“I Identify as….” 3 Thought Provoking Scenarios
Neurotypical v Autistic, Man v Woman
****DISCLAIMER****
This article is not simply about ‘Self Diagnosed’ Autistics. This article uses autism and neurotypical as a subject to look at identity politics as a whole.
The Self Diagnosers demographic is made up of Neurotypical people, Autistic people and People with Other Neurodiversities. The only self diagnosers that could be included in the following scenarios are the ones who are neurotypical, the rest do not fit the scenerios.
Identity vs Lived Reality
This article provides 3 thought-provoking scenarios that highlight certain situations when chosen identities are no longer a personal, neutral act, but cause a ripple effect throughout the demographic being identified into.
Ramifications of Identity Politics
These are fictionalised scenerios made up to inspire philosophical questioning and encourage critical thinking about ideas. The scenarios can be applied to any other scenario, such as: a white person identifying as black, an able bodied person identifying as physically disabled, a male identifying as a female. Consider these as you read.
Being autistic is a neurological fact
Being autistic is a neurological fact for me. I haven’t chosen the ‘identity’. It isn’t an identity at all, it’s a lived reality. I was born this way. I was created this way in the womb. No matter what environment I was born into, no matter what life experiences or support or understanding I could ever have recieved could change the very real, immutable fact of reality, that I am an Autistic person. My brain is and always has been an autistic brain. I cannot turn this off. I do not exist without my autism. There isn’t a cure, there isn’t an off switch, there are no times when I’m not autistic. Autism isn’t something I have, it is what I am and it is inescapable. I do not have any ability to opt in or out of this. You either are or you aren’t. I can never, ever be a neurotypical person.
I can never be a neurotypical person
Now, I would like to put forward 3 scenarios as a way of looking at potential problems with ‘Chosen Identities’ vs Lived Reality.
Neurotypicals identifying as autistic
Scenario 1
Skewed data
The Autism DSM-5 is changing and being redone. Professionals are conducting new research into autism and how it presents and affects our lives and they are asking for autistic people to come forward to take part in the research and be part of the change in the new assessments process. This will change the criteria for diagnosis. What information goes into this research will change how autistic people are perceived and assessed, what is looked for in the person and whether they will fit the new criteria of autism, resulting in either getting a diagnosis or not getting a diagnosis for future generations. This will form the definition of Autism.
Neurotypical people who identify as autistic are putting themselves forward to be included in the research
They believe “Everybody is a little autistic” and that it is bigotry to tell them they are neurotypical
Can the researchers refuse neurotypicals who identify as autistic from the research because it will skew the results?
What are the pro’s and con’s of allowing this?
Who gets to decide if this is acceptable, autistic people or neurotypicals who identify as autistic? Who’s voice is important here?
You were told that the professional interviewing you will also be autistic, but you find out they are a neurotypical person who identifies as autistic.
How important is it that the neurotypical interviewer feels validated in their perceived autistic identity during your autism assessment?
How do you navigate this whilst taking human rights and people’s feelings into account?
Can you justifiably exclude?
What grounds do you exclude on? Actually autistic vs people who identify as autistic?
Is it offensive to identify as disabled? (If so, is it offensive to identify as anything else you are not in reality?)
Scenario 2
Autistic accommodations
A company is expanding and promising to be inclusive in hiring. They are holding interviews specifically for autistic people where there are adjustments made for the autistic people being interviewed to give them the opportunity to be authentically autistic and have their needs met so they can show their suitability for the job.
They promise to hire an autistic person for the role and make reasonable adjustments for them in their new job.
Unemployment rates for autistic people are shocking, so this was designed to aid autistic people with getting employed and into jobs that are designed to accommodate them.
The interviewer will also be autistic so as to help the autistic person being interviewed feel more at ease and understood
When at the interview you find out the person interviewing you is a neurotypical person who identifies as autistic
Neurotypicals who identify as autistic are putting themselves forward for the job
People who identify as autistic claim it is bigotry to tell them they are not really autistic, they don’t believe neurological reality is more important than chosen identity
Do the actually autistic people stand a fair chance?
At what point did the fairness of opportunity change?
Is it acceptable for reasons of fairness to exclude neurotypicals here?
Is it bigoted to say they aren’t ‘really autistic people’?
Does Neurological Reality matter?
How would you feel if a neurotypical filled the job position and no autistic person received a job?
Scenario 3
Safe spaces
There is an autism support/social/dating group
A group has been made for autistic people to find and connect with other fellow autistic people where they may feel more comfortable and understood. They may have been struggling to feel understood and accepted by neurotypicals in the past and so joined a group that ensures they will be in company of other autistic people. This could help them feel safe, secure and dignified.
The group becomes inclusive of neurotypicals who identify as autistic
The group becomes full of neurotypicals who identify as autistic
Autistic users of the service are starting to feel less accepted and are uncomfortable and don’t feel it is an autism group anymore
Do the autistics have more say, equal say or less say?
The neurotypicals who identify as autistic feel offended by the actually autistic people not accepting their identity and say they are not going to tolerate their viewpoints and demand to be respected and validated as ‘autistic’ people
Actually autistic people are becoming upset that the neurotypicals who identify as autistic don’t know the lived reality of being an autistic person
The autistic people feel their experience is invalidated because the neurotypical people are able to ‘turn their autism identity off’ when it suits them, like during interviews, in the workplace, at school, when organising their lives, when functioning in society, within relationships, with sensory processing, and communicating and feel that they do not need this community group as much as real autistic people who are genuinely suffering and needing these designated services and need an escape from the neurotypical world
Is identifying as an autistic person the same as the lived reality of being an autistic person?
Who is being offensive here?
Who do we owe the respect to in this situation?
Who can be excluded from the group, and why?
Does a feeling of identity trump neurological reality?
How does reading this make you feel?
Can any identity be adopted or can it sometimes not be justifiable when you take into account the effects it can have on the people whose identity you are adopting?
Where do we draw the line?
Does it just come down to politeness and respect of people’s expressions of themselves? Or can someone’s expression of an identity have consequences for others?
Are there times when it is necessary to admit someone’s expressed identity is not reality?
Changing laws and policies to place chosen identities above neurological/biological realities can have dire consequences.
Most people will be polite and refer to you as you wish, most people will accept you as you wish to express yourself. But we do actually know the difference, we just don’t say it because we don’t want to cause any offence or undue upset.
But when there are changes made to policies and laws that say you must affirm these identities, it is no longer harmless. As soon as it’s enforced, rights are lost.
Identities are important for many reasons and should not be eroded to make room for people who are not part of that identity.
It isn’t disrespectful to say this, but it is disrespectful to the people whose identities are being eroded to accommodate others at their own disadvantage. How is this inclusive?
How can you protect what you can’t define?
The only way we can create policies and laws for people is by being able to DEFINE people. If there is no definition of an autistic person, how can we understand them? If there is no definition of a woman, how can we protect her? If there is no definition of a disability how can we accommodate them?
If people are branded hateful for stating truths then what kind of society are we creating?