Hacker News Reader

Homosexuality was once considered a disorder, and is now very broadly accepted to be a trait. Could you at least entertain the idea that this could parallel with autism?

In anticipation of some pseudoarguments in the vein of, ‘a disorder causes trouble for the individual; homosexuality does not while autism does,’ consider that, until recently, being openly gay was very much a social hinderance. In a better-structured world, we may have significantly more suitable accomodations for autistic people that would alleviate the societal difficulties they currently face.

Being left-handed was once considered a terrible disease (and still is in some parts of the world).

Autism in pretty much the same: things are perceived and done differently, but that doesn't mean people are broken.

Following this metaphor, the real problem is that society keeps making only scissors (and mice) for right-handed people.

Homosexuality has no characteristics of a disorder in the first place, thus the example is not equivalent.

>In anticipation of some pseudoarguments in the vein of, ‘a disorder causes trouble for the individual; homosexuality does not while autism does,’ ...

Actual autistic people suffer because of everyday stimuli. Not being socially accepted is just a different problem, but it shows how "spectrum" autism is often used as an excuse.

PS.: Homosexuality was never defined as a disorder. It was labelled a disorder after the fact, because the definition is not the impairment but your preference for the same sex.

If autism is defined as having a slightly different brain structure which leads to differences in how stimuli are processed. Do we call this a disorder or a trait? Is having a brain structure outside of the median set of types a disorder? Depending on the level of differences in the brain, one may be labelled as “Aspergers” and appear externally like everyone else, or on the other end of the scale, may need assistance with every day living. Neither disorder or trait captures nearly both ends of the scale.

It’s probably also unhelpful to label someone with ‘asbergers’ as disordered. They have traits, some that are beneficial and at the same time some that create problems functioning in every day society.

That seems to me to clash with the concept of an "autism spectrum" that includes both Asperger's and extreme forms where people are nonverbal, self-injure, and are completely unable to function independantly in any kind of society. How could the latter possibly not be a disorder?

I did ignore the part where you redefined the term, because if you redefine the term, you mean something different. Which is my point.

Aspergers seems to mean a personality for most (even researchers), altho it was intended to describe a disorder. But given the bad definition it's rather clear how we ended up like this.

Autism is a disorder. Having a different brain structure is (not necessarily) a disorder but an observation. Having different traits is also not a disorder.

I said “ If autism is defined as having a slightly different brain structure...” than an average/typical brain structure.

_If_ this is true, and I think autism could cause distinctive traits or disorders that impact quality of life.

Thankfully this is hypothesis is actually testable. If proven true, then autism would logically be able to cause changes in brain operation that are positive as well as negative.

Thus “traits” is a helpful word to include in the discussion.

Thus Autism is not necessarily a disorder? This sounds like the same conclusion as written in the article.

> Autism was a disorder and now it is a trait. Instead of a disorder with certain obvious/extreme traits.

Taken from wiki regarding the DSM IV definition of ASD in 2000:

> ASD is a subset of the broader autism phenotype (BAP), which describes individuals who may not have ASD but do have autistic-like traits, such as avoiding eye contact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism_spectrum#DSM_IV_(2000)

> Let me define the "The Broader Schizophrenia Phenotype Constellation-Disability Matrix Paradigm" and redefine Schizophrenia as being moody and day-dreaming kind of person. It also stands for creativity and thinking out-of-the-box.

It appears that similar links have been drawn for schizotypals vs schizophrenics vs control:

> Another study found creativity to be greater in schizotypal than in either normal or schizophrenic individuals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity_and_mental_health#S...

> We usually (medically) treat disorders (not cure them) and we certainly neither treat nor cure traits. In that context it makes sense, but one has to see the shift of disorder to trait.

From the article:

> McDonald said she now knows what causes autism but it is not something that could be cured and, honestly, she wouldn’t want to do that.

And this echos the thinking of an autism advocate I know. There's been some evidence of pre-natal biomarkers that predict autism, and they worry that people may, in the future, early terminate - and people like them won't have the chance to exist.