DOMA…and what Changed

I’ve seen some bad reporting on the US Supreme Court DOMA and Prop 8 decisions. Here’s what I know.

First, nothing changes for 30 days (there’s a 30 day “waiting period” after Supreme Court decisions). In 30 days, the decisions go into effect.

The Prop 8 decision doesn’t affect anyone who is already married (sort of…as a person pointed out to me, it affects married gays or gays not wanting to get married in the same ways Brown v. Board of Education affected blacks who weren’t in school – so there certainly is a huge impact here, even if no new rights are granted to already-married and don’t-want-to-get-married people).

It does affect people in California. After the inevitable requests for stays and procedural arguments, gay people will most likely be able to get married in California. But it’s not quite done yet. Close, but not quite. The ruling that matters right now is Judge Walker’s ruling which has a stay right now that has to be lifted (it should be soon, but not until all the courts do whatever they need to do, which takes time).

The Prop 8 decision has no effect on someone who gets married or wants to get married outside of California. However, if you want to get married in California to a same-sex spouse, you’ll be able to do that soon.

The DOMA decision is more interesting. The Federal government has to now (after the 30 day wait, anyhow) treat married couples the same, gay or straight. This means things like married soldier housing, immigration decisions, federal conflict of interest laws, federal taxes, federal employee benefits, etc, all apply to same-sex married couples.

What doesn’t change is the other ugly part of DOMA. Today, the only marriage a state can decide not to recognize is a gay marriage. So if you were married in say Toronto or Iowa, both of which will marry a non-resident, and go back to your home state of Georgia, that state will treat you as unmarried. Thus, you have to file state tax returns as single people, your spouse might not be your next-of-kin if you die, your spouse won’t automatically inherit the house he shared with you (but you owned), etc. You’re still unrelated in Georgia, from the State’s eyes. Now it gets interesting because the Feds however will recognize your marriage, so you file joint Federal (but single person State) tax returns, can get Federal married employee benefits (if your spouse works for the Fed’s of course), etc. So it’s really a huge mess.

You wouldn’t have this problem if you got married to your first cousin in Georgia (legal there), but actually lived in West Virginia (where first cousin marriage is illegal). West Virginia is required by the constitution (full faith clause of the Constitution) to recognize that marriage. The only marriages they can choose to ignore are marriages that involve people other than “one man and one woman.” Clearly this is not right, and the part of DOMA that allows states to ignore gay marriages is not constitutional, but that hasn’t yet been decided by the courts. So in the meantime, Georgia will ignore gay marriages while West Virginia recognizes cousin marriages (that are performed out of state).

Coy Matthis – and Excuses to Exclude

I wanted to write a bit about a big local news story. But I also wanted to write about how different populations (in this case, trans people and autistic people) face too many of the same stigmas and excuses when we’re excluded.

As an autistic person, I’ve seen plenty of excuses to exclude. Of course we’re not the only group of people excluded from places and activities, as a long history of exclusion in the USA demonstrates. Today, one group that frequently loses their rights is transgender people. As autistic people, we should be concerned anytime anyone’s rights are infringed – we know what it is like.

Coy Matthis is a (now) second grader. She successfully brought a complaint against the Fountain-Ft. Carson School District (Fountain is a town directly south of Colorado Springs, home of Focus on the Family and several other right-leaning political-religious organizations). Her complaint was that the school district prohibited her, a transgender girl, from using the girl’s bathroom, and suggested (initially) that she used the boy’s bathroom, or, (later) a staff restroom.

Predictably, the Division of Civil Right’s decision (pdf) angered a lot of people, with predictable complaints, as it affirmed Coy’s right to use the girl’s bathroom. As you read through some of the complaints I’ve seen below, as I paraphrase them below, think about what other populations you’ve seen these complaints used against. This is one reason it’s important to ally ourselves with other communities – their struggle is remarkably similar to our struggle, so it’s useful to learn from each other. Of course Coy and others like her have plenty of different struggles than autistic people generally have, but there are some commonalities even where the specifics are different.

I don’t believe she’s really trans, her parents are using her

This argument comes down to “I don’t believe her.” How many times have we heard that about autistic people in the autism community? The minute an autistic speaks out against something someone is saying or doing to autistic people, we learn that we aren’t really autistic. Denial of our identity is a pretty basic way of trying to silence an opponent. And plenty of autistics are told that they are only pretending to be autistic.

But, that aside, I’ll make one suggestion: if you know a 6 year old boy (Coy was 6 at time of the bathroom ban), see if you can get him to wear girl’s clothes to school, tell people he’s a girl, and otherwise do “girl things.” I’ll be mightily impressed if you can do this. After all, society strongly encourages gender stereotype conformity.

How can a 6 year old know she’s trans?

Likewise, we’re (autistics) are too often dismissed when we relate our experiences interacting with the world. “How can you be bothered by a fluorescent light?” It’s basically, “My experience was nothing like yours. I never went through being trans at 6, so I can’t see how that’s possible. I never was bothered to the point of pain by a fluorescent light, so you’re making it up.”

The answer to this question turns out to be pretty easy. From a recent American Academy of Pediatrics (not to be confused with the American Academy of Pediatricians!) policy technical report (pdf) on treating LGBT children:

Awareness of gender identity happens very early in life. Between ages 1 and 2 years, children become conscious of physical differences between the 2 sexes. By age 3, children can identify themselves as a boy or a girl, and, by age 4, gender identity is stable. In middle childhood, gender identification continues to become more firmly established, reflected in children’s interests in playing more exclusively with youngsters of their own gender and also in their interest in acting like, looking like, and having things like their same-sex peers.

Clearly, children know they are boys or girls at a young age. When that knowledge is significantly different than the apparent sex of the body, to the point where the person can’t accept living according to the stereotypes of their body, it’s a serious – potentially life threatening – problem (it can create such unhappiness that people feel suicide is their only way of dealing with this). The solution to this problem is to live as you are, not as people might want you to be. This, in Coy’s case, was confirmed medically through her doctors and therapists. I imagine the “Is she really?” question crossed these experts’ minds. I also imagine they investigated that and got a good answer. Probably a better one than someone without knowledge about gender identity can come up with, particularly without knowing Coy!

Finally, again, ask a random six year old if he’s a boy or girl. Hopefully you’re not surprised that the child provides an answer quickly (well, unless the child may be questioning, in which case it’s very healthy). Children generally know what they are. Really!

Boys have Penises, Girls have Vaginas

We have expectations about “obvious” things. Lots of people have expectations about autistic people – “They don’t talk” or “they couldn’t live without 24×7 help” are two obvious ones (I’ll note that the 24×7 help isn’t something people get even in institutions, but that’s not the point of today’s post, so I’ll move on). It’s another way to say, “NO, you aren’t. You’re what I think you are.”

I’m not sure where Arnold’s kindergartener learned about penises and vaginas, but as the decision by the Division of Civil Rights states, it’s a bit more complex than that. The decision cites the presence of intersexed people as examples of people that don’t conform to the overly simplistic “boys have penises, girls have vaginas.” Enforcing some sort of uniform standard is yet another way of dismissing someone’s identity. “You’re what I think you are. I know better than you. Or your parents. Or your doctors. Or the State of Colorado. Or the US Department of State” (all of the above recognize Coy as a girl). I’m going to pick the sex trait *I* think is important to determine your gender (note that gender and sex are different – I’ll mention that later).

It’s a way of saying, “There can’t possibly be any girl who has a penis, because, well, I say so, that’s how I’m defining girl. No penis.” (Ironically these same people probably would pick a different trait if Coy was ever to have genital reassignment surgery – part of the proof that they aren’t really concerned about genitals nearly as much as making sure they voice their disagreement with the person’s identity) That simplistic, genital-based thinking not aligned with most current research or thinking on gender. Just as someone can believe man-made pollution has no or extremely little impact on climate, you can believe whatever you want about gender. But that doesn’t make you right. With the vast degree of diversity in the human condition, it’s pretty hard to say anything with absolutes, particularly with something as complex as gender. We might all like absolutes (penis = boy, XY = boy, or whatever else), but absolutes just don’t fit the realities of humans. We’re complicated. And trying to make it simple might make you seem smart to yourself, but really exposes your ignorance.

Ah, we’re not discriminating on the basis of gender, we’re discriminating on the basis of sex

Again, autistic people see this type of hair-splitting. We’re told, “We’re not refusing to hire autistic people, we’re refusing to hire people with (insert some autistic trait).”

Likewise, trans people face this as a result of sloppy language used by politicians, lawyers, and the general public.

Quick, if you’re asked if you’re “male or female”, should that question be entitled “sex?” or “gender?” If you said gender, you’re wrong. Gender is identity and/or expression (depending on context). Man, woman, girl, boy are words to describe gender. It’s how you interact with society, which generally doesn’t involve genitals or chromosomes (I don’t ask someone for a genetic test before calling her “Ms” or ask someone to drop their pants before I call them “Sir”). Sex, on the other hand, is biological (and complex!). It’s the combination of traits, such as brain structure, gonads, genitals, secondary sex traits (height, bone structure, muscle structure, fat distribution, breasts, baldness, voice pitch, etc), hormones, and chromosomes – any one of which can point towards a different sex than the others (hence why it is complicated!). So, if you’re interested in a person medically, you may want to know their sex, but if you’re interested in whether you call the person “sir” or “ma’am,” you’re interested in gender (and then you should ask “man or woman” generally, not “male or female”, or better yet, allow the person to fill in the blank in case they don’t identify either way).

Unfortunately for Coy, Colorado, in addition to making transgender a sexual orientation (huh? Trans people are straight, gay, bi, and otherwise – it’s like making transgender a skin color, it makes no sense), confuses sex and gender throughout its laws, to the point where the Civil Rights Division concluded they are synonyms and the meaning has to be discerned through context. Both parties (the school district and Coy’s lawyers) agreed that sex and gender are distinct. But of course our laws are muddy, because legislatures are not quite so clear. Other examples are the Colorado “Change of Sex” form which is used to record a change on Colorado ID cards and driver’s licenses. The State form titled “Change of Sex” doesn’t, outside of the title, ask about the person’s sex. It asks for the person’s gender! Or, the famous, “One man, one woman” standard for marriage. They don’t really mean man or woman (gender), they mean one male, one female (sex). Courts have all agreed that they mean sex, even when they said man and woman (and didn’t define what makes someone a man or a woman) – it was a ban on same-sex, not same-gender marriage.

This is unfortunate because you have statements in law that allow creation of some single-sex (or single-gender, depending on the regulation or law – both terms are used) facilities. For instance, having a “men’s bathroom” is not illegal in Colorado, but the legislature absolutely intended to make it illegal to prohibit trans men from using it (even female men). So, is it sex or gender discrimination to ban a man from the men’s room, when single-sex (or is it single-gender) facilities are allowed?

It turns out that the saving grace for trans people is that the law is otherwise clear – the law was clearly intended to allow trans people to use a bathroom that matches their identity. But there’s going to be a lot of pointless debate in the future due to imprecise language. While advocates might agree that women need to be treated like women on paperwork and in laws, we probably should ensure we don’t muddy the waters by letting laws pass using the word “sex” when “gender” is meant, or vise-versa. The argument could have been avoided with precise language.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…

Okay, it makes for a good movie. But it makes garbage public policy. This argument was essentially the argument used in every single case of widespread discrimination in the USA. Why were Americans that had Japanese ancestry locked away in interment camps? Because trampling on their rights was seen as an acceptable price to pay for the illusion of security it gave the majority of citizens. It’s today used against autistic people to argue for segregation in school or institutionalization.

This argument used towards trans people implies that use of a bathroom by a trans person (or whatever other right they might have) is somehow interfering with the rights to another. There’s this idea that just being in a bathroom or other place with someone with different genitals is somehow hurting the other person – that it’s an infringement on rights. This is probably only true if you value a “right to discriminate”, which sadly some do value. The only right violated is your right to violate someone else’s right.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I would hope the school would do something about two male boys showing each other their penises in the boy’s room rather than using the room for it’s intended purpose. You go in there to do your business. And by all accounts, that’s exactly what Coy did – her business and nothing more. Now if someone was showing their genitals, you deal with that. It is inappropriate behavior to do that in public restrooms, but it’s equally inappropriate if it is two boys (with penises) doing it. Or two female girls.

And there is a solution for the person who really does feel uncomfortable (no students reported feeling uncomfortable with Coy, it should be noted; it was a couple of school administrators that felt uncomfortable with the idea of Coy using the girl’s room). You let them use a more private facility. Problem solved – now both kids can pee in peace.

She can use the boy’s room…or the staff bathroom, so she can pee

Again, this is used in other areas of discrimination. With autistic people, we’re told that there are other places we can, other activities we can sign up for, etc. We can be somewhere else, just not here. So it’s all cool, right? Of course not.

There’s more to bathrooms than just peeing. While it’s not a place to wave your genitals around in front of others, it has a social component – actually several of them. People do socialize in bathrooms (particularly, from what I hear, women). And, more importantly, bathrooms have a gender confirmation purpose. Some people are violently attacked simply for not following society’s expectations for their presumed sex. Sometimes someone will watch someone use the bathroom, just to determine, “Is that person a man or a woman?” The door they use tells them. If they use a third door, or a door not in conformance with their expression, that confirms, “This person really isn’t a woman, ‘he’ is a man” rather than, “Oh, this person might just be a tall woman.” Someone that already drew a conclusion may not be swayed by this, but for people that were unsure, this can confirm or exclude that a person is dressing and acting appropriately. Equally bad, if people thought the person was a woman, and had no doubt about her being a woman, but she uses the men’s room (or a third bathroom), now she’s obviously and visibly different – and very likely the conclusion will be, “She’s not a real woman.” That’s a risk to her. (it can work the same way for trans men) It’s a risk she should evaluate, not someone else.

Finally, asking any student to do something different just because of who they are (rather than a choice they make), such as using a third bathroom, will say to other students, “This person is different.” Now, difference isn’t bad in itself, but too often that message is communicated too. In this case, the message is, “This person isn’t a real girl.” That contradicts the message the school was properly trying to send when it used feminine pronouns and otherwise treated the girl as a girl.

I don’t think I could ever understand what it is like for someone who has went through pain of being trans, and having a body that didn’t match their being. But I imagine it’s incredibly humiliating and triggering to be told, “No, I think you’re really something else.” A life of people not accepting who you are probably becomes very painful to many. It implies that the trans person is a liar, cheat, fake, evil, sinner, and whatever else. Imagine the pain that it must feel like to have people constantly remind you that they don’t see who you are. Imagine that someone has chosen to live who they really are, not the lie that was killing them, only to be told they are wrong for choosing life over death.

What about safety?

Again, this happens for autistic people. People have stereotypes about what is safe and what isn’t. Someone screaming in a meltdown is “unsafe”, whether or not they intend to do violence. As is someone saying things that an autistic person might to an authority, like, “What you’re doing isn’t safe, it could get you hurt if someone didn’t like what you were doing” (something an autistic person I know did to someone without authority or training who was trying to enforce zoning codes). It feels like a threat, either the meltdown or the concern about a person’s safety. So it must be. Even when it’s not.

Likewise, discussion about bathrooms always comes around to safety. There is an idea that a rapist or molester would never rape or molest someone with the same body parts as themself, and would never enter a place where he or she shouldn’t be – but once you let them in, they’ll now rape or molest. This is problematic for a bunch of reasons, such as assuming that people who have the “wrong” parts would only be in some places to cause problems. But it’s also wrong – we still have extremely strong laws to protect people against rape and molestation. They aren’t always applied or used, but the laws themselves are generally pretty strong and carry severe penalties. If that’s not going to keep someone from doing wrong, no sign on the door will.

Even more significant, however, is who’s safety is seen as important to protect. The idea is that this hypothetical wrong-bathroom-rapist (I know of no case where this has actually happened – where someone raped someone after entering a bathroom and claimed he or she had the right to be in a bathroom because he or she was trans) is a bigger concern than the safety of trans people (who are raped, molested, beat, and killed for using the “wrong” bathroom). The concern wasn’t about making Coy comfortable and safe (part of that is showing that she’s normal and a real girl, not a fake or liar in need of correction). It wasn’t empowering (by letting Coy and her parents make decisions about what is safest for her). No, it was treating people like Coy as the threat – if she uses the bathroom, then people are unsafe because hypothetically someone else might. So the threat needed to be removed.

Likewise, forcing Coy to use a different bathroom doesn’t make her safe either. While a private bathroom may be more safe than a shared bathroom, it can also be less safe. It’s more safe when it’s a non-stigmatizing option that everyone might (and do) use, but it’s less safe when it serves to “out” someone or communicate she isn’t a “real” girl.

If you’re really worried about everyone’s safety, then worry about it (start by giving people privacy in anyplace where they may be partially or fully undressed, privacy even from people with the same sex parts). It means also worrying about rapists that have the same genitals as their victims. Otherwise, it’s just an excuse.

Other Excuses

I’m sure there are other excuses. All of the above were excuses I recall hearing, either in the formal determination by the Civil Rights division, or by commentators about this. The reality is that none of them get to the root of the problem: they are justifications, not the real problem. The real problem is dislike for how someone else lives their life. The excuses are simply attempts to justify bad behavior on the part of the person making them.

Learn Karate and Social Skills to Become Either a Victim or “Above The Game”

When I was a kid, I took martial arts lessons (not actually Karate, but something similar). I think my parents thought it was a good idea for two reasons – they wanted me to participate in something with other kids and they wanted me to learn to defend myself.

It didn’t work. Now, granted, I only did this for a year, so I suspect I lacked much insight or experience, and certainly learning from one instructor in one dojo doesn’t imply anything about any other instructor or dojo. But I do think I can talk a bit about why it didn’t work for me, at least with my limited experience.

First, the easy one: I didn’t bond with the other kids. Kids in the dojo, just as kids at the playground, recognized I was different. I didn’t fit. And I never would with them. Putting on a special outfit doesn’t change that. It ignored the problem by simply changing the setting – I don’t get along with kids in school, so maybe somewhere else I’ll get along with them. But it never addressed the root of the problem, just the setting where it occurred. But that’s not what I’m trying to write about today.

For the self-defense aspect, that didn’t work either. Sure, I learned a few blocks, kicks, and punches. I learned to stand one foot in front of the other. So I learned a bit of the basics. But even if I learned the advanced stances, blocks, kicks, and punches, and could perform them well, that wouldn’t have helped. I was missing something: the application. Memorizing muscle moves (even making them part of muscle memory) isn’t the same thing as being able to quickly analyze a situation and determine how to respond. I was smart enough to know that, even when being attacked by other kids physically, most of my moves would end up getting me beat to a pulp even quicker. Running was a better tactic – and I already knew that before class!

Now, I’m sure that plenty of people have used martial arts in self-defense, and that’s good. And maybe I should seek out a better instructor and dojo and learn now. So I realize the limitations of what I’m saying. But the key is that I wasn’t taught how to dynamically respond to a real-life situation, just how to statically respond to a scripted situation. There’s a huge difference between what the “attacker” might have done in the dojo and what he might have done behind the wall at school.

Did you see that? I told you the problem with social skills training, too – learning to respond to a scripted situation isn’t helpful.

Too much of today’s social skills is focused on the same stuff. Seriously. To be honest, I think the training methods may be why autistic guys too often think there is a magic set of steps to essentially get to have sex with a girl. They’ve spent too much time learning formulas, techniques, and scripts. We saw on Kickstarter this week when a “seduction guide” entitled Above the Game that sought funding. Among many problematic parts, the guide told the message that guys don’t have to listen to the girl, they can basically force themselves on her. Fortunately, Kickstart has since removed the guide and attempted to make amends. Kickstarter eventually recognized that the guide is standard “if you want sex, be an asshole” garbage.

The book is appealing to a certain subset of sex-craving men (now I’m not saying this group is generally autistic people or anything similar – although autistics, neurotypicals, and plenty of other groups all have these men in their midst). After all, it says that all the standard dating advice (you know, stuff like “don’t force her to engage in sexual contact without consent”) is wrong. That’s important – it’s appealing to a group of guys that haven’t had the success they want, and they may have even tried (or thought they tried) the “standard” formula. So this is a new-and-improved formula, one that “actually works” (Uh, until you do find a woman that can defend herself – you might end up rightfully having a coffee mug shatter against your own mug; But, sure, rape will get you sex if you’re able to overpower her).

The underlying premise of this seduction guide and all other seduction guides (besides for teaching people to be assholes) is promotion of the idea that there is a formula that you can follow to make – overpower if you will – people do what you want them to do. Give them the right input, you get the output you crave. Maybe it’s sex, maybe it’s something else.

That’s also the premise for much social skills work. You want someone to listen to your special interests? Pretend to be interested in them for a bit. Then you get what you want. Simple. You have control.

One fairly popular – but fairly ineffective – way to teach social skills is “social stories.” It’s ineffective for the same reason my Karate lessons were ineffective: a bunch of techniques or responses to scripted situations doesn’t teach the improvisation necessary in dynamic social situations (you know, like the…uh…”real world”). While it doesn’t have the formality of formal social stories, a variation on this is talking through a make-believe situation and doing role-playing to figure out how to respond. The problem is that this teaches someone a make-believe situation, not the real-life. In real-life, the other person (or group) is going to veer “off-course” pretty much immediately, leaving you lost if you’re expecting scripts to get you through things.

I’ve also seen this with AAC (augmentative and assistive communication). One of the first things people learn when they use (or see someone use AAC) is that it’s slow – painfully slow sometime. The obvious, but wrong, solution is to create a system that stores sentences or thoughts as a whole unit. There’s just one problem – it turns out that even things you think you say all day long are actually unique to the situation most of the time. Sure, sometimes some stored phrases in an electronic device have use, but if you expect more than 1% of your communication to be accomplished that way, you’ll be in for a big surprise when you try.

Karate, seduction guides, social stories, and stored-sentences all have this in common: they work great in a make-believe, scripted situation. And they’ll cause you pain and hurt if you don’t also know how to handle course changes and improvisation.

Another problem with Karate, seduction guides, social stories, and stored-sentences is that they may just plain be the wrong thing, even in a situation that is very similar to the scripted situation. For instance, an example PDF of social stories includes:

Stethoscope –
The doctor will listen to my chest with a stethoscope.
This helps him/her hear if I am breathing properly and my heart is working well.

The doctor will lift up my shirt, put the stethoscope against my chest and ask me to
breathe in and out.
The stethoscope will feel cold and may tickle but it will not hurt.
I can do this for the doctor and he/she can tell I am ok.
The doctor will be happy and mum will be happy.

Really? It won’t hurt? How does the writer of this story know? They might know it doesn’t hurt themself, but they have no idea about someone else, particularly if that someone else has sensory differences! Certainly it would be better to talk about how the stethoscope may be uncomfortable or cold, but won’t cause lasting hurt them even if it feels like it will. Maybe it’s better to explain “it will be over quickly.” I’m also not a fan of the outcome where the kid is okay – maybe he is, maybe he isn’t – maybe the doctor actually finds something going on. Maybe he/she can tell me if my heart and lungs sound ok. And, no, mom and Doctor better not be happy if he does find something, but they should be happy they found it and can provide medical help.

Is there value in the above? Certainly – you can explain what things someone might expect before a situation. But, once you start making assumptions about how they will experience sensations, or once you start (like most social stories) expecting things to follow a script, there are problems.

There’s tons of other criticisms from autistic adults on many social skills training programs – I won’t go into things like how they may be making an unreasonable demand on an autistic person (“don’t stim” or “look at the person talking” come to mind) that may be counter productive.

What’s a better approach? I’m not entirely sure. But I know we (autistic people) need accurate information. We need accurate information about how to appropriately satisfy our sex drives (hint: it’s not through raping women), deal with the doctor’s office, or defend ourselves from bullies. But, in addition to being accurate, the information needs to teach flexibility and thinking, not just a bunch of memorized sentences, techniques, or scripts. There’s no magic method here – it’s hard stuff for anyone to learn (and even harder to teach). People aren’t tools I use to get what I want. I treat them decent not only because that might help me get something I want, but, more importantly, because it’s simply the right thing to do.

Hiring Autistic Employees

It’s all the rage for companies such as SAP to seek out autistic employees for software development or testing positions. But, when I read about this trend, I have mixed feelings. It’s an improvement from the charity model where we’re hired for, in general, only low paying jobs (link via NFB) or to do jobs that only exist as a form of adult day-care.

And I do think autistics can be good software people! I’ve worked in computers since I first started working and I do think my autism makes me a good worker – I think it gives me a different insight into how things work, a different point of view. I think it’s good for employers to recognize that.

So, people being paid good wages for software development or testing is a good thing. That said, I do get a bit nervous anytime a company starts seeking to specifically hire a minority group – often wages are less than the prevailing wage, a charge that has been leveled against the US software industry’s usage of foreign workers on H1B visas. After all, someone might be willing to take a less-than-fair wage if it is either more than they make in their home country or if it is in a location want to be at, but couldn’t normally achieve. In other words, the competitive wage market pays people less if they have a harder time getting employment (after all, not every company is is interested in H1B visa holders). Do you know who else has a harder time getting employment? Oh, yes, autistic people!

Now I’m not saying that SAP or others are paying autistic people less – I really don’t know. But it’s certainly something ASAN and similar organizations should closely monitor. We should not become a cheap form of highly productive labor (albeit cheap for SAP is nothing like cheap for Goodwill). So let’s keep the pressure on to make sure we’re treated right, not as a new low-cost employee class. But this is not the main thing that bothers me with the autistic employment programs.

There are other things that bother me more. First, most of these programs are “trials”. Rather than creating employment situations where employees with disabilities can succeed (often required under today’s laws for all jobs), the companies feel the need to prove that we’re not only productive, but that we’re more productive than other employees. What happens if we’re not? What happens to the autistic person who isn’t? Certainly, we have some extremely talented people in our community. But at the same time, not every autistic is going to be better than the average NT at software testing or any other random job.

That’s the second thing that bothers me. It substitutes the old “we can’t do anything” myth about autistics with one of “but there are geniuses among autistics” idea. While, absolutely, there are geniuses among autistic people, I suspect that we have tons of people who can work but probably won’t quite be considered a genius. They might not have a skill that closely aligns with a highly commercially valuable occupation, like software testing. They may be like anyone else walking down the street. They might be the greatest garbage truck driver in some sanitation company’s employ, but they might also be an average garbage truck driver! That’s not a bad thing – my guess is that most of the sanitation company’s drivers are average – and that’s plenty good to make good money for the company.

So I don’t like the idea we have to be geniuses. We shouldn’t have to be.

I also don’t like the idea that we can employee autistics as software engineers, but positions as garbage truck drivers are ignored.

But, finally, more than the above, I want to see all companies examine their culture and practices to see how they are excluding people from employment for reasons other than job skills. I don’t know if SAP’s internal culture is good or not (I hope it is), but plenty of software companies could expand their doors to women, LBGT people, older people (meaning “older than 25” in some cases!), and, yes, autistic people, by simply getting rid of some of the cultural garbage – as others have written. I imagine other industries could do similar things.

We don’t need companies to seek out autistic people to work. We’re not being denied jobs generally because we’re diagnosed autistic or we have “autist” stamped on our forehead, so we don’t need that targeted. We need the things that keep us from getting work targeted. Why not have jobs for people who have trouble working the 9-to-5 schedule, rather than calling that an “autistic” job (some autistics might need that change, others don’t, and certainly plenty of unemployed non-autistics would work if there was more flexibility in scheduling for positions). We’re being denied jobs because we come across badly in interviews, don’t fit the normal environment, are too much trouble to deal with, or we don’t fit the “culture.” We need the companies we already have, with jobs unfilled, to take a good hard look at their culture and learn to be a bit flexible with everyone. We need companies to quit forcing people into a certain mold (which typically has nothing to do with what they do – what does having a brightly lit office have to do with writing computer code, for instance?) and fight their employees over stupid stuff (like an employee that finds light painful). We need companies to look at their managers and figure out, “Are these people treating our employees good? Even employees that don’t socialize and interact the same way? Even employees that might need an occasional workplace adjustment?” We need companies to quit violating the ADA (in the USA; substitute your local law outside the USA) and other laws, and instead embrace not only the law but also the spirit of the law. We need companies recognizing that not everyone is cut out to work a 40 hour-per-week job, but that person that can work 20 hours is still worth hiring and not just outright excluding.

If you want to make work good for autistic people, and encourage autistic employment, here’s some things to start on:

  • Do you accommodate people who ride public transit and are thus sometimes late? Is your company close to a public transit hub? Do you have accommodations to help me get home if I stay late or work shifts?
  • How about medical care? Does it start on day one? Does it exclude any pre-existing conditions (thank you Obama for fixing most of that)?
  • Once a disabled person starts making money, they often will lose government benefits. If they lose their job, it may be a while before they can convince agencies that they are still in need. How can you reassure the disabled person that the risk of working for your company is worth it, that their life (literally) is not at risk?
  • Can I call in sick because I’m overloaded? Can I go home early for that reason?
  • Speaking of health, what if I’m not perfectly healthy? What if I need more than the typical amount of time-off?
  • How am I going to manage my home, personal needs, and work? A neurotypical person might struggle with this, but an autistic person exhausted from work may go home and straight to bed – without dinner – because of the stress. You might say it’s not your problem, but it is what keeps some of us from working!
  • How about communication and meetings. Is your culture meeting-centric? Can it handle someone that needs space and quiet? Do I really have to go to 6 hours of meetings a day (like many technology people, for instance)?
  • Is it okay for me to skip the company social events? Or do I get pressured to come lest I not be a “team player”
  • What buzzwords are you into? (For software shops, I’ll give a hint: agile isn’t necessarily enjoyable for anyone, but particularly not for many of us)
  • If I complain about noise, light, or smells that don’t bother any other employees, will you believe me and do something about it? Or will you tell me that you don’t have any way of fixing it? What if I end up needing a private office (you know, that mythical thing with a door)?
  • How does your training work? What if I don’t learn the same way that the other 99% of your employees learn? What if I need to you to train differently?
  • If I am getting bullied by coworkers or a boss, will you do anything? Will you do it before I have to go to HR? Will I get penalized when I do go to HR?
  • Do you expect me to do the job just like everyone else, even if one part of the job is something I’m really good at and another part is something I’m really bad at? Or can I be put in the position where I’m doing what I’m good at without failing at the stuff I’m bad at?
  • Can you assign me work in a clear way? If you expect me to use “common sense” meaning “figure out what I should have told you,” I might not do great.
  • If I’m overloaded or provoked, and do something unusual but not dangerous, are you going to react in fear and consider it a safety risk, or are you going to actually figure out what I need to succeed?

I’m sure there are other things. But these things do matter. And, yes, they are complex. It’s hard to do this.

But let’s focus on that. Instead of finding the autistics that fit well into your culture and advertising the “autistic friendly” jobs, let’s find ways to make the culture inclusive of as many people as possible – including the autistics that have the skills and desire to work, but can’t get in the door anywhere. These aren’t the easy-to-hire autistics who can fit into a standard 9-to-5 office environment (sorry, we have an 8-to-5 environment in most places) but also the people that can’t find for all sorts of other reasons – not because the word “autistic” is on their resume, but because they interact differently socially, have sensory differences, don’t typically multitask great, and may have skill patterns with a different set of peaks and valleys than typical employees.

Hopefully SAP and others are doing that (and if so, I am thrilled!). Let’s hold them accountable to make sure.

ASAN Calls for Federal Hate Crime Prosecution for the Murder of Alex Spourdalakis

See the whole announcement at ASAN’s site.

But, all I can say: FUCK YES. This was clearly a murder committed simply because the victim was autistic.

It was an attack not just against Alex, the ultimate victim in this, but also against the autistic community as a whole. There were two crimes committed here. A murder, which should see the full impact of the law; and a reminder to the entire autistic community that we’re safe so long as our caregivers aren’t stressed out.

Alex, RIP. We’ll see justice is serviced.