U.S. autism data project sparks uproar over ethics, privacy and intent

Why do you consider that a good thing?

If the public face of autism is someone who needs no support or accommodations and is in fact very successful - people will understandably be confused when someone with the same diagnosis needs substantial support.

How does high functioning autistic people speaking up for the autistic community "pollute" the conversation?

First of all, the reason this registry isn't going through is because autistic people who are functioning enough to speak out did so in solidarity with the entire autistic community. So far from polluting anything we are advocating for ourselves and our peers.

Secondly, this "high functioning low functioning" dichotomy is wrong so your framing it as a "us vs them" situation is off. It's a spectrum not a binary.

Third, presumably if they can't speak for themselves, and "high functioning" autistic people are discouraged, then the only people speaking for them are allistic people speaking about what's best for autistic people. When that happens, you get bone-headed characterizations like autistic people "never pay taxes, they'll never hold a job, they'll never play baseball, they'll never write a poem, they'll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted." and suggestions of registries, wellness farms, and soon enough genetic cleansings.

Finally, it's autistic acceptance and awareness month, and the autistic community has been under attack for a week. You're spending your Sunday calling autistic people "selfish" and characterizing their input as "pollution". Have some compassion please.

Low functioning peers can't participate and high functioning peers shouldn't participate. So all discussions about autism should include only non-autistic people? Weird logic doesn't compute!

But what if low functioning and high functioning peers share many symptoms, but at different intensities? Won't that make the 'high functioning' peers more capable of understanding and thus speaking for their low functioning peers? In fact, there is a specific term for this - 'the double empathy problem'. Perhaps you should try a less 'ablist' approach to autism.

I assume that you don't have direct experience with autism? Success is a very misleading criterion. Even the very successful autistic people often suffer from significant distress. Level 1 autism (the most independent one), is also listed as requiring help. They too need accommodations - but it might be different from what you imagine. And their life situation can change drastically and dramatically at any stage.

In my opinion, people need to learn - and in many things, already know - that things have scale. For example, with "pain": a bruise, cavities in teeth, kidney stones, migraines all hurt, but the level of effect on someone's life is vastly different.

Also, people have no problem minimizing the things as well, where pain again is a good example. In many situations, if it cannot be seen, secondary parties easily disregard it.

So, in conclusion, this confusion with the autism levels should not be a problem.

Thanks for answering that, I now see where you are coming from.

It's cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. The societal damage that the anti-autism measures do are much, much greater and sinister than whatever the high-functioning autists could ever do.

Basically, only completely healthy people should be allowed to talk about themselves. Those with milder issues are selfish when they talk ... and those with large issues cant anyway.

So, the only people allowed to talk about autism are people like you - those who do not have it.