In this sense, the people who are hurt are hurt because they believe they should be hurt, not because I am actually doing anything hurtful.
So... I know they're telling me to stop, and that they're hurt. But I'm not going to stop. I think they should update their worldview.
Conversation
Much as religious people would probably experience greater freedom and less pain if they left their religion, I also think autistic people would experience greater freedom and less pain if they left their framework that leads to them getting hurt by me expressing myself.
1
Replying to
Unfortunately - that’s not how it works. We can’t just suddenly not feel insulted by people debating our existence
1
Replying to
Right, I agree! I would like to be able to lay out enough information such that we can learn to not feel insulted by these debates, though. It seems like a super useful skill.
2
Replying to
I think you’re missing my point there - doesn’t debating about whether or not we should exist feel strange to you? I think most people would feel odd thinking about others having an opinion on their existence in the world..
1
Replying to
Not at all? I can see how a reasonable person, who views autism as a really painful thing that makes life hard and creates suffering, might think that it would be a loving and kind thing to do to stop future autism from existing. I saw some autistic people express this sentiment.
3
1
Replying to
And I also will add that the frustrating part for a lot of us is that this kind of notion about autism being some horrible awful thing that’s no good - is exactly the misconceptions alot of advocates are trying to fight against.
1
Replying to
But I don't wanna go into this discussion *assuming* there's a right answer - this is one of my complaints and thus parallels to religion.
I agree that they believe it's a misconception - but it's still a discussion we can have - especially because some autistic people disagree.
2
1
This is an argument I"ve been seeing pop up in response to me on twitter lately - "Don't even ask that question, X group views the discussion as harmful." And then members of X group who disagree with them are completely ignored. The conclusion is assumed as a starting condition.
2
1
This also is circling around a larger point or value I hold - that suppressing discussion, or limiting voices who are allowed into a discussion, as a general rule, is a dangerous and exclusionary thing to do.
2
1
For example, I strongly believe men should be allowed into the abortion debate. It doesn't affect them, but that *doesn't matter* - their opinions on how a good world runs are valid no matter what.
Ofc, I can view their opinions as less important to me because they are men.
Replying to
abortion is a bit different as pregnancy can only occur with 2 ppl so I would def agree that men should have a say. But I think someone who is not autistic offering an opinion to the life of an autistic person - is like a white person saying they have an opinion about being black
Replying to
Ofc everyone has their own opinions and perspectives- but it will always be in context with their own experiences. someone offering an opinion on a life they have not lived doesn’t hold much weight to me tbh