My point to F'Nok is that it's not desirable for him or any one person to re-define autism, however poor (vague) the DSM definition is. When the mechanisms are better understood the diagnostic categories will almost certainly change, and his theory that "low functioning" autism and intellectual disability are distinct co-morbidities may or may not turn out to be true. In the meantime re-defining words is counterproductive. The DSM is bad enough - let's not confuse it further.

I am not a 'him' by any definition of that term, another things people get wrong about autism all the time.
The expression of autistic traits in women is different, and often perceived to be 'higher functioning' based on some rather gendered misconceptions as well. The intersection of sexism is autistic discourse is a rather interesting, though frustrating.

And I am not the only one saying these old definitions of autism are wrong, the low/high/aspergers distinctions are all removed from the DSM-5 because of the complete impossibility of actually defining the difference between high and low functioning.
I am one of those cases where placing either label would be misleading.

That is a very very narrow definition of 'high functioning', and it very NT-centric.

"Oh you can communicate with NT people, you are so high functioning".
It's a value judgement on the capacity of people different to the people making the judgement.

If you knew how much difficulty I had with day-to-day tasks and the amount of external assistance I have relied on most of my life, you might start to question the idea that placing a functional label on me is at all useful, or accurate.

My capacity to communicate is not at all connected to my capacity to be an independently function person. It was not until after diagnosis (as an adult) and serious relearning of basically everything that I've managed to be... Kinda functional. lol
What many do not appreciate is that those functional problems are very severe for me, despite having a very high intellect, and good communication skills. You have not seen severe executive dysfunction until you've met me. Coupled with severe anxiety problems, and a long history of bad experiences due to misunderstandings and just making sure I have food in the pantry can sometimes be a gold star worthy task for me.
I didn't learn to resolve these issues until I was taught how to do them different, as an autistic.
And even then, I'm still learning, and not terribly good at these things.

Discounting how serious my functional problems have been doesn't at all help anyone.
By most accounts, if you exclude 'can talk' as a criteria, I am what others would call 'severe'.
Autism is more complicated than "can speak to others" or "can't speak to others".

Functional labels hurt the 'low functioning' by assuming they cannot do things that they could do, if they were taught different ways, given different environments or provided alternatives.
They also hurt the 'high functioning' by discarding their lived experiences as not relevant, assuming they can do things they cannot actually do, and failing to attempt to teach them different ways because 'if they just try harder they can do it'.

You're trying to define away the idea that severe autism can be debilitating. Basically "if it's a fundamental problem, then it isn't part of autism". Yes autism, like almost everything else in DSM N, is very far from being well defined. However, by playing games with words and categories, you're making that worse. DSM N may suck, but one way to look at it is that it's a dictionary (yes, I know there are many ramifications beyond that). As such it provides a widely accepted definition for terms. By re-defining autism you add to the confusion. If you want to use your own term then make something up.

There are many things where a certain amount just makes you different, but too much can be debilitating. For example, what's difference between being moody and being manic-depressive? Degree. Some would argue otherwise, but since the etiology is unknown, I think that's nonsense.

This is absolutely true and I do not at all deny that some traits can cause significant issues if they are 'too different'.
I am very much in that box myself, with several relatively severe traits that prevent me from doing a lot of things.

Mostly these are environmental things (for me) that can be mitigated if others are willing to play nice.
Some (such as non-verbal autistics) can be a bit harder to over come and can still be very readily identified as autistic traits.

I am mostly rejecting the idea that intellectual disability and a number of other conditions that also happen in non autistics should be attributed to autism. They almost always are when the person is autistic, this is the incorrect step.

That there actually exist some problematic autistic traits is not something I would deny, I agree entirely.

"Likely an increased incidence" is a vast understatement. Moreover the intellectual disabilities that severely autistic people display are often different in nature from those seen in non-autistic people. For example, people with autism usually have much greater difficulties with language than non-autistic but mentally disabled people who function at the same level on non-verbal tasks (alternatively you could say that the autistic people with the same degree of language difficulty perform much better at non-verbal tasks).

Studies are now showing that the vast majority of autistics do not suffer from these intellectual disabilities. I will agree that autistics are overrepresented in those other disability groups though, so there's a definite co-morbidity source going on that would be interesting to find, if for no other reason than it may help treat those other conditions that autistics are more susceptible to.

And yes, as I stated elsewhere, autistics absolutely do express other disabilities in different ways, the the fact someone is autistic is vital to how you approach the treatment of those other concerns.

Some non-verbal autistics. There is a difference between verbal and language difficulties. For those who only have the former, typing is great. For the latter, not as much. There are also those in-between. For example, my nephew can speak and understand verbal language, but does better with written language. Unfortunately he's still far from communicating fluently even in writing.

The use of speech versus non-use (ie, non-verbal not language difficulty) is definitely something that appears to be autism linked, and I'd describe it as an autistic trait. Put me in an unfamiliar situation and I have literally found myself unable to speak. Mouth moves, words get lost. It's a very surreal experience when you're used to speaking your mind. :p

Actual language difficulties are associated with intellectual disabilities. Being autistic as well might make that language difficulty very complicated, but it's not just autism at play, it's multiple disabilities intersecting to cause unpredictable results.

While probably not true of anyone on Slashdot, there are almost certainly people who know more about autism in a clinical and neurological sense than you do. What you know better than anyone who is not autistic is the experience of being autistic. Undoubtedly you've also learned a great deal about the other aspects. However, saying that you know more about it than non-autistics is like saying a tall person knows more about being tall than an endocrinologist.

Quite correct, but when someone presents the argument they did I can safely assume they do not know all that much about the subject matter and are speaking from misinformed anecdote or in response to the fairly consistent misinformation and fear of autism.

I do not claim to know more than everyone, I was referencing the trope of someone without knowledge (expert knowledge or experience knowledge) trying to tell someone else that they know better than the person that actually experiences such things.
Basically, the white guy telling the black guy all about racism trope.

Being the obnoxious privileged person in the discussion is never a particularly good look, which is what the person I replied to did.
It is possible for non-autistics to have a reasonable and informed discussion on autism. That is not possible when the primary counter argument is, "well you can communicate so you're not really autistic" - which is essentially what such debates frequently become.

The distinction between high and low functioning autism is at best misleading, and in most cases simply wrong.

It also frequently ignores gender difference in autistic expression (I am female) and conflates co-morbid conditions with autism.

Someone that is intellectually disabled and autistic will likely have serious problems with day to day functioning, just like any non-autistic with an intellectual disability.

In every case I have seen where (typically by parents) autism has been blamed as the case, they neglect to mention the child is also intellectually disabled, or has some other serious disability that would make a non-autistic unable to function as well.

The correct approach is to recognise that in these people you cannot treat their autism, just as you cannot in me. You need to address the co-morbid condition that causes the serious issues.
The fact they are autistic makes this more complicated and perhaps much harder, because their autistic traits make conventional approaches to dealing with those other conditions not work.

Just like the typical methods to socially teach me don't work, because I am autistic - the typical treatments for many other conditions don't work if the individual is autistic.

What tends to happen is that instead of correctly labelling these issues as intersectional disabilities the parents and the assortment of autism treatment 'gurus' will blame it all on autism.

When what it really means is that is you know someone is autistic, then you need to throw out the manual for any other co-morbid conditions, because half of it is wrong for autistics.

If there were a cure for intellectual disabilities and you gave it to such 'low functioning' people, you'd find they are still autistic, just like the (significant majority) of autistics that are called 'high functioning'.

So yet again, someone that is not autistic is telling someone that is autistic that you know better about autism.
That IS paternalism.

I have yet to see a single case of "severe and debilitating disability" caused purely by autism.
The people you are talking about usually have one of many severe debilitating conditions that are not autism in addition to being autistic, and yet people like you go around saying that their problem is they are autistic.

If someone has an intellectual disability AND autism, then the reason they cannot function is because they have an intellectual disability. If someone had an intellectual disability and happened to be black or female, we wouldn't go around saying, "Oh it's because they're a woman", or "it's because they are black"
It's because they're intellectually disabled as well.

When you look at autistic people you need to understand that autistics are like everyone else in their capacity to have other problems that are not autism.
This is compounded by the fact that statistically autistics are more likely to have a co-morbid issue, so people mistaken conflate the symptoms of these co-morbid issues with autism itself. There's probably some good research to be done to find out what it is about autistics that makes the more susceptible or more likely to developed these other conditions that CAN be debilitating.

Thinking that this is autism though is wrong-headed and actually leads to inappropriate treatments being given to autistics, and often to people with other severe problems not being given appropriate assistance because the people around them think it's all about autism.

Intellectual disability is not autism, but can happen in people that are autistic - there's likely an increased incidence as well.

Just because the sample of autistics YOU have met happened to be intellectually disabled, and couldn't function on their own doesn't mean that those traits are the fault of autism, or even common. The vast majority of autistics are NOT intellectually disabled.
Heck the rate of variance in sexual orientation and gender identity is more than four times higher in autistics, why aren't we blaming autism for people being gay now too?

This is the same fallacy that leads someone that met a couple black people that happened to be criminals to conclude that all black people are criminals. We'd readily identify that fallacy as both wrong headed, and racist.

So please recognise that the way you are viewing autism is exactly like that.
It's wrong. Trying to dismiss my opinion (as an autistic, that other than intellect could be considered fairly 'severe' on the spectrum) by saying I have not met people with 'severe' autism says several things that you can't reasonably claim.

1. That I have not met people with what YOU call 'severe autism'. I have met many, probably many more than you as an autistic self-advocate.
2. That you are making an assumption about my functionality purely on the basis that I am capable of talking for myself. Facilitated communication has been proving that non-verbal autistics can communicate perfectly well with non-verbal tools. Such as by typing!
3. That you as a non-autistic know more about autism that I do, as an autistic.

I couldn't find a more textbook example of inappropriate paternalism if I tried.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternalism

Paternalism (or parentalism) is behavior, by a person, organization or state, which limits some person or group's liberty or autonomy for their own good. Paternalism can also imply that the behavior is against or regardless of the will of a person, or also that the behavior expresses an attitude of superiority.

When autistic adults are saying this attitude and view of autism is harmful to autistics and you need to find excuses to dismiss our views, that's what is disgusting.

You are making the deeply flawed assumption that just because I can communicate I must be 'high functioning'.

Everything about functioning labels is wrong, it undervalues the functioning of people that can't communicate well, and under appreciates the functional challenges 'high functioning' people frequently have.
There's a reason that these distinctions are removed from the DSM-5, because no matter how many times they tried, they actually couldn't find a consistent way to judge people as high or low functioning.

In reality, functional labels seem to only get used to dismiss the opinion of those that can communicate:
ie, "well you're not like those people that can't communicate, you're high functioning so you can't understand how they feel.
The ironic undertone in that attitude is that the person saying it always makes the assumption that they must therefore understand the supposed low functioning people better.
It's the most glaring example of paternalism in psychology that exists.

Which is pretty much what many adult autistics have been saying for quite a while now.

Autism itself isn't something you can cure, nor would most autistics want you to attempt to do so.

The current interventionist 'treatments' are all based on the idea that autistics lack something that non-autistics possess and that they can attempt to change that with treatment.

The reality is that autistics are simply wired differently, and many things that are intuitive to non-autistics are difficult for autistics. Trying to teach such people to see the world the way non-autistics do is like trying to teach colour blind people to understand the nuances of colours. It's misguided and of course is ineffective because it ignores the actual fundamental differences in autistics.

Most autistics can learn to navigate the non-autistic world and the social expectations of it, but that skill does not come from trying to change them, but by teaching them how they vary from others so they can appropriate respond to those others in a way they will understand, and communicate these differences where they matter.

What this all fails to address however, is if people communicate with these children in an autistic friendly way, and teach them directly about how others vary from them, do the outcomes change? From (admittedly anecdotal) reports I've seen, it does.
The only way to improve these outcomes is to throw out the idea that we can fix autistics and start to accept the idea that it's natural variation and as acceptance and understanding of this grows, negative outcomes will reduce.

Disclaimer: I am an autistic adult, and I do not want or believe in any cures.

Actually, anyone that falls into any one of quite a large number of groups with emotional/psychological differences will almost certainly be misread by such things at least a noticeable portion of the time.

Autism spectrum, AD/HD, bipolar, and an assortment of other labels and people that might be considered part of the 'highly sensitive persons' end of the human spectrum.

These sorts of technologies are going to be hell for all those people if they fall into more common use. These things are already a significant issue when law enforcement misread such people, having a computer back up their misreading would be appalling.

+5, Funny is simply not enough for this post.

Made my day. :-)

Sure, you could do those things.
I wasn't responding to the viability of preventing printing, because as you have pointed out, you could at the very least make that really hard.

I was refuting the claim that the price of a printer would be prohibitive. (ie, too expensive)
The price certainly wouldn't be the thing stopping people. But a sufficiently technically impaired environment certainly could do it. :)

That's exactly the point...

If a department or a small part of a department decided to break the rules and acquire a printer, they wouldn't bother with one that needs fancy expensive cartridges, they'd just buy a few $20 printers and toss them out.

Acquisition of printers isn't a barrier, because they are so cheap that the exact behaviour you describe is possible.

In fact, if they were violating a 'no printers' rule then replacing the cheap printers regularly would be the best approach, as they would lack technical support if anything went wrong.
No problem, we'll just replace it with another cheapie.

Where are you buying your printers?

If a department wanted to violate the no printers rule they could do it with petty cash, I don't think the cost of a printer is even remotely a barrier here.

Like the U.S. itself? (Trust me, people here know it's pretty lame and nowhere near adequate for the actual cost of living.)

Oh I'm sure many, if not most Americans realise that.

But the US is one of the very few places where it appears to be considered a legitimate political argument to defend the practice of minimum wage jobs by claiming business would otherwise not be able to employ, or that the people in such jobs simply wouldn't be able to work at a reasonable wage.

I agree completely, and the Scandinavian model is one I wish the rest of the world would hurry up and get to.

When companies have complained about Australia having 'Scandinavian labour costs' I've always found that to be a positive indication that even if we're not doing it perfectly, we're doing it a whole lot better than a lot of other places! :)

What I love even more, is when US companies make such complaints, then after cleaning up their act a bit for their Australian operations find that they are actually *even more profitable*.

http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/franchising/dominos-defies-scandinavian-labour-costs-20110810-1ilog.html

Minimum wages are a sham, we can pay people good money for their time, to do the jobs we don't want to do. :p

Not in British English.