Sia's' "Autism" and What Does "Autism" Mean Anyway? A Double-Header
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 жов 2024
- For almost all of its history autism was considered a "pervasive developmental disorder." It involved serious deviations from normal development, serious impairments in communication, social relatedness and behavior. Academic papers often had a simple shorthand for autism: "devastating." But today, if you're quirky and anxious but otherwise completely normal, poof! you too can have "autism." In this double-header episode, Jill Escher comments on reports that the singer Sia has autism, followed by an earlier recorded discussion with Dr. Lee Wachtel and Dr. Carmen Lopez-Arvizu about the highly diluted and trivialized term autism.
Dr. Wachtel is the Clinical Director of the Neurobehavioral Unit at Kennedy Krieger Institute. Dr. Lopez-Arvizu is the Medical Director of the Psychiatric Medical Health Program at KKI.
Links:
Jill Escher: The Sia Shaming Spectacle Is a Tragedy for the Arts and the Autism Community
www.ncsautism....
Jill Escher: Stop Hating on Maddie Ziegler: She Was Magnificent in Sia’s “Music”
www.ncsautism....
Lee Wachtel: In Defense of Profound Autism
• The Case for Profound ...
Autism Confidential AutismConfidential.org/
Sponsored by:
National Council on Severe Autism NCSAutism.org/
I appreciated Dr. Wachtel's comment on Physicians listing comorbidities. Had my son's other challenges been formally addressed he would have received the help he truly needed.
You've made a great point. Without additional qualifiers, it's far too ambiguous and does not distinguish clearly enough what support is needed! The ICD does list some of these, but the DSM does not.
Thanks for sharing this. I really loved the one Dr.s point about making sure we aren't looking at things from a point of bias. I am new to the autism community and I hope to be able to step up in my area and help make differences and this was a good reminder that I need to listen to both sides of the argument from the source and be willing to have discussions.
I am one of the late diagnosed population. I am sometimes articulate, but I've been loosing functionality for years now and it honestly scares me a lot. I was shocked when I went through the diagnosis process and came out with a level 2 diagnosis since I don't have any intellectual disability and even managed to eventually get an associates degree, not that I can use it anymore.
I personally am good with the autism label covering the range but we do need to keep cases like your children in mind and remember how often learning disabilities and cognitive impairments are comorbidities. Granted I can't speak for them all, but I bet you are seeing the most pushing from people triggered by their own personal bias of how they were treated by their caregivers and people in positions of authority in the past.
The frustration I'm having is that I now know I have autism, but there isn't anywhere I can turn to for help trying see if I can get back some of the functioning I've lost or advice on things to try and make my world work better for me or anything else. Everything available is either designed for children or for level 3 round the clock care facilities and it has been disheartening.
I'm going to subscribe and keep watching your videos. I might not be able to relate but if I'm studying and trying to spread awareness of autism and potentially drive changes in my community you are right, I need to hear more sides of the story.
Also, I had never heard of the singer stuff, but you are right, she hired an actor to portray a side of autism. I don't understand why that was a problem. I do get her being able to be successful though, I pulled off a normal looking life past 35 until it all finally fell apart and I just could keep going.
Would you like to have a discussion with me over a Zoom meeting and have your views put on my channel?
I've studied autism and disabilities for nearly 25 years and can answer any questions you have.
Just about everyone who opposes the neurodiversity movement doesn't understand the neurodiversity movement, and on top of that are either uninformed people or just stupid. Informed people know trying to cure conditions like autism causes devolution and premature extinction of humanity.
The reason I know they don't understand the neurodiversity movement is because anyone who opposes the movement inevitably supports the racist eugenics movement, the two movements are polar opposites. The "normal" brain was invented by Francis Galton which is why he's the father of biostatistics.
I doubt opposers of the NDM are all intentional sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist discriminators like Francis Galton, Karl Pearson, and Ronald Fisher.
I get where the concern is coming from- I do believe a better way of categorizing autism will come about, I hope. It's true that many late dx people are ignorant of profound autism, or they refuse to acknowledge it. I'm confused though on how it's appropriate to diagnose, or undiagnose, someone who you even say that you have no knowledge of? It doesn't feel appropriate, regardless of the diagnosis label. Perhaps Level 1 should be given a new separate name, but to reject the dx entirely for someone you don't know also seems harmful. Even lvl 1 autism requires certain therapies and accommodations/strategies that may differ from social anxiety or depression. I agree though that a lot of harm is done when the criteria itself is misrepresented or disregarded entirely.
There used to be a word for level 1- it was called Asperger's. Unfortunately, that fell out of fashion.
@@matthewcrome "Fell out of fashion." Hardly. I think you mean it completely ceased to exist everywhere on the planet per ICD and DSM criteria that are used in every country.
There won't be another way and level 1, 2, and 3 are not severity levels.
Autism is developmental meaning it is not a static disability like blindness, the levels are indicators of how much support the individual needs at that time. Someone diagnosed ASD3 could be ASD1 10 years later, and someone ASD1 could become ASD2 or 3 within 10 years.
It is consistently changing.
Great points of view discussed, especially around what does autism mean anyway, thank you.
I feel like this is just Sia doing damage control over the "Music" controversy, I don't believe she's really autistic. Especially considering she doesn't seem to be disabled at all and has been so successful in her career without having any difficulty.
Also, the whole casting controversy is ridiculous for the reasons Jill said - it's much easier to cast a neurotypical person as a severely autistic person than a severely autistic person as a severely autistic person, due to the fact that... I don't know... they're severely autistic and have severe disabilities.
"Easier" isn't necessarily better nor representative.
The short film "Loop" cast a nonspeaking autistic young lady with intellectual disability to voice a nonspeaking character. When the studio was overwhelming for her and she couldn't continue filming, the director made accommodations to ensure her participation. For example, they filmed her parts at her home where she could be comfortable, and they allowed her to take lengthy breaks as needed and even incorporated one of her stimming devices into the plot.
It takes extra work, but if it's something of value, then at least a concerted effort should be made, and not just once to "check off a box."
Further, unless you are privy to detailed personal information, I don't think you - or anyone - qualified to arbitrarily determine the legitimacy of someone else's health conditions nor what difficulties they may or may not have had.
The whole "autistic doctor" thing is annoying to me because I honestly don't understand how even the most high-functioning people with legitimate autism could become doctors. I, as a very high-functioning person could never deal with the stress of being on call all of the time, the emotional hardships of dealing with death and injury, the lack of sleep (I have severe sleep issues due to my autism), the time commitment (I have trouble making appointments), the sensory overload, the social interactions, I could go on.
I'm so frustrated by shows like The Good Doctor because they're so unrealistic. Just because someone is a savant supergenius (which the vast, vast majority of autistic people aren't) doesn't mean they're equipped to be a doctor if their autism is that significant.
Your lack of familiarity with something doesn't make it less legitimate. It simply means your knowledge is limited. You are projecting quite a bit in this post. Perhaps it would be beneficial for you to do some research as there are individuals - with formal autism diagnoses - who are doctors. It is certainly not the majority; collectively, much of the autistic population around the globe is underemployed/unemployed compared to nonautistic peers. But it exists. Please stop portraying your sole, limited perspective to be factual information about the broad range of people on the spectrum.
Depends on the speciality, some people will tolerate the stress during training for limited periods then find a field that is less hectic and demanding to work in long term, for example rural or community practice in a niche specialism.
I’ve seen healthcare professionals in acute settings, and I think it’s that autism isn’t understood not that the healthcare professionals were not
I'm sick of the fact (as someone with diagnosed high-functioning autism/Asperger's) that anyone can say they're autistic and people automatically believe them, even though you wouldn't do that for any other medical conditions. One neurodiversity podcast I heard said "remember that anyone can be autistic" which is just is completely ridiculous. Yes, it it true there are people with Asperger's who you wouldn't be able to tell are autistic (at least not from a first impression, but if you observed them yes), but someone still has to meet the criteria to have autism, and I know people who claim to have autism and have absolutely no signs (even someone I grew up with, who showed absolutely no signs as a child) and it really frustrates me as someone who had signs up from when I was a baby/toddler. (I was diagnosed late in life because my parents were unsure what to look for and I did well in school so no one saw any problems (other than social) until adulthood when I had trouble living on my own, but I see so many people who *did* have opportunities for early diagnoses and still didn't show any signs.
"...you wouldn't do that for any other medical conditions."
According to your (incorrect) logic, we should be able to tell at first glance...
-whether a person is living with HIV
-whether a person is colorblind
-whether a person has heart disease
-whether a person has food allergies
-whether a person has sickle cell anemia
-whether a person is allergic to penicillin
Because, again, per your remark, of course we wouldn't "automatically" believe them if they told us. In fact, we would choose not to believe them, and would still make them engage in pasttimes that are not suitable, and potentially life-threatening for them...because {sarcasm} they must have visible proof of said condition(s) at all times affixed to them like pink triangles or like the Star of David?
This is ridiculous.