Freddie wrote:ThePinkOne wrote:Freddie wrote:Out of interest, how do you think a diagnosis will help. Will you tell people if diagnosed and expect them to accommodate you more so than before, is that what you hope for?
(1) Reasonable adjustments (under the Equalities Act 2010) may mean you keep your job
(2) Understanding your specific issues can help adjust lifestyle e.g. by avoiding stores with bright lights and loud music
(3) The importance of self-identity, self-acceptance and owning oneself as equally valuable may sound a bit daft, but is really important for good mental health. Years of being "other" can be damaging, whether that "other" is down to gender orientation, neurodiversity or something else.
TPO
Well, with respect:
1) If you are in a job you have been in for some time already and are functioning well, then you are unlikely to lose it, through delaying a diagnosis.
2) You could understand these things without a specific diagnosis. I agree that others are more willing to adapt themselves to you, if you have a condition that can be given a specific name.
3) Someone with autism will always be the "other" to most people; they can no more understand autism than gender dysphoria. This doesn't mean that they can't empathise and perhaps adapt somewhat.
My concern is that the person with the difficulty, whether it be autism or anything else, is currently expected to not face their fears in an attempt to, if not master them, have some form of coping mechanism when things become testing.
Given that most people who are autistic have been living with it without a diagnosis for most of their lives, then they have obviously adopted some coping strategies, therefore to ask people to change their disposition around them once they are diagnosed, seems to potentially be a step back.
I think if people suddenly start accommodating you in a way they never did before, that can be a little patronising, even when it is done with the best of intentions. This may make you feel more of an outcast, not less (even if your environment becomes more comfortable). I don't think I'd like it if, all of a sudden, people were behaving differently towards me for one reason or the next, unless it was absolutely necessary. There are those with profound problems that have to be adapted to, by themselves and everyone else, but those with less extreme conditions should perhaps be encouraged not to rely on their condition as a get out clause, with respect to environments or situations they find disquieting.
Self reliance, wherever possible, seems to be a foreign concept in today's world and I don't think it is doing us any favours societally.
I am not suggesting you or anyone else could go without these adaptations to your workplace or in people's behaviour towards you. I just think too often it is the first thing suggested, when it shouldn't necessarily be.
As regards losing a job. Depends on the sort of place you work. Even then, a change of CEO and a new line manager can make a massive difference. Anyone who thinks that all organizations in the private sector hire and fire on the basis to do a job well is in cloud-cuckoo land and is extremely naive about the realities of workplace office politics. The social "fit" plus cheapness of employment is often the main thing, even for highly-skilled technical roles of a type where it ought to be very secondary. So being "different" makes you very vulnerable to removal (and no, not all employers comply with the legal ways of doing things).
In my case, my new manager was very clear: when I tried to explain that I thought my "differences" (usually termed as "non-ideal behaviours" these days) were due to autism/aspergers, it was made very plain to me that without a diagnosis, that was all very interesting- but was only my opinion. Whereas if I had a diagnosis the Equalities Act would oblige them to view it differently; and in the situation I was in, time was not on my side. That I had not had a day off sick in 10 years, and was known for delivering very good work plus had a good track record with more "empathetic" managers wasn't going to be taken into account.
OK, so in an ideal world there would be no diagnosis required because people who had different needs would all be accommodated through "empathy." However the real world is far from ideal, most managers are far from empathetic and many just want an easy life; hence the need for the DDA then the Equalities Act. Indeed, from my experience of the workplace over the last 20 years, I am of the view that the corporate world is getting steadily less tolerant of "different;" in times gone by the "eccentric but brilliant" was recognised as valuable so tolerated (i.e. accommodated) whereas these days with a focus on "behaviours" (i.e. "how like us are you?"), image and spin, that tolerance is slipping away- along with some really valuable technical/engineering skills and knowledge in many cases. However it still happens- then the "loss of talent" is bemoaned and companies wring their hands about how hard it is to recruit/retain talent whilst all the while having recruitment/retention criteria that filter out those with the skills they say they require- usually they end up buying the same people in as "consultants" at a higher price.
It is unhelpful to imply that someone should be self-reliant rather than have reasonable adjustments; bottom line, I have achieved a high-level technical position and have a good professional reputation in my field because I have an exceptionally high level of self-reliance and ability; I am super-good at what I do. However, being good at your work is not always enough if (for example) environmental conditions are unbearable. Constantly "coping" with sensory and cognitive overload is exhausting and causes health problems- and as exhaustion is cumulative, it gets harder as you get older. I have many "coping strategies." What I object to is being forced to "cope" in a manner that makes me hugely exhausted and ill because a neurotypical person is too lazy in their behaviour or thinking to make a small adaptation.
Regarding "less extreme" conditions: tell me, how do you judge "less extreme?" Quite a lot of people who need wheelchairs can actually walk a few steps. Should we also say they are "less extreme" and not give them the support they require such as unstepped access and car-parking nearby?
As for the idea that I may use my "less extreme" condition as a get-out clause: that is rather insulting. It implies that I am expected to tough it out if the "conditions" are hurting me. So, do you expect me to suffer pain because I am not "extreme" enough to meet your criteria for help? Why is that OK? I am UNABLE to switch off my sensory sensitivities (I wish) and my brain wiring determines my social-cognitive processing ability/limit; "coping" is just "bearing" the pain caused by constant overload. So, can I take it that you have never, ever used any form of pain relief, as you think these things should be "coped" with? Would you not seek to avoid things that cause pain?
To stay with that analogy, once I understand there is a means of pain relief (by avoiding or relieving it), am I expected to not be allowed to use it because I am not "extreme" enough? Should we deny pain relief to people who are not injured "extremely" enough so as to increase their self-reliance and make them "face their fears"? In your world, does a broken ankle qualify for pain relief? Are we to stop giving people supportive ankle boots for work where doing so may prevent an ankle injury? Where is it "extreme" enough? OR- should we not use the variety of pain avoidance/relief available so people don't need to be in pain? Because that is a direct parallel.
When pain is all you know, you live with it because there is no option. When you suddenly realise it doesn't have to be like that, when you experience the relief from pain, when the pain avoidance/relief is cheap and simple- should you be expected to not be allowed it because you have previously "coped" without it? When I have the reasonable adjustments in place, the pain goes away and I have a quality of life on a par with that of others. THAT is one of the benefits of diagnosis- relief for the pain.
The cartoon that MickF referenced earlier is very good: if you are autistic then you either must be "less extreme" enough to tough it out, or you must be so incapable you cannot be allowed to do anything!
Finally, why should reasonable adjustments NOT be the first thing to be considered?
TPO
