A Cry of Marginalization

Well, I'm not really sure how to write this, exactly, but here we go, regardless.

I happened to, most recently, get into an argument with a woman over autism, and specifically whether it should be cured. This is not unusual, and I have these discussions frequently.

This one, though, was different, and it was one of the few times I've really lost my temper with someone. I can heavily disagree with someone, and have done so before, but here I was quite honestly infuriated by some of the arguments. I'm not going to go through all of my replies and to the extent of what was being said (it can be found), but I did say it.

The argument, in essence, was about whether the conditions of autism warrant circumstances that would suggest its removal. I have said no, and I will consistently say no. But so long as the message is polite and civil, I will understand (and I think there are some legitimate arguments to that point).

This, though delivered most civilly, was no such argument. It was offensive in nature, by necessity, and I'll be the first to admit that there are some things that can be said about humanity, in a presumptuous, arrogant manner, that will get to me.

The argument? Basically, it goes as follows...

"Autistic people should not exist because they are not as happy and successful as other people"

I would hope that argument would infuriate. After all, it's categorically what has been used to suppress woman, blacks, and Jews at once. It's a stand in argument made by a majority whose social status has been preferential, and it demeans every other person below them to a lower moral standard. It delves into social Darwinisim at its finest. Whoever has been given the most and has the most for this structure is better and deserves to live by that nature. Those who aren't as equipped, don't.

I would have thought that would infuriate. And yet, someone consistently says it, time and time again, and it just is taken as appropriate.

I mean, why? Happiness shouldn't be a moral preferential, it's horrible as such. Happy people, those with the right resources and circumstances, are to be valued above those who don't, based on those right resources and circumstances? Asides from the fact that the conclusion is absurd (for the highest moral pinnacle would be a dose of methamphetamine, though it would bring a moral low), it's preferential in the extreme to circumstances that are never different. The one way you can be secure in the world is where there are no conflicts or contradictions, where everything is singular and the same. But is that a world to hope for?

Now, that's not to say I don't think finding happiness through a considered acceptance of the nuances and difficulties of the world is a bad thing. Quite the contrary, honestly. But I think it is valuable for that consideration and for that journey, and without the kind of conflicts that are engendered by differences, by the new perspective caused by another, for the process of accomplishment, that the happiness engendered by simple pleasure and relief of not having conflicts is shallow and meaningless.

In any event, it's not moral grounds to eliminate people with! Asides from the fact that, at its full conclusion for me, it paints altruism as a viable defense to murder based on the difference of the murdered, it creates a circumstance in which the only goal in life is to be happy, and that it is fiercely unintellectual, because intellectualism is not a great way to happiness. Frankly, I like these distinctions in the world, and an quite shocked that someone would want to eliminate another, pretty harmless perspective on the grounds of the person's own self.


But all of this pales, for me, when you start using the terms of success. I'm not thinking of a better way to demean someone right off the top of my head.

I mean, think about that. Morally, people who have gotten certain milestones (let's take this argument at its safest, so we'll say that it is the goals of the individuals) have a moral authority over those who don't. To look at that more sharply, let's take a heated political race for, oh, the mayor of a town. One candidate uses every ad hominem, dirty trick, lie he can think of, in order to win the election. The other runs a smooth campaign based on principles, refusing to cross certain lines. Both want the job equally, but the former wins. He now has moral authority in this circumstance!

Worst of this was the suggestion that came after was that people couldn't accomplish these things because of, essentially, neurological deficiencies. But would we dare call the latter person deficient? I would dare hope not! Just because the person adopted a certain, different framework through which to view the world should not make her "neurologically deficient".

That may sound incidental, but it has fairly universal applications. People who go off the beaten path tend to have a harder time, and yet what they experience and understand for that should not be demeaned based on a subjective socially inherited icon which we place on them. They may well place it on themselves, too. But it doesn't matter, because it's unrelated to the point.

Now, the person did say that based on their goals, but this almost assumes that people's neurological condition and nothing else influences certain outcomes. And, yet, traditionally speaking, no matter how much two kids, one African American and one Caucasian, are going to be fit for that position they both so badly want, the Caucasian will have a far better chance (note traditionally at the start of that sentence!).

For me, it's a horrible construction. It's the kind of thinking about people, within these narrow, subjective categories, which causes things like people my age having severe image issues, or representation issues of marginalized groups. Which brings me right to where I wanted.

Right now, it is clear that the language against autistics has not reached the level of consideration it has for most groups, and it's painfully clear with things like this. This language would never have been tolerated like in a race context since the Civil Rights movement, and yet it's used here, plain as day. It's amazing, honestly. It's harmful language that most people would say that we, as a society, have attempted to move past, and it's thrown right in my face like this. And I have no right to be angry about this?

I wonder now about how many such groups are never getting out the door like autistics. How many can't have legitimate, angry feelings about being so horribly marginalized. How many more we, as a society, have failed up to this point so poorly.

Advocacy really needs to do a better job. No, we as people need to do a better job than this.