social justice

CROSS POST: Autistic Attorney

After a period in high school/college where I wanted to teach, I decided that instead, I wanted to go into law. In hindsight, it makes sense – autistic people have very highly developed senses of fairness and justice. However, something that has also helped me: the law is almost never black and white. And autistic thinking is almost never not. (At least, mine went through a period where everything was one or the other, no middle ground.) The law has helped me see things in terms of shades of grey instead of absolutes. Some idiots still profess astonishment that an autist can be an attorney, or they accuse me of not “really” being autistic when I say I got through law school, to which I usually reply pungently: it’s like, you want me to show you my diagnosis and my J.D., asshole? Despite anyone’s astonishment, I am a fully licensed attorney in the state of Illinois, and I greatly enjoy debating points of law which may be very murky indeed.

That said, there are some times when the law is pretty clear cut. I’ve started a sort of satellite blog called Law In The Comments, designed to deal with provisions in law that get brought up in internet comments a lot. My first post deals with Phil Robertson, Duck Dynasty, and why the First Amendment doesn’t apply to him. I thought I’d include the link here, since this kind of thing might very well be just as interesting to my readers as it is to me: Constitutional Law For Dummies, or Why Phil Robertson Is S.O.L. Enjoy. Or ignore, as you see fit.


Taking Turns

This morning, I read a Think Progress post about two parents in Iowa defending their hellspawn from accusations of bullying an autistic kid, saying Levi Null “brought it on himself.” I say hellspawn because sorry, you’re a special kind of hellspawn if you think bullying’s fun, okay or acceptable at any time. Period. Bullying implies picking on the weak – fighting implies equal strength.

Think Progress, who usually is a lot better about their sources than this, cited Autism $peaks to comment on Null’s “involuntary movements and difficulties socializing”. Now, for once, that’s true – Autism $peaks has said something accurate about an autistic person. According to the article,  Null has Asperger’s and ADHD – technically an incorrect term, given that “Asperger’s syndrome” is no longer in the DSM-V (which is a post all its own, let me tell you), and autistics, or “Aspies” as we used to be called, do often have involuntary movements, and we definitely have difficulties socializing (I can speak for that last part personally). 

However. In one of the comment threads, an autistic person commented that Autism $peaks was a bad choice to cite, because it does not speak for a lot of autistic people, and that a lot of the time, autism is only a disability because neurotypicals make it so – that is, that since NTs are the majority, any minority way of thinking is seen as “inferior” or “disabled” by many – not all. There were agreements, and then came the neurotypical avalanche. 

One commenter told the autistic “Do you have an autistic child? If not then stfu.”

Another commenter told the autistic that ” Being different is one thing but suffering from severe mental or physical handicaps doesn’t change no matter how pretty you talk about it.”

The ignorance upsets me so much. It really does. Because here is an autistic person just trying to chime into a discussion on something that in theory, all civilized people can agree on – that bullying is wrong, that bullying someone who is allegedly disabled is worse – and they get shouted down. Ignored. Verbally abused. 

We are the be-all, end-all of autism knowledge, because we are autistic and you are not.

I can’t repeat it enough. We are the be-all, end-all of autism knowledge, because we are autistic and you are not.

I’m not suggesting that parents or caregivers or neurotypical allies have nothing to offer. But I am suggesting that in a debate about autism, how about we listen to the people who have it before we parrot our own views? How about we let people who have the most intimate experience of something tell you how it really is, and how best to accept and understand it, instead of pathologizing it? 

That leads to a greater point – something I’ve used with my Jewish friends, something I’ve begun to use with my fat friends, my friends of color, anyone who could be said to be part of a minority group. My excellent roommate (ER) put it like this when we were talking about queer people* – an ally is someone who speaks up for you when you are not in the room. 

When she is not there and people are making jokes about non-straight sexualities, I as an ally can speak up against homophobia, biphobia, trans*phobia, et cetera. Not because I want a cookie, but because it’s the right thing to do. But when someone who is actually queer is in the room, able to speak for themselves, I shut up. Because I’m not queer, and because my experience will never exactly mirror that of someone who is.

When ER hears people making jokes or saying negative things about people on the autism spectrum, or Jewish people, she can and does speak up and say that it isn’t acceptable. But when I’m in the room, she lets me handle it, because she is neither autistic nor Jewish. And she knows that I am. So I should have the last word. 

It’s a lesson I’ve tried to take to heart. I do my best not to “whitesplain” things to people of color**. I do my best not to “able-splain” things to people who are not able-bodied. I can be a good ally to a person of color, but as soon as they’re in the proverbial room, it’s my turn to sit down and shut up. 

In the case of the Think Progress article, though, I am part of the group being denigrated. So if you’ll excuse me, I will not sit down, and I will not shut up. It’s not my turn.


* A term she uses for herself, therefore in this context I feel it appropriate to use. 

** Though sometimes I don’t realize when I’m “whitesplaining”, because hi, I has an autistic, I no has good context clues. That’s another post entirely.