Autism, Tourette syndrome and ADHD appear significantly more often in boys, even after potential diagnostic biases are taken into account. One possible explanation is that boys, who typically have only one X chromosome, cannot compensate for an altered copy of an X-chromosome gene in the same way that girls, who have two X chromosomes, can. Check out this article on the topic, then let me know what you think about the research.
The article makes sense from a purely analytical POV. That being said, I find the tone and framing disturbing. As is usual in predominantly allistic discourse, all 3 conditions are discussed with the assumption that they are problems that have "risk" factors, and that discovering those risk factors is a valid and important endeavor. While I am sure there is some value to the findings, I'd much rather see the time and resources spent providing accommodation and care for those of us who are disabled by society's biased attitudes regarding these conditions, rather than determining ways to prevent us ever being born in the first place. I'm particularly concerned with "nonverbal IQ" as a concept that quite overtly makes the assumption that it is better to be verbal than not, and that being nonverbal is a measure of how disordered the test subject is, in terms of extremely biased cultural standards. As an enby, autistic neuroqueer, I'm also a bit peeved at the framing of male/female as a measure of nothing other than X and Y chromosomes. If the pangender reality were a commonly accepted and culture-wide awareness, I would not object to the lack of inclusion of that here; since it is not, the lack of inclusion of that discussion perpetuates the harm of status quo assumptions about the binary and static nature of gender variation. I will admit that I can (sort of) accept a justification that discussing the difference between biological sex chromosomes and gender might muddy the waters and create a confusing distraction in an article like this; that being the case, it would be nice if the wording did not include gender-specific terms like "boys" and "sons," and stuck to specifying the chromosomal attributes of the children in question.
Thanks for the comments. I can appreciate your point of view on this. I ran up against this during my dissertation, wanting to include response categories beyond the binary. Ultimately, my chair and committee shot me down.
I present these articles to the community to see what everyone is up to. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, as they say.
As a non-vocal, non-binary, autistic neuroqueer, working in a space not only not designed with people like me in mind but openly hostile to my system in so many ways .... I tend to explain my views using the architecture of computer operating systems. In Windows, for example, there is the underlying kernel layer and the expansive and customizable user layer. The biological realities of my existence, e.g., chromosomes, eye colour, skin pigment, height, stature, etc. - these are the kernel layer. I don' think about them. They're just there. I had no choice of conveyance, so none of my identity is based on things found in the kernel layer. The user layer, however, contains elements of how my self is expressed. This is where my queerness is rooted and fully expressed. This is where you'll find my AutGender. Attractions and non-attractions are here. Everything that is present in my identity is here. My autistic nervous system is rooted in the kernel layer, but is fully present also in the user layer.
I know it's reductive and overly simplistic, but those outside of the greater autistic community aren't used to thinking beyond the binary.
Wow, that is a cool way of thinking about it. I like the idea of using the kernel layer, presentation layer, etc., to demonstrate different aspects of identity to people who are having trouble moving beyond the culturally constructed binaries.
The article makes sense from a purely analytical POV. That being said, I find the tone and framing disturbing. As is usual in predominantly allistic discourse, all 3 conditions are discussed with the assumption that they are problems that have "risk" factors, and that discovering those risk factors is a valid and important endeavor. While I am sure there is some value to the findings, I'd much rather see the time and resources spent providing accommodation and care for those of us who are disabled by society's biased attitudes regarding these conditions, rather than determining ways to prevent us ever being born in the first place. I'm particularly concerned with "nonverbal IQ" as a concept that quite overtly makes the assumption that it is better to be verbal than not, and that being nonverbal is a measure of how disordered the test subject is, in terms of extremely biased cultural standards. As an enby, autistic neuroqueer, I'm also a bit peeved at the framing of male/female as a measure of nothing other than X and Y chromosomes. If the pangender reality were a commonly accepted and culture-wide awareness, I would not object to the lack of inclusion of that here; since it is not, the lack of inclusion of that discussion perpetuates the harm of status quo assumptions about the binary and static nature of gender variation. I will admit that I can (sort of) accept a justification that discussing the difference between biological sex chromosomes and gender might muddy the waters and create a confusing distraction in an article like this; that being the case, it would be nice if the wording did not include gender-specific terms like "boys" and "sons," and stuck to specifying the chromosomal attributes of the children in question.
Thanks for the comments. I can appreciate your point of view on this. I ran up against this during my dissertation, wanting to include response categories beyond the binary. Ultimately, my chair and committee shot me down.
I present these articles to the community to see what everyone is up to. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, as they say.
As a non-vocal, non-binary, autistic neuroqueer, working in a space not only not designed with people like me in mind but openly hostile to my system in so many ways .... I tend to explain my views using the architecture of computer operating systems. In Windows, for example, there is the underlying kernel layer and the expansive and customizable user layer. The biological realities of my existence, e.g., chromosomes, eye colour, skin pigment, height, stature, etc. - these are the kernel layer. I don' think about them. They're just there. I had no choice of conveyance, so none of my identity is based on things found in the kernel layer. The user layer, however, contains elements of how my self is expressed. This is where my queerness is rooted and fully expressed. This is where you'll find my AutGender. Attractions and non-attractions are here. Everything that is present in my identity is here. My autistic nervous system is rooted in the kernel layer, but is fully present also in the user layer.
I know it's reductive and overly simplistic, but those outside of the greater autistic community aren't used to thinking beyond the binary.
Again, thanks for your support.
Wow, that is a cool way of thinking about it. I like the idea of using the kernel layer, presentation layer, etc., to demonstrate different aspects of identity to people who are having trouble moving beyond the culturally constructed binaries.