I subscribed to say thanks for your reasonable position. As someone with what I am told is likely a mild touch of autism, I found RFK's statement admirable.
I do not know what he will do, but I do think it would be really good to give the profoundly autistic individuals and their families+caretakers the help they need, and people playing language games around this are not offering help.
The rise of autism as an “identity” is in part a side effect of the “woke” project to rename or redefine anything associated with a scientist whose personal views or positions don’t comport with present-day standards—specifically, the decision to abolish “Asberger’s syndrome” and fold it into simply the “Autism spectrum.” In some circles it has become downright fashionable to identify as autistic, and while it is mostly young people who are formally diagnosed as autistic/ASD, there has been something of an explosion in the number of middle aged or older people, often highly accomplished, newly identified as autistic. There really should be a separate name/category for people who successfully navigate life with only minor issues (feelings of inadequacy, social anxiety, etc). I’ve never really seen a clear explanation of what these people have in common with the severely autistic. I do know there is an in-between of sorts, I have an autistic cousin who didn’t learn to speak until his teens, and for many years spoke in an odd, mechanical way and mostly about obsessions. I saw him again when he was in his 30s and working, he presented as basically “normal” by then—he clearly had the benefit of affluent parents and the best education available. Some of the most severely affected may not be able to make such progress, but it would probably be helpful to have better language to describe this rather than just “spectrum” which is so vague as to be almost meaningless in describing whatever autism is.
I agree that better language would be useful, but I'm not sure that the tragedy of the abolition of 'Aspbergers' should be put on the shoulders of the modern 'woke'. It was a misstep that has cost the profoundly autistic dearly, but it happened a while back and most of the people in the modern political fight weren't part of it.
All we achieve by blaming this on them is encouraging anyone who is "against" us on either issue to ally in opposition to both causes.
I’ve never been a parent, but I taught elementary school history for over 40 years, and I’ve sat with parents and talked about their kids and about parenting more times than I can count. There’s no question in my mind that even with ‘normal’ kids (whatever that means) parenting is one of the most challenging ‘jobs’ there is. To do so in the situation Ms Lutz describes leaves ‘challenging’ in the dust and calls for some other word I’m not sure I could find.
What concerns me more than anything else in this piece, though, is not Ms Lutz’s challenge, as extraordinary as that is, but rather what the choice of RFK Jr reflects about the Trump administration - and the choice made by those who voted for him.
As a nation we have problems that need addressing, and there are what can often seem an overwhelming number of them. But the idea that they can or will be solved by a man who has proven beyond any shadow of doubt to have no real concern about any of them except as he can use them to scare his base into supporting the demagogic simplicity in which he thrives, and thus no idea how to go about solving most of them other than ignorant, draconian, vituperative, mendacious, and self-justifying actions and social media posts, and the help a set of advisors and other ‘experts’ chosen almost entirely for their sycophancy and their willingness to support anything he does or wants to do is so utterly short-sighted and foolish as to beggar the imagination.
Any given person will say good things and bad things, right things and wrong things. Thanks for bucking the trend and acknowledging that someone who has said many wrong things in the past got something right this once.
Let's hope Kennedy supports significant research into the causes of autism. An important approach would be to understand why there is so much autism in the US, Australia, and New Zealand but much less autism in the UK and Brazil. The argument that there is more autism just because it is more likely to be identified is no longer valid.
Isn’t the INCREASE in autism in recent decades that leads RFK to call it a pandemic due mainly to the milder cases? Because these weren’t diagnosed before?
I subscribed to say thanks for your reasonable position. As someone with what I am told is likely a mild touch of autism, I found RFK's statement admirable.
I do not know what he will do, but I do think it would be really good to give the profoundly autistic individuals and their families+caretakers the help they need, and people playing language games around this are not offering help.
Thanks again, Alex
Thanks so much for subscribing, Alex!
"I subscribed to say thanks for your reasonable position." - Agreed
"As someone with what I am told is likely a mild touch of autism, I found RFK's statement admirable." - Myself as well, on both points.
ASD can be (not always to be sure) a blessing. Severe autism is a blight.
The rise of autism as an “identity” is in part a side effect of the “woke” project to rename or redefine anything associated with a scientist whose personal views or positions don’t comport with present-day standards—specifically, the decision to abolish “Asberger’s syndrome” and fold it into simply the “Autism spectrum.” In some circles it has become downright fashionable to identify as autistic, and while it is mostly young people who are formally diagnosed as autistic/ASD, there has been something of an explosion in the number of middle aged or older people, often highly accomplished, newly identified as autistic. There really should be a separate name/category for people who successfully navigate life with only minor issues (feelings of inadequacy, social anxiety, etc). I’ve never really seen a clear explanation of what these people have in common with the severely autistic. I do know there is an in-between of sorts, I have an autistic cousin who didn’t learn to speak until his teens, and for many years spoke in an odd, mechanical way and mostly about obsessions. I saw him again when he was in his 30s and working, he presented as basically “normal” by then—he clearly had the benefit of affluent parents and the best education available. Some of the most severely affected may not be able to make such progress, but it would probably be helpful to have better language to describe this rather than just “spectrum” which is so vague as to be almost meaningless in describing whatever autism is.
I agree that better language would be useful, but I'm not sure that the tragedy of the abolition of 'Aspbergers' should be put on the shoulders of the modern 'woke'. It was a misstep that has cost the profoundly autistic dearly, but it happened a while back and most of the people in the modern political fight weren't part of it.
All we achieve by blaming this on them is encouraging anyone who is "against" us on either issue to ally in opposition to both causes.
I’ve never been a parent, but I taught elementary school history for over 40 years, and I’ve sat with parents and talked about their kids and about parenting more times than I can count. There’s no question in my mind that even with ‘normal’ kids (whatever that means) parenting is one of the most challenging ‘jobs’ there is. To do so in the situation Ms Lutz describes leaves ‘challenging’ in the dust and calls for some other word I’m not sure I could find.
What concerns me more than anything else in this piece, though, is not Ms Lutz’s challenge, as extraordinary as that is, but rather what the choice of RFK Jr reflects about the Trump administration - and the choice made by those who voted for him.
As a nation we have problems that need addressing, and there are what can often seem an overwhelming number of them. But the idea that they can or will be solved by a man who has proven beyond any shadow of doubt to have no real concern about any of them except as he can use them to scare his base into supporting the demagogic simplicity in which he thrives, and thus no idea how to go about solving most of them other than ignorant, draconian, vituperative, mendacious, and self-justifying actions and social media posts, and the help a set of advisors and other ‘experts’ chosen almost entirely for their sycophancy and their willingness to support anything he does or wants to do is so utterly short-sighted and foolish as to beggar the imagination.
Any given person will say good things and bad things, right things and wrong things. Thanks for bucking the trend and acknowledging that someone who has said many wrong things in the past got something right this once.
Let's hope Kennedy supports significant research into the causes of autism. An important approach would be to understand why there is so much autism in the US, Australia, and New Zealand but much less autism in the UK and Brazil. The argument that there is more autism just because it is more likely to be identified is no longer valid.
Isn’t the INCREASE in autism in recent decades that leads RFK to call it a pandemic due mainly to the milder cases? Because these weren’t diagnosed before?