I don’t have a long written thread for you today, just some childhood photos for #TheFaceOfAnAutisticChild tag.
Here’s me with some dandelions when I was about one year old.
I often didn’t smile in photos, even when people were smiling at me, which I now know is an autistic trait.
But that doesn’t mean I never smiled- it just means I smiled when I wanted to, on my own terms.
The whole “not smiling for photos when I don’t feel like it” thing carried into the later part of my childhood, too.
And so did smiling on my own terms.
Here’s me at around 4 years old, with a pacifier in my mouth. It took me a very long time (until I was almost 5) to stop using it. Now I know it was a stim.
Most of you have probably seen these photos before, but in case you haven’t: here’s me plugging my ears at a train station, and me flapping my hand.
Now, here are some recent photos from my life. I’m currently 19 years old, so I’m not quite an adult yet.
This is me & Abby :)
Lastly, here are some ridiculous photos Abby took of me the other day while we were walking across campus. Someone wrote “Pillar” on a pillar.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In the study, autistics and neurotypicals were recruited to see if they would donate to a good cause that would make them lose money, or support a bad cause that would benefit them financially.
In one condition, the decisions were private. In another, the decisions were public.
In the public condition, both autistics and neurotypicals were more likely to donate to the good cause that made them lose money.
But in the private condition, neurotypicals were much more likely than autistics to support the bad cause that would earn them money.
One of the main ways that nonspeaking autistic people are denied agency, is through repeated and incessant demands to communicate.
I watched a documentary the other day called “The Limits Of My World” and there was one scene in particular that drove this point home.
The documentary is about a nonspeaking 21 year old autistic man named Brian, who lives in a caregiving facility.
One of his caregivers was helping him dry off after his shower, when she pointed to the mirror and said, “Who’s that? Brian, who is that? What’s your name?”
I couldn’t count how many times he was asked. And the irony was, she clearly knew his name.
Over time, her tone shifted from a light and playful “Brian, what’s your name?” to a demand: “Brian, tell me your name.”
When people say they’re against eugenics because (for example) altering autistic people’s genes might “accidentally get rid of special talents and skills”…
They aren’t actually anti-eugenics.
In fact, that argument is very much in line with the core ideas of eugenics.
When people say “Autism shouldn’t be eradicated because…” and then follow up that statement with things like:
- “Autistic people are intelligent”
- “Autistic people can be productive”
- “Autistic people have special talents”
- “Autistic people can be independent”…
They are doing two things:
1. Feeding into the idea that a disabled person’s only worth comes from how well they can be exploited economically
2. Erasing autistic people who don’t fit those criteria, and implying that it would be okay for *those* people not to exist.