As an autistic commentator (Michael John Carley) said: Her research is solid. Her intentions are not.
She appears to be opposed to the existence of "autism" as a diagnosis at all (presumably so that she can believe her son doesn't really have it), and to think that arguing that it's somehow "tainted" by Asperger's evident complicity means that, I don't know, anyone who thinks autistic people exist is a Nazi?
As if plenty of other clinicians with no such complicity hadn't described the same groups of children, often independently of each other (as has been documented by Steve Silbermann, in the process of kicking the shit out of Kanner's claims to be the sole discoverer of a sharply-delineated group as opposed to one part of a spectrum). And if we didn't, you know, continue to exist.
Asperger wasn't labelling a group of children previously considered "normal"; he was labelling a group of children previously considered deviant, strange, delinquent, insane, etc.. And that wasn't so we could be exterminated; ironically, it's always been inferred that he was passionate in the defense of the positive qualities and capacity to contribute of children with (what came to be known as) "Asperger's syndrome" because (apparently despite his allegiances) he didn't want us disposed of.
ETA: Anger directed at her, not you; I hope that's clear.
no subject
As an autistic commentator (Michael John Carley) said: Her research is solid. Her intentions are not.
She appears to be opposed to the existence of "autism" as a diagnosis at all (presumably so that she can believe her son doesn't really have it), and to think that arguing that it's somehow "tainted" by Asperger's evident complicity means that, I don't know, anyone who thinks autistic people exist is a Nazi?
As if plenty of other clinicians with no such complicity hadn't described the same groups of children, often independently of each other (as has been documented by Steve Silbermann, in the process of kicking the shit out of Kanner's claims to be the sole discoverer of a sharply-delineated group as opposed to one part of a spectrum). And if we didn't, you know, continue to exist.
Asperger wasn't labelling a group of children previously considered "normal"; he was labelling a group of children previously considered deviant, strange, delinquent, insane, etc.. And that wasn't so we could be exterminated; ironically, it's always been inferred that he was passionate in the defense of the positive qualities and capacity to contribute of children with (what came to be known as) "Asperger's syndrome" because (apparently despite his allegiances) he didn't want us disposed of.
ETA: Anger directed at her, not you; I hope that's clear.