← Back to context

Comment by rayiner

1 day ago

And I'm saying you shouldn't compare people of different ethnicities to people with medical conditions. I'm normal where I'm from. My skin color is an adaptation to the tropical climate I'm from. It's not a medical condition that's maladaptive to normal functioning, or something that ideally we could cure.

Your use of the term "eugenics" is nonsensically broad. Society should seek to cure diseases and maladaptive medical conditions. That's not "eugenics."

Your problem is that you fail to understand that autism isn't a disease, it's a neurodivergence, their brains are just wired slightly differently. Many autists live their whole lives without even suspecting of their conditions, and most of those who are aware of it live absolutely normal lives. The only way we could potentially "cure" autism is if we somehow altered peoples' brains while in the womb, if that's not eugenics I don't know what is.

[flagged]

  • Reducing the incidence of undesirable or maladaptive medical conditions is a good thing. That's why we have vaccines, for example. That's why we perform second trimester screening, for example.

    • > undesirable or maladaptive medical conditions

      This is why autistic people are wary of efforts to "cure" autism -- because the people leading the charge always use dehumanizing language to frame their cause. It becomes a moral imperative. "We have to cleanse humanity of this scourge! We have to save the children!"

      And what do we have to do to accomplish this goal? The solutions are always the same: register us all in a database, send us to a camp or a farm for "curing", and prevent us from reproducing through forced sterilization and/or euthanasia.

      Unless and until autistic people are in charge, then all such efforts to "cure" autism and "find the cause" should be treated with extreme skepticism.