[mnk47]

>Erm, no. At least not necessarily. If you can't accept that, you're part of the problem.

Part of what problem? Frankly, this rebranding of mental disorders and disabilities as mere "neurodiversity" is incredibly frustrating an insulting to me, as I struggle with ADHD. My condition definitely stems from something I lack, it's called executive function. I lack, among other things, a sense of time, the ability to prioritize, the ability to concentrate without drifting off, and many other things that affect my life and relationships daily.

>Guess what, relationships are 2-way. Your behaviour as a neurotypical was just as debilitating in your working relationship with him as the other way around.

>From that POV, being neurotypical is a terrible debilitation.

This doesn't make any sense to me.

[cassianoleal]

I'm sorry if my comment was somehow triggering to you. It was never my intention to rile up anyone.

> Part of what problem?

Good question! I mean the problem of dividing people between non-autistics and autistics. The problem that causes autistics to mask sometimes painfully in order to not get picked on by non-autistics, but doesn't require non-autistics to behave "like an autistic person" if they're ever faced with such a situation.

Note that I'm not saying I think everyone should mask around people who are different from them. Hopefully the neurotypical behaviours that push autistics to mask can become more obvious and avoidable so the need disappears.

> this rebranding of mental disorders and disabilities as mere "neurodiversity" is incredibly frustrating

Agree. I think ND is too broad a concept to signify anything meaningful.

> insulting to me, as I struggle with ADHD.

Again, fair and I agree. I don't think ADHD should be classified together with autism. ADHD can have advantages if kept under control but generally can be quite debilitating - and keeping it under control can become a full-time job and a very demanding one.

I also think "autism" is too broad a concept. There are too many possible traits, each different in each individual, that aside from certain high-level characteristics.

> > Guess what, relationships are 2-way. Your behaviour as a neurotypical was just as debilitating in your working relationship with him as the other way around.

> > From that POV, being neurotypical is a terrible debilitation.

> This doesn't make any sense to me.

GGP said person A's autism was debilitating to their working relationship with GGP.

I was demonstrating that the reason it was debilitating was because of a lack of understanding and the need for person A to mask behaviour, and that need arises from GGP's and colleagues inability to comprehend person A. Which in turn is the very reason why person A masks: they don't understand the behaviours of the others, and try to mimic as best as they can given certain observed behaviours, actions and reactions, body language, etc. - all of which don't come naturally to person A, in the same way that simply answering to questions rather than avoiding them even when they might affect their social position probably doesn't come naturally to GGP and peers.

This might have been confusing - it's early morning for me. :)

If we stick to the OP, why is the autistic's behaviour in responding to authority problematic? Why is it not the unwarranted authority that's considered the problem?

[_a_a_a_]

>> AIUI it's an absence or deficiency of theory of mind

> I'm not sure what that means.

I find it very odd that you debate autism but don't know this. https://www.spectrumnews.org/wiki/theory-of-mind/

>> It's something you haven't - it's a lack, like deafness.

> Erm, no. At least not necessarily. If you can't accept that, you're part of the problem.

Just saying No is not a response I either accept or can start to understand. Please explain why No, then maybe I can start to learn.

>> was truly horrified when I started to understand the extent of how it affected him, and negatively, in his working relationships with us

> Guess what, relationships are 2-way. Your behaviour as a neurotypical was just as debilitating in your working relationship with him as the other way around. From that POV, being neurotypical is a terrible debilitation.

Of course relationships are two-way, and he couldn't understand enough of other people to modify his behaviour i.e., the office was freezing every morning, don't come in and open the windows in winter, people don't like that. But he wouldn't change, windows opened, people freezing, rinse, repeat. As such, it wasn't really a proper two-way thing.

Or with a different person, thank you but I'm not interested in talking about your bicycle. Or with another person who would walk you backwards into a corner while unloading her problems on you, unable to appreciate that she was messing up other people's evenings, and that she was being shunned for it.

Autism is a disability. Society should definitely be more tolerant of it and more understanding, but regrettably we weren't and the guy suffered for it. He suffered, we didn't. That makes it his disability, not ours. In hindsight I hugely regret the way he was treated, but he didn't try to 'mask'and I don't believe he had enough insight to be able to. It is a terrible thing and I do not wish it on anyone. Don't try and make out that it is our problem because it wasn't, it was his.

Your constant view that it's a shared problem is about a helpful as a zebra complaining to a tiger that things really aren't equitable in their relationship. True, but...

> If we stick to the OP, why is the autistic's behaviour in responding to authority problematic? Why is it not the unwarranted authority that's considered the problem?

That was my exact bloody point.