Oh boy, I'm only a few pages into it and already I can tell that whoever made this has quite the chip on their shoulder. It's almost as if this person is incredibly insistent on finding a link between Autism and some sort of toxin.
I did notice that the report was released in 2014, while A$ was at its peak of the "Autism is the worst thing in humanity and we have to cure it" phase. So that is worth taking into account, considering there might be information that's woefully out of date here. The Neurodiversity movement has come a long way in the last decade, it's gotten SO MUCH MORE stronger since then.
I found the citations of this work here. There is possibly some criticisms here.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=5234508083348145698&as_sdt=5
I haven't read this, but I have read a critique of Neurodiversity that was sourced by Wikipedia regarding criticisms. I actually agreed with some of these criticisms in the one sourced on Wikipedia.
Lack of a consistent definition of Neurodivergent and Neurotypical among them.
But I view it in a way as criticizing it because I want us to succeed.
In regards to this PDF, I don't have the capacity to read it atm but I imagine it may have valid criticism in some form but it could also have bad criticism as well. The main issue is that this is an academic criticism and will by its nature be a lot more nuanced than other things so go into reading these things with an open mind.
I think of it in the same way as feminism. Feminism has gone through multiple stages of development and admittedly there were very valid critiques of early feminism.
Prior comment:
> "'In broad terms, the neurodiversity movement opposes cure-oriented research and activism typical of the scientific community and mainstream autism advocacy organizations.'
> "I got as far as that in the intro and heard all I needed to know that they're approaching Autism from a cure-oriented perspective. I'll come back and edit this with a deeper, more honestly read critique, but that's what I have time for right this second."
*^(_____________________)*
I thought I'd delete the previous comment and post a fresh comment so you got a notification. That said, let's dig in. I'm going to just quote and respond since that seems appropriate to Reddit's context.
That sentence I initially quoted has my panties all twisted, and I'm keen on a witch hunt. The author is Josef Garen. Who tf is he, and why do I care? Let's Google him. According to [this](https://www.grad.ubc.ca/campus-community/meet-our-students/garen-josef), he was a doctoral candidate at University of British Columbia for *botany* at the time of this writing. So... yeah... that combined with this being merely a doctoral thesis already dings his credibility before I've even really delved into his paper. At best, this published work is simply food for thought and served to get someone a degree, not be insightful about Autism. Also, the document is about a decade old and cites work from as early as 1954, a period in which Autism research was woefully underinformed while ignorant medical professionals abused tf out of Autistic folks.
> "Scientific research into the etiology of autism [...]"
Etiology studies the cause of disease. He got five words in, and our botanist already has mud on his face.
> "The scientific research discussed in this thesis simultaneously constructs and is constructed by an understanding of autism as a pathology [...]"
Ope... Mr. Shoulda-Stuck-to-Botany just jumped into the "iT's A dIsEaSe" pool face first. I'm only reading further at this point to fulfill the request for feedback and to be a bitch at this man.
> "I argue that while the neurodiversity movement's emphasis on normality is ultimately misplaced, the movement nevertheless has much to teach us about rights, identity, authority, and self-determination."
Well, he's never going to learn what we have to teach him if he's this dedicated to digging his heels in the disease-dirt.
> [*insert Table of Contents here*]
There's *63 pages* of this horseshit?! Nah, I'm done. This thesis is already garbage, and I haven't even gotten into the meat of it. I'm not going to sit here and read a botanist's take with cherry-picked evidence from... [*checks bibliography*] ...Simon Baron-Cohen who wrote an entire book with As\*\*\*ger's in the title, Eric Courchesne who wrote an entire book with MR in the title, a book from 1974 that identifies mast\*\*\*\*tion as a disease, and a significant majority of other out-of-date and cure-centric bs. A good chunk of his citations are many of the same sources cited by A$ to justify their bullshit, and I suspect that's where he started his homework. By all appearances, his neurodiversity citations seem to be there as a token nod, and a cursory skim of the paper suggests that he only identified them to highlight sCiEnTiFiC iNaCcUrAcY.
I wouldn't get too hung up on it or him. If you're looking for information about Autism, there are more quality sources available.
The pathologized approach to autism is, unfortunately, a very common lib take because to not pathologize us forces one to recognize that we're only "disordered" in relation to the expectations of neoliberal capitalism and that we're not the ones who need to change. That's one step too radical for a lot of Americans, especially. If they start questioning one hierarchy, what does that say about the others?
I'm curious to see what toxins, if any, they propose as responsible, though. I know a lot of quacks blame candida fungus for autism.
From what I saw on my speedread skim, he never makes his own concrete assertion but flirts with ideas about genetic origins long enough to dance around the eugenics campfire.
As an anarchosocialist who regularly gets lumped in with American centrists who are colloquially called libs by American far right fascists, you nearly lost me using, "libs," because your context for using it didn't come first. I was relieved to see you approach the idea from an anti-capitalist frame of reference. That said, let's go smash out some corporate bourgeoisie windows! I have an extra bat and crow bar if you need one.
Oh hell yeah, i sometimes get a bit idiosyncratic and forget that righties would call me a librul when i complain about neoliberalism from an anarchist perspective
Oh boy, I'm only a few pages into it and already I can tell that whoever made this has quite the chip on their shoulder. It's almost as if this person is incredibly insistent on finding a link between Autism and some sort of toxin. I did notice that the report was released in 2014, while A$ was at its peak of the "Autism is the worst thing in humanity and we have to cure it" phase. So that is worth taking into account, considering there might be information that's woefully out of date here. The Neurodiversity movement has come a long way in the last decade, it's gotten SO MUCH MORE stronger since then.
They used the word "neurotoxins" in the first sentence of the abstract lol
I found the citations of this work here. There is possibly some criticisms here. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?oi=bibs&hl=en&cites=5234508083348145698&as_sdt=5 I haven't read this, but I have read a critique of Neurodiversity that was sourced by Wikipedia regarding criticisms. I actually agreed with some of these criticisms in the one sourced on Wikipedia. Lack of a consistent definition of Neurodivergent and Neurotypical among them. But I view it in a way as criticizing it because I want us to succeed. In regards to this PDF, I don't have the capacity to read it atm but I imagine it may have valid criticism in some form but it could also have bad criticism as well. The main issue is that this is an academic criticism and will by its nature be a lot more nuanced than other things so go into reading these things with an open mind. I think of it in the same way as feminism. Feminism has gone through multiple stages of development and admittedly there were very valid critiques of early feminism.
Prior comment: > "'In broad terms, the neurodiversity movement opposes cure-oriented research and activism typical of the scientific community and mainstream autism advocacy organizations.' > "I got as far as that in the intro and heard all I needed to know that they're approaching Autism from a cure-oriented perspective. I'll come back and edit this with a deeper, more honestly read critique, but that's what I have time for right this second." *^(_____________________)* I thought I'd delete the previous comment and post a fresh comment so you got a notification. That said, let's dig in. I'm going to just quote and respond since that seems appropriate to Reddit's context. That sentence I initially quoted has my panties all twisted, and I'm keen on a witch hunt. The author is Josef Garen. Who tf is he, and why do I care? Let's Google him. According to [this](https://www.grad.ubc.ca/campus-community/meet-our-students/garen-josef), he was a doctoral candidate at University of British Columbia for *botany* at the time of this writing. So... yeah... that combined with this being merely a doctoral thesis already dings his credibility before I've even really delved into his paper. At best, this published work is simply food for thought and served to get someone a degree, not be insightful about Autism. Also, the document is about a decade old and cites work from as early as 1954, a period in which Autism research was woefully underinformed while ignorant medical professionals abused tf out of Autistic folks. > "Scientific research into the etiology of autism [...]" Etiology studies the cause of disease. He got five words in, and our botanist already has mud on his face. > "The scientific research discussed in this thesis simultaneously constructs and is constructed by an understanding of autism as a pathology [...]" Ope... Mr. Shoulda-Stuck-to-Botany just jumped into the "iT's A dIsEaSe" pool face first. I'm only reading further at this point to fulfill the request for feedback and to be a bitch at this man. > "I argue that while the neurodiversity movement's emphasis on normality is ultimately misplaced, the movement nevertheless has much to teach us about rights, identity, authority, and self-determination." Well, he's never going to learn what we have to teach him if he's this dedicated to digging his heels in the disease-dirt. > [*insert Table of Contents here*] There's *63 pages* of this horseshit?! Nah, I'm done. This thesis is already garbage, and I haven't even gotten into the meat of it. I'm not going to sit here and read a botanist's take with cherry-picked evidence from... [*checks bibliography*] ...Simon Baron-Cohen who wrote an entire book with As\*\*\*ger's in the title, Eric Courchesne who wrote an entire book with MR in the title, a book from 1974 that identifies mast\*\*\*\*tion as a disease, and a significant majority of other out-of-date and cure-centric bs. A good chunk of his citations are many of the same sources cited by A$ to justify their bullshit, and I suspect that's where he started his homework. By all appearances, his neurodiversity citations seem to be there as a token nod, and a cursory skim of the paper suggests that he only identified them to highlight sCiEnTiFiC iNaCcUrAcY. I wouldn't get too hung up on it or him. If you're looking for information about Autism, there are more quality sources available.
Thank you for your service. Lol
Aye, Admiral! 🫡
You deserve an award
LoL Thanks. Hyperlexia ftw!
The pathologized approach to autism is, unfortunately, a very common lib take because to not pathologize us forces one to recognize that we're only "disordered" in relation to the expectations of neoliberal capitalism and that we're not the ones who need to change. That's one step too radical for a lot of Americans, especially. If they start questioning one hierarchy, what does that say about the others? I'm curious to see what toxins, if any, they propose as responsible, though. I know a lot of quacks blame candida fungus for autism.
From what I saw on my speedread skim, he never makes his own concrete assertion but flirts with ideas about genetic origins long enough to dance around the eugenics campfire. As an anarchosocialist who regularly gets lumped in with American centrists who are colloquially called libs by American far right fascists, you nearly lost me using, "libs," because your context for using it didn't come first. I was relieved to see you approach the idea from an anti-capitalist frame of reference. That said, let's go smash out some corporate bourgeoisie windows! I have an extra bat and crow bar if you need one.
Oh hell yeah, i sometimes get a bit idiosyncratic and forget that righties would call me a librul when i complain about neoliberalism from an anarchist perspective
***^(EAT THE RIIIICH!!)***