With the recent publicity in the mainstream media regarding Neurodiversity as a movement that would counter what has been the typical description of autism, how any such a movement's common ideals are described is even more important. Unfortunately too often when people get a taste of the rewards of selling something they tend to become more concerned with acquiring more of those rewards at the expense of forgetting what made the product valuable and how to keep it that way.
In this post of Gonzo's, there are some very good references as to how disability activism and human rights can too easily be made less important to advocates than praising the attributes of autistics or clinging to medical references that attempt to devalue our experience. She makes some excellent points about why healthy discussion can help to create a refined understanding of our goals and why that's important.
Behavioral therapy is not a political football in that there is very little resistance to prevent the abuses that have been caused by such therapies. Behavioral therapy is sold by a very large corporation that intends to create a backing for their enterprise within the federal government of the United States.(How this is happening in the United States is what I'm most aware of. It's not that such things aren't also happening in other countries).
In order for this a corporation to acquire a monopoly (one that is endorsed and even demanded by the government) it would seem advantageous for them to show to everyone that they had the support of the only known group that resists the popular current medical model of autism.
Certainly, groups such as ASAN and any one else daring to redefine the medical model of autism with contemporary terms/ideals known as Neurodiversity are in a position to show a very strong advocacy that is unwilling to accept any of the types of abuses or methods of abuse that have been acceptable in the past. While it may be advantageous for a political advocacy group to make compromises in the beginning in order to be seen and accepted among the major decision-makers, the expectation for their willingness to compromise will become greater over time. They're sustaining power will instead come by continuing to show that the word neurodiversity stands against what has known to be a method for abusing autistics.
Whenever a political group sacrifices the ideals of those who supported and propelled their political decision-making position in the first place (which allows them to be seen as a team player by other politicians), their position will ultimately show a weakened and diluted state as they will ultimately lose support.
The majority of autistic people who have had any type of treatment for their autism would certainly have a very firm stance against any treatment that even had the potential for being abusive. The elite few who are advocating for the rights of autistics have been given this privilege and responsibility as the result of being in the luxurious place where people will listen to their views.
Most autistic people are not listened to. This is not due to lack of ability to communicate but rather the unwillingness of society to give credit and understanding to a population without political support.
Any part of the mainstream media's view of autism that doesn't support treatments that are abusive is involved in silencing the voice of autistics in other ways such as treating them with condescension and pity.
If a movement such as Neurodiversity is at all successful, it will encourage more autistic people to openly speak up about what they believe.(This is something that all autism's political advocates including those claim to support Neurodiversity are working to discourage). If and when more autistic people do speak up it will be obvious that no political advocacy group has been willing to listen.
