Blogging Attwood's Defense I

Part I: Extremism and Politics

Tony Attwood recently defended himself from various criticisms on Donna Williams' podcast. I certainly approve of Attwood's decision to express himself through a podcast run by an actual autistic people--as oppossed to a parents' group or partners' group. However, I feel that he remained rather disingenuous--and at times, said things which are quite simply falsehoods. This is the start of a series which will critique Attwood's commentary and explain why it is rather lacking from the perspective of (many) autistic self-advocates. I also think this series is a good way in which to explore various issues which arise in autism advocacy. This post will address the disparagement of "extremism" and "politics."

First, a few words of wisdom from vastly different sources:

"“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
--Barry Goldwater, whose political views I generally do not share

"Was not Jesus an extremist for love -- "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray for them that despitefully use you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice -- "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the gospel of Jesus Christ -- "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist -- "Here I stand; I can do none other so help me God." Was not John Bunyan an extremist -- "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." Was not Abraham Lincoln an extremist -- "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." Was not Thomas Jefferson an extremist -- "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." So the question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be. Will we be extremists for hate or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice--or will we be extremists for the cause of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill, three men were crucified. We must not forget that all three were crucified for the same crime--the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thusly fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment."
--Martin Luther King Jr., whose religious beliefs I do not share.

To the podcast:

-Beginning: Attwood and Donna discuss the history of autistic-to-autistic communications via the Internet. I feel like they're setting up a false "golden age of autism on the Internet." That's the fallacy of nostalgia. In any case, Attwood and Donna disapprove of "militancy" and "extremism." My selection of quotes should indicate how I feel about that. Simply put, Attwood and Donna (hereafter abreviated as A&D) are engaging in an ad hominem attack by casting their ideological opponents as "extremists" rather than engage with the issues or actually explain what is so "extreme" about their (our) views. Using the "extremist" label does not make for serious engagement and argumentation. It rather reminds me of our vote-grubbing politicians.

Throughout the interview, A&D repeatedly cast themselves as "moderates." Donna in particular insists that just because her views are often moderate does not mean she doesn't have convictions. Okay, fair enough. But it is too easy to fall into the opposite trap: argument to moderation. (Also known as "the fallacy of the middle ground" and, my personal favorite, "the Goldilocks fallacy.") Just because a position is between two "extremes" does not make it correct. "Extremists" have been completely right before, and they will be completely right again. It is too easy to confuse moderation with ethical and intellectual correctness.

-A&D also refer (somewhat disparigingly, IMHO) to the "political" wing of autistics, by which I can only assume they mean us neurodiversity folks. Now, "politics" as a concept has a bad reputation in our society. The word rather conjures up images of smarmy and corrupt men making shady backroom deals and hoodwinking the public. But political practices, I would argue, extend beyond these stereotypes. Maybe I'm a victim of my liberal arts' education, but I believe that most things--indeed, almost all things--are in some way connected to politics. Granted, some things are more obviously political than others. But few matters of substance are completely devoid of political content, and the idea of an individual somehow resting "above" politics is a myth. Tony Attwood and Donna Williams have particular opinions, opinions which might be described as political. They are part of the public, political discourse around autism. It really is that simple, and it is folly to pretend otherwise.

I and other neurodiversity advocates are quite sincere in our desire for constructive dialogue. When we're pilloried for being "political," "militant," and "extremist," that can't happen.

Links: Positive Representations Edition

For a nice change of pace, I thought I'd point out a few positive representations of autism and autistic people.

-First, I want to recommend Ruby's World, a great sci-fi webcomic by an autistic artist and with several autistic characters, and other characters who are different from the norm. The artist also happens to be my wonderful boyfriend. Go check it out.

-Second, I'd like to point out a wonderful article by Tyler Cowen in the Chronicle of Higher Education, entitled "Autism as Academic Paradigm." There's too much excellent content to quote all of it, but here are a few select bits:

A lot of people at colleges are aware of dealing with autism (and Asperger's syndrome; I will refer generally to the autism spectrum) in their "special needs" programs. The more complex reality is that there is a lot more autism in higher education than most of us realize. It's not just "special needs" students but also our valedictorians, our faculty members, and yes — sometimes — our administrators.

In many areas of human neurodiversity, including autism, we still don't know the answers to many basic questions. There is still not even agreement on the basic definitions of autism, Asperger's, and related concepts. In the meantime we are applying lots of stereotypes and negative descriptions to autistics that we would not dream of using to describe racial or ethnic groups. It's high time that colleges and universities got out in the lead to fight these common prejudices. The rhetoric coming out of higher education needs to match up to the reality of higher education as a common avocation for autistic people.

Embrace individualism. Question your stereotypes. Maybe even look in the mirror. When you're done, it's likely that you'll see far more talent, in far more unorthodox varieties, than you expected.

Professor Cowen, thank you very much. When Inside Higher Education runs awful, insulting blog entries about autistic people, and academia in general remains oblivious to autistic perspectives, it's wonderful to see an article in the Chronicle which so thoroughly addresses the issues of autistic people in academia--not just as objects of representation, but as active participants in the academy. While autistic people do still face barriers in the academic world too often, it is wonderful to see an acknowledgment that autistic people have always been there.

-Cowen points out several egregious examples of bad autism representations from academics, but not all academics who write about autism fall into that trap. In particular, Kristin Bumiller of Amherst College has published a few articles which examine autism and the neurodiversity movement from a women's studies/disability/political science perspective. Unfortunately, one needs access to academic journals to read them, but here are the citations for anyone interested:

Bumiller, Kristin. "The Geneticization of Autism: From New Reproductive Technologies to the Conception of Genetic Normalcy." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2009, vol. 34, no. 4.

Bumiller, Kristin. "Quirky Citizens: Autism, Gender, and Reimagining Disability." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2008, vol. 33, no. 4.

I need to read Bumiller's work before commenting more fully, but applause to her for a willingness to treat the neurodiversity movement as a serious political movement, and to Signs for publishing these works. And for actually talking to autistic people in conducting autism-related research. A radical concept, that.

The "Science" of Cassandra

How do you create a mental disorder for fun and for profit? Why, you use a pre-existing condition with valid scientific research behind it to draw a false analogy, of course. Maxine Aston's latest book does this in a particularly disingenuous way, for instance saying that "SAD is very real" (124), without providing any evidence that "CADD" is real. "CADD" needs to prove its existence independently. It cannot simply be accepted on the basis of SAD's widespread acceptance within the medical community.

PubMed Search Results for "seasonal affective disorder": 1197
Pub Med Search Results for cassandra affective deprivation disorder: 0*

*I did the search without quotation marks so as to be more potentially inclusive of the terminology. It didn't matter.

Similarly, Aston's description of CADD "symptoms" are so vague that they could apply to anyone who's going through a rough patch with their physical and/or mental health. The section in which "physical symptoms" are discussed is particularly troubling:

Physical Health

-Migraines
-Loss or gain in weight
-Premenstrual Tension (PMT)/female related problems
-Low immune system - colds to cancer.

Wow. Living with an autistic person can cause everything from colds to cancer, apparently. Should we be required to wear surgeon general's warnings around our necks? Can we be sued for creating a carcinogenic environment a la Erin Brokovich?

This hate speech is dangerous beyond its obvious implication for autistic people. I really don't think Aston's doing any favors to non-autistic partners who might be tricked into thinking that they are suffering from CADD. Apparently it hasn't occured to her that serious migranes, unexplained changes in weight, problems with the menstrual cycle or other "female related problem", and a weakened immune system might be symptoms of actual illnesses. I would hate for someone to read this book and dismiss a potentially serious illness as the result of simply living with an autistic partner. No doubt Aston thinks she is being very compassionate and pro-woman in this presentation of the issue, but she's really not. Many women (of all neurotypes) already constantly get told that their physical problems are all in their heads. Casting blame on autistic people, and displacing the problem onto a nonexistant "syndrome" really doesn't help the problem.

McKinnon Discussion Misses the Point

So the news and blogosphere is abuzz with discussion of Gary McKinnon, the British autistic man who hacked into the Pentagon looking for UFOs. I'm personally frustrated that a lot of discussion of the situation seems to miss the point in a major way, as also evidenced by this (older) discussion of the case at The New York Times News Blog. (On a side note, I know rationally that not reading the comments on "mainstream" blogs will probably make me a happier person, but I can't help myself. Must be Asperger's. (end sarcasm)).

I personally don't consider it worthwhile to discuss whether people with AS understand right and wrong, and whether we are to be seen as competent and responsible for our own decisions. To me, this is so self-evidently true that I am not particularly inclined to discuss it with those who disagree--those who would infantalize us. But amidst all this talk about Asperger's and the "AS defense," a few more basic points are being lost. Namely, regardless of McKinnon's disability, he is a victim of stupid and draconian laws which are unjust for everyone of any neurotype.

I understand that Americans are concerned--sometimes to the point of absurdity and myopia--about "terrorists." Okay, sure. But a law which dictates that any individual who commits a particular crime must be extradited and must face a minimum sentance of 60 years is just a stupid law not befitting a free, democratic country. Now, far be it from me to defend actual terrorists who hack with the intentions (or effects) of harming people. In those cases, by all means lock them up for a really long time, after a fair trial and conviction. But the assumption that anyone who commits a particular crime is a "terrorist" is absurd. Courts should be permitted to exercise discretion based on individual circumstances, to differentiate between sci-fi geeks and members of al-Quaeda.

And I would say the same for any non-autistic person accussed of committing the same crime under the same circumstances.* In this instance, we need to stop making this discussion about autism, and start discussing civil liberties more generally. One need not think that autistic people are incompetent or incapable of standing trial for their crimes to object to the way in which this particular case is being handled. Dwelling on the autism issue only obscures the wider injustices, in addition to potentially having some very disturbing consequences for autistic people.**

*Some might say that a non-autistic person wouldn't do what McKinnon did, but I'm not entirely sure I agree. There is no one characteristic of autism that no non-autistic people share. The diagnosis is typically made because of a pattern of traits. In any case, whether a non-autistic person would do this isn't that relevant to my argument that we should focus on motives, not neurology.

**I have to say that I sort of understand why McKinnon's family is pursuing this tactic. If someone I loved were facing this situation, I might do whatever I could to save them from it. No doubt the McKinnons have legal counsel telling them that pursuing the Asperger's angle is a good idea. The rest of us--including those autistic groups which are standing up for McKinnon--don't really have that excuse, however.

Storytime With FAAAS

In reading various discussions of FAAAS on the Internet, I have seen several people try to defend the organization. The following post is an attempt to refute these FAAAS apologists, using the very simple technique of quoting things which FAAAS people have said. I am not yet inspired to write my own poetry, not feeling very inclined towards writing poetry, even bad poetry. So instead I'll give my readers a few snippets of FAAAS' "brilliance." These quotes are from the book Asperger's and Adults...Is Anyone Listening?, edited by Karen Rodman and with an introduction from none other than Tony Attwood. (Note: The link to the Amazon.com page for this book is not an endorsement). I am fortunate enough to have access to an excellent university library system, which allows me electronic access to many titles published by Jessica Kingsley. Fortunately, this means I can read through Rodman's book without having to pay for it myself.

So, here are a few choice quotes from Asperger's and Adults. I think these words do a nice job refuting FAAAS' own recent assertion that it is not a hate group. Please note that these are just a small sample of possible excerpts. Were I to record every anti-autistic statement made in this work, I would end up having to copy practically the entire text. I hope this entry will be useful to those trying to explain to skeptics why FAAAS is, in fact, a hate group.

His or her inability to respond to you emotionally robs you of your self-esteem, friends, family, confidence in yourself and your confidence in others. It steals a “normal life” away from “normal” people. Those born with the affliction of Asperger’s Syndrome survive at the emotional and psychological expense of others. Of course, this is not done consciously on their part! (42)

Short version: Autistic people are (unintentional) parasites.

Like an object,
I was chosen by you.
Like a leech you clung,
I hadn’t a clue. (47)

Again with the parasites.

Oh, unless [the author's son] had a fever of 105. Then he was so normal it was scary. He was concerned about others, empathetic, kind, understanding, gentle. Very strange – one doctor suggested that since neurotransmitters react in an enzyme environment, and since enzymes are heat sensitive, this phenomenon should be researched. My sister suggested we just put C’s head in a microwave and see what happens! We have learned to laugh about a lot of things. (53)

How hilarious. Tell me again who's supposed to be abusive here.

And he revealed to me for the first time that he was a cross-dresser. In trying to work out our relationship in view of this, his inability to understand someone else’s feelings is shown most dramatically. He told me that he can’t understand why this would be such a big deal for me. (68)

Being anti-autistic with a side of homophobia and gender policing.

Our lives are incompatible
Trying to find some way to manage our relationship has made me ill
I do not have the energy or stamina to continue trying
Neither do I have any desire to try
You have beaten me
Congratulations (83)

And FAAAS tries to claim that they don't ascribe malintentions to the autistic partner?

I just want to sit down and cry.
O I know I should stop being so negative.
Besides, I should be used to it, I’m a universal donor.
Everyone wants my blood. (155)
(From piece entitled "O Negative.)

And again with the blood-sucking metaphors. Asperger's/Autism: It's like vampirism, in a way.

I could go on with more excerpts from this whiny, self-pitying book, but I won't. I do find it interesting, however, that from my observations, so many of the contributors to this collection have partners who are not formally diagnosed with an autism spectrum condition. Now, I happen to believe that self-identification is valid, but there seems to me a double-standard at work. How much credibility would a collection of writings by self-diagnosed autistic people be given?

Like I said earlier, I'm not up to writing poetry. But--after subjecting my readers to so much crappy poetry--I'll provide a bit of poetry that's both good and aspie-esque:

Such was that happy garden-state,
While man there walked without a mate :
After a place so pure and sweet,
What other help could yet be meet!
But 'twas beyond a mortal's share
To wander solitary there :
Two paradises 'twere in one
To live in Paradise alone.
--Andrew Marvell, "The Garden"

There, that should help cleanse all of our palletes after reading some of the worst poetry I've ever had the misfortune to read. And somehow I think that many of the partners and children of the FAAAS writers can relate to this state of mind.

Selling Science Without Sex

Several Hub bloggers have blogged about the new anti-Jenny McCarthy website, Rethinking Autism. While anyone who reads this blog knows how I feel about Jenny, and I do appreciate the site's pro-neurodiversity message, I cannot support its methods of advertising. I understand that the site's use of a frankly gorgeous young woman to transmit pro-neurodiversity messages is a parody of Jenny's use of her sex appeal and celebrity status. But at the same time, I don't think neurodiversity activists should be engaging in a mode of activism that turns women into sex objects, even if this is done satirically--which I am not sure that the website successfully pulls off, in any case. I notice that none of the site's videos feature a conventionally attractive man selling sex. These videos are problematic to me as a feminist, no matter how pro-neurodiversity. When we argue for the inherent equality of autistic people, we shouldn't be objectifying women and venerating a particular kind of appearance (read white and thin) as the epitome of female attractiveness.

Besides, as the videos point out, we have science on our side. No, it's not as "sexy," but that's okay. Leave the sleazy appeals to the Jennys of this world. Let's make our arguments as reasonable people who respect the equality of all people. And, for goodness' sake, how about more videos which position autistic people as true authorities? "Leanne" from the videos may well be autistic, but in the videos her appeal rests upon her sex appeal, not empowerment as a self-advocate.

EDITED TO ADD: In the comments, hollywoodjaded brings up another important objection to these ads, namely their unquestioning support of behavioral therapy. I would not consider this viewpoint, as expressed in the glib, abbreviated format of these ads, to be pro-neurodiversity or soundly scientific. (I'm not saying that one has to oppose all forms of behaviorism to be pro-neurodiversity, but I don't think that a truly thoughtful neurodiversity advocate can uncritically advocate it, either.)

EDITED AGAIN TO ADD: Another reader has brought another good point to my attention, which is that the videos do mention the importance of "recognizing natural differences" in the context of behavioral therapy. I do applaud that--along with the videos' debunking of other anti-autistic nonsense--but nevertheless wish these publicists had found a more empowering way of imparting their message. Sexy ads are not the proper forum for a nuanced discussion of the ethics of ABA.

AoA Surprise--and a Predictable Response

Shockingly, Age of Autism blogs a response from Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen. Though I certainly have some quibbles with Baron-Cohen's theories, the content of this letter is quite sound. I particularly appreciate how he pointed to inadequacies in services as the real problem--and not a faux "epidemic." I am certainly surprised that AoA would post such a sensible post, especially given the organization's history of silencing dissent.

The blog's comments, however, remain (unsurprisingly) mind-numbingly assinine. It only took two posts for this particular gem to appear:

Simon Baron-Cohen is no different than a 60s era sheriff in a Mississippi town who logs local lynchings as "suicides". He's every bit as much a killer as the mob with the rope. Does it matter that lynchings were targeted and deliberate and vaccine and toxic injuries are collateral? Dead is dead, maimed is maimed. The cover-up is precisely the same.

Yes, you saw that right. The suggestion that the autism "epidemic"* might be an artefact of broadened diagnostic criteria and greater awareness is now akin to justifying and covering up lynching. And, of course, someone else inevitably compares this position to Holocaust denial. Truly lovely. I wouldn't ordinarily post on blog comments, but I found these particular comments to be especially odious on several levels, and thus worthy of commentary. As Katie Miller recently told the IACC, language matters. And using this kind of language to discuss autism suggests that the existence of autistic people is, on some level, comprable to lynchings and the Holocaust. This gross representation of autistic lives--and the co-option of the historical experiences of marginalized groups--cannot pass without commentary. Dr. Baron-Cohen called attention to the problems of inadequate services and discrimination; AoA readers chose to respond by continuing to wallow in a fabricated sense of victimhood which doesn't actually do a single thing for autistic people.

*As Baron-Cohen points out, "epidemic" would be inappropriate language in reference to autism even if incidence was truly increasing. "Epidemics" are contagious by definition, despite various fear-mongers trying to re-define the word.