Comment by slibhb

> The fact that people have started applying social-justice-y terminology ("gatekeeping," "weaponize," "shared experiences," etc) to medical diagnosis is a clear sign we've gone too far.

Standing up for people that you see being mistreated, insulted, or disrespected isn't "social-justice-y" it's basic human dignity and compassion.

The way you choose to disagree shows how much respect you have for other people. I don't agree with you is very different from, you're wrong to think that or say that. Every single person should object when they see someone punching down.

> The fact that people have started applying social-justice-y terminology ("gatekeeping," "weaponize," "shared experiences," etc) to medical diagnosis is a clear sign we've gone too far. "You can't question my diagnosis because it's part of my identity! Stop gatekeeping me!"

But at least you've found a way you can feel superior to both groups right?

It's not social justice, it's just basic fairness. I've never been called weak or out of shape when I couldn't keep up with my friends when running. People are happy to adjust their expectations when I share that I have asthma, so it's harder than it might look. But I have been called lazy because I was unable to start on a task because I didn't have enough dopamine. Tell someone you have ADHD and many will suggest just making a list, or ask, "have you tried eating gluten free?" Before going on to explain they think in's over diagnosed. Please, tell me my asthma is over diagnosed, or my conversation and treatment plan with wy physician is inappropriate?

It's stupid that we blame people for admitting that things are harder than they expect. And telling someone they "don't seem autistic" or "don't look like you have asthma" are equally fucked up, but as a perfect case example, this thread. So many people are gladly willing to minimize and discount someone's description about mental health, but not lung health.

That is all I'm objecting to.

> Please. "Austism" is not a settled category and it's okay to argue about boundaries. The irony here is that autistic as an adjective means "unfeeling" e.g. "He rose and stood tottering in that cold autistic dark with his arms outheld for balance while the vestibular calculations in his skull cranked out their reckonings". When sorting out the definition of autism (and similar conditions), we should be a little more autistic.

There's a bit of room between what I'm suggesting, and what you're replying to. I'm actually thinking we should be a little bit less autistic, because clinging too tightly to the literal written definition of individual words, limits the flexibility required for reasonable communication.

What I said was; it's inappropriate for anyone to tell somebody else that the way that they describe their experience is wrong.

but what I believe you're objecting to is; anybody can be autistic if they want to.

Which is not what I said.

the two phrases "I have very mild case of autism" and " I identify with a lot of the symptomology of autism and find that it's community and its skills and techniques to be very effective and beneficial in my life" should be treated as equivalent phrases. if you tell somebody that they're wrong to say either you are the asshole. You are rejecting their description of their life. You may disagree if they qualify for a medical diagnosis of autism. But unless someone claims that, your just arguing against a straw man that you created. (rhetorical you)

> it's okay to argue about boundaries

Yes, if you have something to add - something more substantive than just a snotty dismissal of the autistic experience rooted in the superficial observation that everyone occasionally experiences the "same" things.

> The irony here is that autistic as an adjective means "unfeeling"

The real irony here is your insistence that you have something to add to this discussion while leading with a decades-old myth that people with autism don't feel emotions.