There is a very well-articulated argument by an autistic woman that, the clinical definitions for autism are framed from the disruption and impact to neurotypical society, but does not adequately address what’s going on for the autistic person.
For example, the author herself is diagnosed with high-functioning autism. Her social impact on others is miminal enough where it qualifies for “high functioning”, but having executive dysfunction means she is highly dependent on someone in her life to help her. Our medical and social system does not provide adequate services because she is “high functioning”.
She then talked about other people with a different blend of autistic traits who are considered low functioning (high impact on neurotypical social interactions), but don’t have the executive dysfunction like the author. Her example was someone who is non-verbal, yet has a well-developed intellect.
I too, thought the idea that “autistic people are disabled because neurotypical people considers autism is a disability” was not very convincing. This author’s argument reframed it in a way that makes more sense to me, and that is, us neurotypicals are only seeing autism only from the lens of how autism impacts us, and we frame the discussion, diagnoses, and public policies along those lines.
I'm going to assume that when you say "our medical system" you are referring to the US medical system.
And let me tell you, it's a WHOLE lot more bleak than that. The US medical system does not provide adequate services for ANYONE other than perhaps children (in some cases).
As soon as someone with a special need becomes an adult, nearly all public provided support is torn away. If you aren't 65, then when your child hits 26, they have no guarantee of being able to stay on your insurance. You might be able to make a deal with your employer and health insurance provider but that is by no means a given.
Now think of what that means in terms of estate planning.
It's possible for your child with special needs to qualify for social security and medicaid but their household income needs to be below poverty levels (with pretty crazy strict means testing). There's a reason so many people with mental disabilities often end up homeless.
The fact is, some individuals will need 24/7 care for the rest of their lives. However, because taxes and government are bad and "they should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps" or whatever, the US and many state government are setup to instead worry about keeping them off the benches when they end up homeless.
Yes, I have a child with autism, and yes one thing that keeps me up at night is worrying what will happen to them after I'm gone.
I think it'd be reasonable to say that if humans didn't have eyes (and didn't have any other sensory enhancements beyond what sighted humans have today), and then a new human was born with eyes, that new human would be strictly "better off" than the old humans without eyes. Certainly the new human wouldn't say the old humans were "disabled", but at the very least, the new human would not have trouble communicating with the old humans, or doing anything that the old humans could do.
But if everyone were autistic (as we define it today), and then someone was born that we would consider "neurotypical" (in this world, of course, they would be neurodivergent!), then that "non-autistic" person would probably be at a huge disadvantage (socially) in that society, so it'd be reasonable to call that person "disabled", even though we'd consider that person typical.
So yes, "disabled" is just a term we use to describe people in the minority, who have some sort of condition (physical or mental) that could confer a disadvantage upon them in our current society.
So to your statement:
> I too, thought the idea that “autistic people are disabled because neurotypical people considers autism is a disability” was not very convincing.
I've never really thought about it that way. My understanding would be more like "autistic people are disabled because their condition puts them at a disadvantage when interacting with the neurotypical world". And I think that jives with how we should think about disability: it's something that makes it harder for someone to interact (physically, socially, etc.) with the world as it is. We may try to make the world easier on disabled people -- ramps for those who cannot walk, audible signals for those who cannot see, attempts to change how we communicate with those who are neurodivergent -- but at the end of the day those people still have a disability, as there will always be parts of the world that they'll be unable to navigate the way a "non-disabled" person could.
I think the root of the word "disability" is where I have issues with.
Disability is a dis- (opposite of, or not) and an ability. If I cannot see, then vision is a disability. I wouldn't have it, but others would. Same if I was deaf, or had various types of mechanical physical problems.
Autism is different. Many types, depending on what's going on, isn't a dis-ability. Unlike me not having something that would allow me to perceive or do actions, this "disability" is instead of how other non-autistics treat us. I'm not lacking anything. Instead, I'm told I am defective because of the way neurotypicals treat us.
I use accurate language, and NT's assume that I'm talking in coded language... That's because NT's do just that. Or that I can hyperfocus. Most NT's cant. And worse yet, NT's make fun of us hyperfocusing. And being in IT, hyperfocusing is a powerful positive trait that puts me ahead of NTs.
Unlike other mechanical disabilities, this "disability" is primarily rooted in *others* treating us badly, over perceived badness.
As for me, I consider myself superior to that of most NT's. In fact, I feel sad for those humans who can't get the joy of deeply digging into an area of study, and then learning how other topics connect to it, and becoming an adept in a very short time. It might be an arrogant view, but I've seen NT's struggle with basic concepts time and again.
For example, the author herself is diagnosed with high-functioning autism. Her social impact on others is miminal enough where it qualifies for “high functioning”, but having executive dysfunction means she is highly dependent on someone in her life to help her. Our medical and social system does not provide adequate services because she is “high functioning”.
She then talked about other people with a different blend of autistic traits who are considered low functioning (high impact on neurotypical social interactions), but don’t have the executive dysfunction like the author. Her example was someone who is non-verbal, yet has a well-developed intellect.
I too, thought the idea that “autistic people are disabled because neurotypical people considers autism is a disability” was not very convincing. This author’s argument reframed it in a way that makes more sense to me, and that is, us neurotypicals are only seeing autism only from the lens of how autism impacts us, and we frame the discussion, diagnoses, and public policies along those lines.