement believes that autism is a natural difference, not a disorder)