Read on Twitter
Friendly reminder from your local autistic enby to #DeplatformSBC.
You are gaslighting us, @sbaroncohen, by creating these deeply harmful theories about #ActuallyAutistics, then performatively gesturing Neurodiversity Lite when called out.
Now let's unpack some of this shit.
You are gaslighting us, @sbaroncohen, by creating these deeply harmful theories about #ActuallyAutistics, then performatively gesturing Neurodiversity Lite when called out.
Now let's unpack some of this shit.
SBC's main theory, the one that seems to be propagated most in this book, is what he calls the "empathizing-systemizing theory": that all/most autistics are deficient in empathy but good at analyzing systems, and this systemizing is the reason for autistic talent and why
neurodiversity should be celebrated.
I would direct anyone still believing in this theory to this article ( https://autismandempathyblog.wordpress.com/a-critique-of-the-empathizing-systemizing-e-s-theory-of-autism/), and would add a few points of my own:
- it's true that a lot of autistics I know irl are really interested in the mechanisms of how things work.
I would direct anyone still believing in this theory to this article ( https://autismandempathyblog.wordpress.com/a-critique-of-the-empathizing-systemizing-e-s-theory-of-autism/), and would add a few points of my own:
- it's true that a lot of autistics I know irl are really interested in the mechanisms of how things work.
If you want to call that systemizing, sure. But this is not the defining characteristic of autistic neurolog- not in the way SBC frames it. If you want an autistic perspective, everything SBC describes could be reframed as what Mel Baggs describes in "In my Language":
autistics are often "in constant conversations with our environments", and engage with not just "the social world of humans", but much deeper with the larger world. (That's from here, by the way. https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/empty-mirrors-and-redwoods/. If you couldn't tell, I've been reading a lot of hir work!)
yes, we are often detail-oriented, logical, communicating with our environment... and this conflicts with empathy how? this is where the NT supremacy starts coming in- just because we don't express empathy in a normative way, we are deemed to lack it.
and you know who's been the most responsible for propagating this myth? SBC. I'm sorry, you don't get to write an entire fucking book about #ActuallyAutistic folks having "zero degrees of empathy" and decide to balance it out by writing a different book about how we're
gifted pattern seekers. Allyship doesn't work like that.
Lastly, the neurodiversity movement has always been not just about a neoliberal idea of exploiting ND people's "talents" and how they benefit other people in a capitalist system, but about full liberation for oppressed
Lastly, the neurodiversity movement has always been not just about a neoliberal idea of exploiting ND people's "talents" and how they benefit other people in a capitalist system, but about full liberation for oppressed
neurotypes. The neurodiversity paradigm is about appreciating the benefits of diversity- and true appreciation, not "how can I exploit this in a free market" appreciation, but as a social justice movement, it moves beyond just neurodiversity and into neuroliberation (just like
how with radical anti-assimilationist queer movements, gay rights becomes queer liberation), but SBC obviously isn't ready to have that conversation yet, since it's an achivement that he even sees us as exploitable at all rather than solely deficient.
(And yes, I'm aware I'm probably politically leftier than even most neurodiversity advocates. This is not me trying to represent The Movement
, just my own personal thoughts.)
, just my own personal thoughts.)
Now, let's get to the one that I find most problematic as a non-binary person: the extreme male brain thing.
He also claims that, besides being the main thing that separates autistic brains from non-autistic brains, this empathizing-systemizing distinction is also the main thing
He also claims that, besides being the main thing that separates autistic brains from non-autistic brains, this empathizing-systemizing distinction is also the main thing
that separates "male brains" from "female brains"- my followers probably know enough about patriarchal gender roles to guess which gender he called systemizers and which empathizers- and therefore autistics just have an extreme version of the (presumably cis) "male brain".
Now I'm not going to go into the whole science of it here, but suffice it to say: a) gender is a social construct and "gendered brains" are bullshit, and b) in terms of the few brain differences that do exist, trans peeps' brains tend to resemble cis people of their gender.
(I'm oversimplifying a lot because I know this thread isn't very cognitively accessible as it is, so I'm not saying this in a transmed way)
So that would mean that the very existence of transfeminine and nonbinary autistics would disprove this theory.
So that would mean that the very existence of transfeminine and nonbinary autistics would disprove this theory.
And yes, autistics are SO much more likely to be trans, which makes avoiding cisnormativity SO important. But even if we weren't, it's still reinforcing so many oppressive structures that prevent any autistics who are not cis dudes from getting recognized.
I once saw a meme on a trans subreddit captioned "anxious gay sounds" (relatable af), by a trans girl who said she had been diagnosed as autistic and was relieved to find answers, but now felt extremely dysphoric because she heard that autistic people had extreme male brains.
My point is: gendering autism does tangible damage. Our #neurodiversity will be intersectional, or it will be bullshit.
Since this kind of blew up, in comparison to my other tweets: I'll be continuing this thread and criticizing MORE SBC shittiness, including "theory of mind" and how it's used to silence autistic activists, the AQ, and SBC's recent appropriation of a neurodiversity-like aesthetic
to push the same message he's always been pushing, except woke-ified.
i'll also talk a bit in another thread about less shitty models of autism, including the double empathy problem, the intense world theory, and what I call the LTAPA theory.
#DeplatformSBC #ActuallyAutistic
i'll also talk a bit in another thread about less shitty models of autism, including the double empathy problem, the intense world theory, and what I call the LTAPA theory.
#DeplatformSBC #ActuallyAutistic
Continuing this thread:
Another thing that SBC and another shit autism researcher named Uta Frith came up with is the "theory of mind" view of autism. Theory of mind is "the ability to attribute -- to another or oneself -- mental states such as beliefs, intents, desires, emotion
Another thing that SBC and another shit autism researcher named Uta Frith came up with is the "theory of mind" view of autism. Theory of mind is "the ability to attribute -- to another or oneself -- mental states such as beliefs, intents, desires, emotion
and knowledge" and SBC and UF propose that this is the "core deficit" of autism, once they realized it was no longer socially acceptable to say that empathy is "what makes humans human" and that we have none.
Here's why this is wrong- and harmful.
Here's why this is wrong- and harmful.
The only evidence he has for this supposed universal deficit is that most autistic kids failed the "Sally-Anne" test: person is shown two dolls named Sally and Anne. Sally has a basket and Anne has a box. Sally places a marble in her basket and leaves. Anne takes the marble out
of the basket when Sally isn't looking. Kids are asked where Sally will look for the marble when she comes back (the "correct" answer is the basket) and most autistic kids guess the box.
Now, assuming that this test is a perfect evaluation of theory of mind (it's really not),
Now, assuming that this test is a perfect evaluation of theory of mind (it's really not),
not every autistic kid failed. In fact, 20% didn't, which would prove that either "theory of mind" is not a universal deficit among autistic people, or that the test is not a perfect indicator of theory of mind. (Spoiler: it's both.)
here are some useful links on why this is so flawed from an accuracy perspective:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6959478/
https://autismandempathyblog.wordpress.com/a-critique-of-the-theory-of-mind-tom-test/ https://adiaryofamom.com/2013/07/18/lack-of-expression-is-not-lack-of-existence-revisited/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6959478/
https://autismandempathyblog.wordpress.com/a-critique-of-the-theory-of-mind-tom-test/ https://adiaryofamom.com/2013/07/18/lack-of-expression-is-not-lack-of-existence-revisited/
Basically, the tests are presented in a way that is inaccessible to autistic neurology (kids are placed in sensory hell environments, etc), spoken answers are taken at face value (exclusionary of autistics who are unreliably speaking and/or have auditory processing problems),
the test just excludes nonspeakers entirely, any response besides just "the basket" is marked as failure even if the response shows even MORE nuanced "theory of mind" (i've heard one case of a kid saying "maybe sally was just pretending to leave as a trust exercise and actually
did see anne move the marble, in that case she will look in the box" and that getting marked as a "failure"), and just completely fails to take into account anything like sensory differences, autistic sense of justice, processing differences, apraxia, or anything other than his
own hypothesis that he's already decided must be true. (For my trans followers: think of this like that bogus "rapid onset gender dysphoria" study.) #ActuallyAutistic kids are set up to fail if research doesn't take into account the fact that they are, um, AUTISTIC.
But I’m not just here to talk about why TOM isn’t *accurate*, I’m here to talk about why it’s *harmful*.
The TOM theory (often called the mindblindness theory) is used time and time again to dismiss any autistic who says anything contrary to what NTs want them to say.
The TOM theory (often called the mindblindness theory) is used time and time again to dismiss any autistic who says anything contrary to what NTs want them to say.
Don’t believe me? Check out these paragraphs in “In a Different Key”, describing an interaction between a curebie parent and a well-known autistic activist.
(Image description in replies for my blind and low-vision peeps)
(Image description in replies for my blind and low-vision peeps)
Image description: A page of a book that reads: “Ne’eman [autistic activist] listened respectfully, but he stood his ground. He also left Bell [autism parent] with an insight about him she had not anticipated. His determination and his integrity as a campaigner were unassailable.
He refused to mince words, fudge facts, or make plays for the affection of his audience. Even face-to-face with an autism mom, whose total love for her child and despair for his future should have been evident, Ne’eman was unyielding. He did not flinch, offer sympathy, or soften
his tone. Experiencing that, Bell went home thinking that people who seriously doubted that Ne’eman had true autistic impairments were wrong. The total imperviousness she had witnessed appeared to her to reflect not only Ne’eman’s convictions, but also an inability to take on a
point of view other than his own.” The following sentence is highlighted in yellow: “This, she knew, was considered a classic autistic trait- one that Simon Baron-Cohen had referred to as ‘mindblindness’.
Text continues: “A corollary theory, also put forth by Baron-Cohen, held that this cognitive style interferes with the experience of feeling empathy. Th idea was controversial and insulting to some people with Asperger’s syndrome, who pointed to studies suggesting the empathy
