Using a social perspective to autism, I would appreciate if there were a way to classify someone as autistic without calling it a disorder. Yes, we have difficulties, but from a social perspective, a lot of them come from society being structured to meet the needs of allistics. They get guidance, acceptance, and ultimately privilege of a world that is designed for them, while we have to try to meet their expectations. From this perspective, we’re not disordered, but oppressed/marginalized. How does that make us disordered?

I agree that there are different levels of functioning, and that some individuals might meet criteria for a disorder due to autism spectrum characteristics, so that would be valid. However, many individuals would function quite well in a setting that was designed to raise, educate, and accommodate autistic brains.

Anyone have any insight or ideas on this?

    • JohnnyHammersticks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Does homosexuality disrupt normal physical or mental functions? No.

      Does ADHD, Bipolar, Autism, Depression, and others disrupt normal physical or mental functions? Yes.

      • Bipta@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Couldn’t it be argued that homosexuality disrupted normal function in society due to societal expectations, which is also the primary way that ADHD produces functional disability? If society has different requirements would ADHD still be a disorder?

        Just playing devil’s advocate.

        • Falmarri@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Productivity and focus are not “societal expectations”. Sure if society was based around getting things half finished, then maybe. But we can make up all kinds of things to try to justify

        • dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Some people (read those who take “go forth and multiply” literally and as an imperative) absolutely could. However, there is a basis in multiple older cultures in which gay/childless people helped support the society by taking care of the other members’ children and the elderly. Not everything was focused on the individual need to have more kids, but to help those who others had. It is more of a group idea. There’s more than enough children to sustain/grow the population, so it’s more important to have extra hands to care for those who are here.

        • T156@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, since your own personal ability to function isn’t affected in homosexuality. Whereas with ADHD, you could have social support and still run into problems caused by ADHD. Similarly with ASD. That’s not really the case for homosexuality.

      • Ninjasftw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        As someone who is left handed and grew up being forced to adapt to a right handed world I can understand how it could be considered a disorder! So many things were just that little bit harder

    • mikeboltonshair@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s funny how you immediately brought that up when it has nothing to do with it and as Johnny said it doesn’t disrupt anything mentally or physically so no, but nice try to make it an issue that wasn’t even talked about

    • BOMBS@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      I could see this argument though. If society takes on the value that the main purpose of every single living organism is to reproduce, then homosexuality could be considered a disorder since “homosexuals” would have difficulties fulfilling life’s mandate (per society). I don’t agree with that, but I can see the argument.

      • Persen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well I also don’ agree with that, but if we wouldn’t reproduce, we would go extinct.

        • BOMBS@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s why we have to look at the bigger picture instead of focusing solely on matters of individuals. How do LGBTQ+ individuals contribute to the progress of their group with similar DNA?

          • T156@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            There’s a theory that suggests that having homosexuality is socially beneficial, because it means you have some non-rearing adults helping care for the children, similar to why humans live so far past the ages where they would normally be able to bear children, since they can still help socially raise the kids. It’s been observed in birds, but there is a bit of disagreement over whether that’s the case there, or whether there’s some additional species-related complications at play.

    • Persen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Well I didn’t mean to be aggresive. I was just bringing up a question. Maybe it was worded too agressively.