The Gated Autism Community

No matter what autism statistic is most accurate, there are few participating in online discussions, which affect policy as well as society's perceptions. Therefore, this shouldn't be called an autism community. 
It would be fine to claim that the goal was to be inclusive. However, those who are most excluded aren't the bullies but rather their victims. This fits well with the suggestion that we need more celebrities representing us and raising our status above that of the disabled. With such exclusionary goals, there's nothing representative about this so-called community.

In an environment with true representation, many of the therapies would be described in a completely different way and may be abolished. Furthermore, if those who were diagnosed began to believe they were regarded as worthy of influencing the policy decisions that affected them, more abuse would be reported, and society would have less means of segregation.

Integration is mainly just presented as an unrealistic ideal by politicians who want to be reelected. It works similarly to the goal of curing incurable societal ills. The decision makers are afraid the diagnosed may truly integrate if they get too much of the support they need so they need excuses the valued public will accept. One way disabled people's exclusion is traditionally justified is by the claim they are morally inferior. The idea of inability and differences in access requirements, communication, perception, and expression are far too inconvenient. Instead, it works much better when it's suggested that people are lazy, immature, stubborn, and unwilling.

People who aren't influencing policy aren't neglecting to take on the task. Their inconvenient ranking prohibits them from doing so. No one believes the cart-before-the-horse approach to inclusion will do anything but protect the status quo. Nevertheless, people who need supports are expected to prove their worthiness before they can explain what support they need. People qualified to provide answers aren't be allowed to participate.

The traditional political arena honors standard hierarchical ranking and equates those with the lower ranks with deserving blame, punishment, and being ignored. It's suggested that those with a bird's eye or mountain-top view have earned their position, and others just aren't willing. Such people's lack of education and experience or their ignorance (these really are viewed as inseparable) classifies them as worthless.

In order to protect tradition those whose contribution is valued are believed to have already over-come the obstacles which others are facing. Having only a few contributions valued, and everyone expected to follow one of the few approved paths prevents any challenge to the traditional system and those who benefit from it. Not only is diversity perceived as a threat to the system and those involved in it, it's those whose perspective is different and those who will offer new and alternative approaches that are needed most in creating policy that will aid in their success as well as more success of others.

The online discussions concerning autism aren't public at all. The only people participating are society's valued members. The only way it can be considered a community is if the word gated is added as a prefix. As an extension of the system which promotes traditional values, re-electing politicians is all that will be accomplished.

The Best Thinking

No forms of ableism are more socially acceptable than the ones which imply a lack of intelligence or sanity. Few will object to someone being called stupid, crazy or something similar. Furthermore, the questions asked at a competency hearing will put to rest the myth that there's any separation between intellect and emotional/mental stability within the law or in cultural attitudes. It's widely believed that such a deficit can be related to someone's character. When it's implied that it is, it's more likely to be seen as justified and as though what's said doesn't offend other people.

Partisan politics play a vital role in promoting the problem and protecting those who instigate it. Free-market capitalism allows universities to deny most people, an education and some popular conservatives are preaching an anti-science and anti-intellectual message. At the same time, their liberal opposition is educating more people in elitist language and etiquette, which are called other names but stink just as bad and cause as many problems. It may be suggested that since the scholars create the rules, what they learn will trickle down like resources supposedly do. Furthermore, the implication may be that the uninvolved can't support the needed change. However, the claim that bigotry is the result of ignorance, which stems from the lack of education will support how people without monetary resources are believed to have nothing to contribute and are prohibiting progress.

One standard for ranking by which some are exalted and others unfairly excluded, marginalised, disenfranchised, and abused works as well as any other. Inclusion has been commercialized and subsequently, and the ideal diluted so that advocates who are appointed to challenge what's causing the problem are instead promoting it.

Public Opinion

Only a small portion of the public is valued and has an opinion considered valid. Furthermore, what passes for solidarity rarely includes many ideas or, more importantly, many people who are providing alternatives to tradition. That which is commonly referred to as a democratic approach is often something very different. The prohibition of alternate views is never written in a formal rule book where it can be easily challenged. Instead, there's a consistent supply of subtle methods for blaming those who don't follow the prescribed plan. 

For example, the Internet continues to be small with very limited access. It would be helpful if discussions described as open and public would acknowledge this limitation, but that rarely happens. Usually when it is described as a tool for liberation, the describer has either been misled by popular culture or is just intentionally deceptive. Believing that inclusion exists long before it does will require ignoring the exclusionary methods being used. 

There are plenty of convenient ways to describe negatively those who aren't welcome (non-team player, selfish, willingly ignorant and/or poor, unnecessarily individualistic, antagonistic, etc.), and until this is no longer comfortable, the limited solution options that result will prevent progress. 

Those which are called the best ways to provide access and encourage inclusion are decided by authorities rather than by those who need support. Since needing support is synonymous with lacking understanding of what is important, the decision-making process is left to those who have been granted the privilege of calling what they think knowledge without it being adequately challenged. 

Much of what is discussed regarding the way diagnosis is used for people not fitting in or relating to others in a substandard way is limited to those who profit from problems continuing. The public follows the authority by pointing out what they see is lacking in others in a way that promotes their own status. 

The division between those who have the authority to participate in influential discussions and decide policy and those who don't, follows a similar trend as income and class division. The advertised way for people to overcome their position encourages the belief that people who are least respected don't contribute anything valuable and are therefore, disposable. This also encourages unrealistic expectations. Until what gets called public opinion is the result of hearing what many people think who are seen to have an inadequate or uneducated view, the definition of empowerment will be misleading and the goals which are set will continue to be unmet.   

Standard Competancy Evaluations

There are many ways that people subtly promote unrealistic expectations and exclude those who don't meet them. The people explaining how exclusion isn't a problem, of course, aren't those who are experiencing the consequences. 

Similar to other government agencies, services for the protection of children will go beyond promoting health and welfare; they promote industrial standards as well. Not only are they interested in insuring that parents will love and care for their children; they will also judge fitness based on competency. In this way, the judgements on fitness for authority are ultimately hurting more than helping those considered to have needs, which are special. Such children are considered burdens with not only nothing to offer but are also labeled a threat to the human species. 

This traditional judgment occurs with advocacy as well. Advocates claim that they are just as capable of meeting standards rather than challenging social practices and official policies, so they will become more inclusive. 

The politicians claiming to support autistics too often support oppressive traditions. They are quick to show how the science doesn't support harmful treatments and how autism doesn't necessarily create what passes for intellectual limitations. However, the goal of overcoming all that has been conveniently labeled substandard is unrealistic. In this way, the average autistic, who has fewer options, sacrifices for the sake the politics-as-usual arena where the stagnation of progress is protected. 

I commented on an article recently which I thought was very helpful. It generally suggested better access for influential discussions. The responses indicated that some saw what was being proposed as "dumbing-down" or implying that some people weren't capable of meeting the standard. This, from their perspective, would encourage pity and a condescending approach toward them. 

Either the number of people not participating indicates that the standard is exclusive, or the people who don't meet it will be blamed. Pity and condescension are threats, but they aren't the only threats. An obstacle that is equal in successfully preventing participation is the way some will claim they are providing support and encouraging others to rise to their potential but are not doing that at all. Instead, they are protecting the system and the position they have attained within it. 

Politicians are encouraged to believe they have a bird's eye view and that others without this advantage can't understand how altering the standards is impractical. What they, from their elevated position are blinded from is the way what has been determined factual is limited to the degree that participation has been prohibited. The determination of ability is based on fashion and the way fashionable trends are used oppressively and nothing more. More people don't need to provide what has already been labeled valuable. Instead, what more people are contributing needs to be recognised as valuable.