NTs Are Weird

As I was reading another email thread about what autistics can and can’t do, I was reminded that this is a key way our views or discredited. The means of discrediting is simple: if the autistic person doesn’t follow the stereotype the other person has of an autistic person (or Real Autistic if you prefer), then they aren’t actually autistic. Thus, what they say is irrelevant and can be ignored.

Ironically, often the people who want us ignored because we aren’t autistic are also not autistic themselves – but somehow that gets ignored. After all, once we’re discredited, we are supposed to have no more say in the argument. It’s the height of hypocrisy.

It becomes a frustrating place to be, once dismissed as a “true autistic”. I can only imagine the frustration felt by other advocates, such as Michelle Dawson who are speaking a message that is based on science and logic – not one that depends upon their personal experience as autistic people. Yet, instead of analyzing the strength of her arguments (which include weaknesses), many simply dismiss her and others like her for not being autistic enough in their eyes. In other words, the assumption is that anytime an autistic is speaking, they are speaking merely on the basis of personal experience, not on an objective or factual basis. So, if you can “prove” that the person isn’t really autistic, you can discount their argument – even when their argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they are autistic.

Is our autism status relevant to what we say? Sometimes, yes, it is. When we’re promoting a view on the basis of our experiences, yes, it is important. But when we’re simply interested in the subject because it affects us personally, but find objective, factual, moral, ethical, and/or philosophical reasons to promote the view, these cannot be dismissed simply by telling us that our subjective experience is invalid! Too often, we go to great pains to form a cohesive argument that could be understood by people who haven’t shared in our experiences (and thus doesn’t depend upon them), only to be told, “You’re not really autistic. A real autistic would agree with me.”

How do we deal with this type of fallacious argument? I’m not always sure. But I do know one way that doesn’t work is to allow the argument to be switched from whatever we are advocating into an argument about who we are. When we make an argument that doesn’t depend upon us being autistic for it to remain true, we must not respond to arguments about who we are by providing proof that we are autistic. Instead, somehow, we must show that the objection to who we are has nothing to do with what we are trying to say, and that we aren’t going to dignify this diversion tactic by changing topics and arguing about it.

Of course this is hard. It’s hard probably precisely because so many factions would like to see a world where most autistic people are children, can’t express disagreement with the wishes of others, and don’t need to worry about anyone who doesn’t conveniently fit their theories. That’s probably why so many of us struggle with homelessness, depression, starvation, and abuse – yet find no help from society without jumping through hoops to prove, again, that we are autistic. That’s the danger of these arguments.

A Virginia state legislator claims that disability is God’s punishment.

Ever wonder why the apparent numbers of disabled people are climbing? It couldn’t possibly be better identification, expansion of disability into areas not considered disability in the past, and better integration (rather than seclusion and segregation) of disabled people. No, it’s the punishment of God upon parents for aborting the “first born”.

This person, who was covered in the above article, a Christian, is implying that the Bible says abortion is worse if you abort the first child (I don’t know that I would use the words “first born” in that context, although he did) than if you abort the second child. Regardless of what you think about abortion, this is a rather strange (and, frankly, scary) belief.

But, even more troubling than this person’s lack of Biblical education is that this legislator believes the purpose of many (all?) disabled people is to punish someone else.

We can be blessings to the people around us. We can be exactly the people God intended us to be. He didn’t intend for everyone to be identical, nor function in identical ways. He’s given some people great athletic abilities (if you were watching the Olympics lately, you’ve seen that). It doesn’t mean people without these abilities are created in the image of a smaller, weaker, God. It simply means He gives gifts as He decides to give gifts, creating people uniquely. He values differences, which is why some people are faster going down a snowy mountain than others. In the same way, he values and smiles when He creates a new being – including disabled people.

We are not a curse!

Update: Legislator claims words taken out of context. Well, it’s a start anyhow.

As most of my readers probably know, the US congress passed a hate crimes law late last year that covered violent crimes against five groups of victims: people victimized on the basis of sexual orientation, religion, national origin, gender/gender-identity, and, most relevant to this blog, disability (it also covers crimes against people perceived to be in these classes by the attackers and crimes against military servicemen). It also does some other things, like pay a bit to local law enforcement for prosecuting hate crimes and establishing new categories for the FBI to track hate crimes as part of their statistics on crime. (The rest of this post is likely US-centric, due to the nature of this law)

What it does not do is limit anyone’s speech. In fact, the law specifically says two things:

Crimes to be prosecuted under this law (nothing other than a stricter sentence to an already-illegal crime is prosecuted) must be the result of an attacker who “willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.” In other words, you have to try to hurt someone to have to worry about getting a longer prison sentence.

Yet that didn’t stop the hate-fed message propagated by many (unfortunately many didn’t know they were propagating a lie) that this law established “thought crimes” – that simply saying one was opposed to homosexuality, thought gays were going to hell, or preached certain religious beliefs would now be a new crime. This isn’t true, any more than the original hate crimes law (giving stronger sentences when violent crimes are committed because of the victim’s race) prohibited US churches from preaching that slavery should be re-established, blacks are an inferior race, or other bigoted statements. Bigotry is still protected by the US constitution, in all it’s forms. And this law didn’t undo that. For this law to apply, one must actually try to physically attack a member of one of the five classes – not just say bad things about them.

This law is necessary – gays, people who don’t fit traditional gender roles, people who follow some religions, and – most relevant to this blog – people who are disabled are many more times likely to be victims of violent crime. And in many cases, as I’ve documented with the murder of autistic people, courts tend to hand out weaker sentences in crimes where the victim is a member of one of these groups. The courts and juries “understand” the crimes more, relate to them more (because of their own bias and prejudice), and, thus, see them as more acceptable than crimes against a privileged victim. This law is a step to correct that.

Who would be against a law protecting Jewish people or disabled people? Well, if that same law also protects homosexuals, it turns out a lot of people are opposed – particularly some Christian pastors (I’m ashamed by the beliefs of others in my own religion sometimes – trust me, not all of us think it’s okay to take rights away from gays, even if the noisy ones in my religion think so). This news report from Minnesota details the work of three pastors who are suing the federal government (and likely to lose – their case has no legal basis) over this law. They claim the law prevents them from preaching what they think the Bible says about homosexuality (it does not). In fact, the likely motivation is simply to establish these pastors as “victims” (ironically while trying to take the rights away from people scientifically documented to be more likely to be victims than these pastors), and sway public opinion in the eyes of members of the public (particularly religious people) who are sadly ignorant of what the law really does and doesn’t do. And, if they get their way, a law helping to protect disabled people will be challenged.

Christianity should not oppose disabled people. When it does, it is our turn to speak out.

EDIT: The actual legal filing; It contains gems (untrue as they are) such as a claim, “Section 249(a)(2) of the Hate Crimes Act has the purpose and effect of deterring, inhibiting, and chilling the exercise of fundamental rights by persons, including Plaintiffs, who publicly oppose homosexual activism, the homosexual lifestyle, and the homosexual agenda, which seeks to normalize intrinsically disordered sexual behavior that is contrary to the moral law and harmful to the common good of society. Supporters of the homosexual agenda seek to demonize, vilify, and criminalize deeply held religious beliefs that are in opposition to their agenda.” Strange how demonizing, vilifying, and criminalizing deeply held beliefs of gays is okay, but not the other way around. Yet another try at making victims out of people who aren’t (it’s hard to feel sorry for an oppressor, but not for a victim).

I came upon two very interesting articles today.

In the first one, some European researchers have discovered a new way to communicate with people who cannot speak. These researchers have discovered that some patients in a “vegetative state” (that is, awake but not conscious, according to doctors) are in fact conscious and even aware of their surroundings. These findings reinforce my belief that we know far too little about the brain to determine what “vegetative” states are really a lack of consciousness. Even more frightening is the closing paragraph of the article: “She said the hospital did a study of 60 patients admitted with a diagnosis of vegetative state and 43% could communicate.” This is a British hospital, which, in theory, isn’t motivated by fear of lack of payment by patients. I wonder if the number would be higher if expensive treatments were guaranteed to be paid. It is also frightening – nearly half of those whom experts – doctors in this case – have diagnosed as vegetative are, in fact, not in a vegetative state.

Another article, this time in a local newspaper (The Denver Post), talks about the death of a 5 year old boy, due to lack of medicine. The medicine should have been paid for by Medicare, for which the boy qualified. However, due to computer glitches, incompetent social services workers, a pharmacy insisting on payment, and a slow ambulance service, this boy is dead. If any one of these things didn’t happen the way they did, the boy could very likely still be alive. To me, this demonstrates the need in the US to improve our social services delivery system. My thoughts and prayers are with the boy’s family.

I hope that I’ll someday live in a society that values life.

Apparently, to be “fully” autistic, one must meet the new diagnostic criteria – one must be unsuccessful and unhappy.

I know this isn’t in any of the official criteria, but it does seem to be in many people’s unofficial criteria. In their eyes, autism is so horrible that nobody with autism could actually be enjoying life, successful at a job, etc. Maybe someone with only “traits” or who is “Asperger’s” rather than autistic could, but not someone who is a real autistic (not my beliefs – I am repeating theirs).

Kind of convenient, huh? If you can’t be happy or successful, then it wouldn’t particularly matter if you received good services. It wouldn’t matter if your education was worthwhile. It wouldn’t matter if you had enough money to do more than simply survive. It wouldn’t matter if you had control over your own life. After all, no matter what, you will be miserable.

This is a great way of taking away power, and is related to other power-plays such as adding “can’t communicate at all” to the diagnostic criteria (therefore not needing to listen to the actual people with autism, because nobody in that group can tell you what they want, and thus nobody’s personal experience as an autistic is relevant).

And, like other “add-ons” to the diagnostic criteria, anyone who is even moderately happy or successful can simply be dismissed as someone who is lying about their autism status – they don’t need to be listened to. This is ironic, as you would think people would want to see autistic people happy, and it should make sense to ask happy autistic people about things that contribute to the happiness. But if it isn’t possible to be happy, then this question isn’t valid. So the happy autistics can be dismissed.

We have the right to be happy and successful. A happy and successful autistic should not need to justify that they are autistic – instead we should celebrate that someone has managed to find a good life for themself. Yet a lot of disability services and support is predicated on the idea of being miserable – people can’t fathom that someone who is not miserable might still be disabled, as it ties into the popular prejudice that disability always leads to misery (and, hense, to popular support for things like euthanasia – who wouldn’t want to die if they only had misery ahead?).

Yet, if you want to be taken seriously on disability issues, as someone with personal experience of them, or if you are seeking services, you find yourself in the unenviable position of explaining how miserable and broken and unsuccessful you are. I’ve literally seen adults break down and cry when they’ve read their own documentation used to get social supports – typically these documents are not a glass half-full type of document, but rather one that doesn’t even acknowledge that the person can have a glass. It is downright depressing to anyone.

We should have the right to the supports we need – even when we are happy and successful. Social support shouldn’t be predicated on the idea of us staying miserable. Heck, they should aid us in achieving happiness and success, something possible even for “real” autistics (no, happiness and success does not look the same for everyone – it is very individualized).

We have the right to a good life. That doesn’t take our autism away.

I’m hesitant to write this post as I fear some will think it to be “TMI”, but I will promise all my readers that I’m not going to go into any graphic details. I do want to write it because there is a lot of discussion going on about autistic people and whether or not the sensory issues we often experience would impact our sex lives.

There are a few things which aren’t always considered when discussing autistic people and sex. The first is romantic love. This is an emotion we can experience, and a powerful one. Like many of our emotions, I believe this emotion is felt very deeply in many of us. I didn’t particularly think it possible before I met my wife, but it is clear to me that I was wrong about that – I can and do feel it. Experiencing an emotion impacts the chemical balance in our bodies, impacts our body’s systems (for instance, your stomach may be impacted by fear or stress), and even changes the way we perceive stimulus. It is amazing, and wonderful, at how differently the touch of my wife feels than any other touch I’ve ever experienced. I might jump at most people’s touch, but I crave my wife’s touch. I believe love has a lot to do with this.

It’s not just that I feel love, though – it is also that she has love for me. We’ve learned (like any couple should) what is nice, relaxing, and, yes, even sexually pleasurable for each other. Love drives that discovery process – I want the person I love to experience pleasure. I love making my wife smile, whether it is simply a backrub, holding her hand, or something else. She, likewise, genuinely wants to see me enjoy her company. In fact, I believe both of us get as much joy in seeing the other person experience something pleasurable as we get if we’re experiencing pleasure. So of course we will avoid those touches that are unpleasant, and instead focus on things that are enjoyable.

Trust is important. And that comes as a relationship develops and the partners show their love to each other. There is a lot of touch I couldn’t tolerate from someone I didn’t have absolute trust in – but, heck, that’s one of the reasons I knew I should marry her! With the trust, a lot of the “fight or flight” reactions can be disarmed. You know you are safe. Now, instead, you can enjoy it rather than fighting it!

One thing that I think has given us an advantage over most couples is that we both know (not just because we’re autistic, but also because we both have experienced abuse) that it is important to communicate with each other. If I won’t like a certain kind of touch, I tell my wife, and she does the same. We also share with each other the things we would both enjoy – things we might not tell any other living soul. That’s what intimacy is about! I suspect a lot of “normal” marriages would be a lot better if everyone in them shared their desires (especially the embarrassing ones!) and let the other partner know what isn’t very fun.

Intimacy is also a lot more than just physical sensations. It is about being open with each other, about a connection between the hearts, about love for the other, and about sharing enjoyment. There are lots of ways to do this – it need not be what someone else wants to do. But because it is more than just physical sensation, the touch and other intimacy feels completely different than other types of touch. It simply doesn’t “feel” like other types of touch.

I promised I wouldn’t go into graphic details – don’t worry, I won’t. But I will give an example. I can’t stand the feeling of very light touch on me most of the time. The feeling of wind on my skin is almost unbearable. But there’s an exception: if my wife touches my face or hands or elsewhere, very lightly, I can very much enjoy that – it’s different from the wind.

If you wouldn’t enjoy certain types of “typical” intimacy, that’s fine too. If your partner loves you, this will not be an issue – they won’t want anything that you wouldn’t also enjoy (and if they are wanting something that would be painful or unpleasant for you, please listen to that warning siren – love doesn’t do that). People do exist who don’t feel a need to do things their partner doesn’t want, so don’t sell yourself short to a person who tries to force you into things you don’t want. I know that I would enjoy the relationship with my wife just as much if we didn’t do some particular activity. I wouldn’t feel like it was “missing something” because intimacy is far more than any single activity. I would still believe myself to be very blessed in my relationship! It is the intimacy that makes an activity enjoyable, and a violation of that intimacy would remove that enjoyment. That said, you may be surprised and find that, against all expectations, you do enjoy activities you didn’t expect to enjoy – but only with that person that makes your heart leap. If you don’t, don’t dispair though – it’s about finding those things that let both of you share your love for each other.

I’ve also written in the past about how my wife and I began exploring touch with each other (don’t worry, that’s not explicit either). It’s a way of getting past initiation problems and letting your partner know what you would enjoy, without completely removing all spontaneity, creativity, and surprise. But I’m sure this is just one method of thousands that accomplish the same thing. Do what is right for you!

I know I don’t usually write about non-autistic topics here, but I have to write about the marriage debate going on in California right now. At issue in the federal courts (likely to end up in the US Supreme Court before it is resolved) is whether or not gays should be able to marry – and whether voters can take rights away from unpopular minorities (California voters modified the State constitution recently to define marriage as the “union of one man and one woman”). Because autistics are often an unpopular minority, this is relevant to us. (note that this post is going to be US-centric)

I also believe, from personal experience, that there are far more people in the autistic community that don’t fit the standard gender and sexual molds than one would expect if there was no association between autism and GLBT (an umbrella term for gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender/sexual) members. We also have in our community what seems to me to be a greater number of intersexed people – something relatively rare (although not nearly as rare as people think) in the non-autistic population. So I do believe that this issue affects us.

Yes, right now, the majority of people voting on gay marriage issues in the US are against gay marriage. That is one issue at hand in this trial – should the voters be allowed to restrict the rights of an unpopular minority, particularly on a state-by-state basis? In the past, states have restricted interracial marriage (US President Obama’s parents wouldn’t have been able to be legally married in several states when he was born), told us what kind of sex two consenting adults are allowed to have in private (recently overturned in Texas), and forcibly sterilized those seen as a “risk” to society (for such crimes as being disabled, blind, deaf, mentally retarded – unfortunately in some cases, this actually is still happening in the US, but not on the widespread basis that law provided for in the past). The reason that these laws are problematic is that the US constitution provides equal protection under the law to all classes of people. This means a state cannot take the rightful rights of a minority away, even when the voters want to. In addition, for granting rights, it is not required that a popular vote take place – that has protected us from many wrongs, and allowed many good laws to exist (two that come to mind that would not have likely passed if put before a popular vote are the ADA and IDEA).

An issue that is being discussed is the purpose of marriage. On one side, love trumps all. The pro-gay-marriage side believes that love and commitment to your partner is the primary reason for marriage. The other side believes that these are not the primary reason for marriage but rather it is about limiting sexual activity to one partner to create offspring (I couldn’t make that up) and then remain together to raise the child. Ignoring for a minute that marriage does not appear to prevent infidelity, and also ignoring that we allow divorce, this type of interpretation of the purpose of marriage is an insult to many. It says the marriage of those who cannot or will not have children is somehow less than the marriage of those who can have biological children. It devalues, even insults, those – typically heterosexual – relationships. Ironically, another argument being used against gay marriage is that it devalues heterosexual relationships. It seems only certain types of devaluation matter, and even more concerning, only certain types of even heterosexual relationships matter.

There are plenty of other problems with limiting marriage to man/woman relationships – there is no universal legal definition of male or female, for instance (seriously, go look for yourself and try to find one!) and any definition would likely apply – and prevent marriage – for some couples that nobody doubts are heterosexual. Determining sex is a lot more complicated than looking for a Y chromosome (despite what you learned in school) – not everyone has one set of chromosomes in their body (some have both XX and XY, depending on what cells you look at, for instance). Yet others have XXY chromosomes (both XX and XY in the same cell!). Nor can you look at sexual organs (might have neither, ambiguous ones, or ones that disagree with everything else like chromosomes). You can’t look at gonads, as plenty of people have the “wrong” gonads for their apparent or chromosomal sex (or perhaps both testes and ovaries). Even more difficult – some of these people don’t even know it (I mean, have you actually asked your doctor what chromosomes you have? If you haven’t undergoing genetic testing, you probably haven’t – I know I haven’t). Yet others have a sexual organ – the mind – that disagrees with some other part of their body. Is the mind less important than the genitals?

These aren’t the only issues – they are wide-ranging. Clearly, this is an important issue in our day, and a defining one for the United States. Clearly it is also controversial, with strong religious beliefs on both sides. I only hope that religion doesn’t get to define our laws – I can’t think of any religious organization I would want to obey unquestionably, not even my own. Nor would I ask anyone to like the choice someone else makes about a marriage partner. But we do have to give people equal rights – if don’t, we will find one day that we don’t have any rights either.

If you get a college degree, many doors will open for you. Well, at least that’s what the colleges tell you – before they take tens of thousands of dollars out of your pocket (or your future pocket).

One of the problems for autistic people is, often, we aren’t most in need of opportunity (although certainly the degree helps with getting opportunities – that is true). It’s not about not being able to apply for any work without a degree (there are many jobs that don’t require a degree), even though a degree does increase the number of jobs we can apply for. Rather, our problem with employment is that, often, there is a reason (rightfully or wrongly) that an employer wouldn’t want to hire us. And this doesn’t go away with a degree.

What do I mean? Well, without the degree someone might not hire you to work a lower paying job simply because you seem too “odd”, you lack transportation (you don’t own a car and drive yourself), you have body movements that make people uncomfortable, or you can’t communicate your abilities clearly. With the degree, you still won’t get the lower paying job, for, unfortunately, the same reasons. Nor will you get a high paying job, because even at that interview these traits that are seen as negative still continue to be seen as negative.

Unfortunately a lot of colleges and universities have marketed the idea that if you get a degree, you’ll get your dream job. For some people, that is true. For most of us, however, it is not. Too often the autistic person just ends up with a ton of debt that they have no way of paying when the dream job isn’t there for them.

Please don’t think I’m anti-education. I’m not. I think not having a degree has significantly limited my choices in employment, and that I would have many more options with a degree. And, I think having a degree is not a negative thing – it always helps strengthen your application. But I do also believe that too often the focus is entirely on a degree, rather than also addressing the issues that employers have with a particular expression of autism. It can be extremely hard work to overcome prejudice of employers (and, in some cases, legitimate concerns about your ability to do the job) – and a degree by itself won’t overcome that.

I would encourage any autistic person interested in college to pursue a degree. I think it is a very honorable pursuit that shows great commitment when achieved. It tells an employer, “I can finish things. I have some knowledge in this area.” That is a good thing. It allows you to apply for jobs that require a degree. That, too, is a good thing. But it doesn’t make the employer ignore the things he doesn’t like, including your presentation of autism. And, right along with a degree, I believe it is vital that autistic people get experience, help, and mentorship in the world of work. While most neurotypicals can figure out the unwritten rules of work, not all of us can figure that out by ourselves. It is important we gain insight into the parts of our being that make it difficult for us in work, and figure out ways of dealing with employer concerns over them.

That isn’t stuff learned simply by getting a degree. But it is just as important as any degree. For me, I got much of my mentorship early, before college, through a program designed expressly for that purpose. I got more of it in college (which I unfortunately didn’t finish – a regret I still have) while working during the summers. I learned things like the importance of typical grooming, why I should dress differently from work, what employers are really looking for when they ask interview questions, and why I should make darn sure I show up for work when I’m expected to show up. I learned how to handle stress (meltdowns aren’t appreciated by most employers, I’ve found), and how to get the time I need when I’m having trouble talking. For others, there will likely be different needs. But it is important to learn these things, which cannot be learned in a classroom. I learned by making mistakes and having helpful, kind, understanding, and, most importantly, respectful people guide me. (There were two traits these people shared – a desire to see me succeed at work and credibility in my eyes; They also treated me like a coworker rather than a project) This is why I am employed today.

Sure, I have a technical skill and know my field well. But that wouldn’t get me hired if it wasn’t for some failures and some guidance prior to getting the jobs I consider part of my “career”.

Unfortunately it is hard to get the type of mentorship I’m talking about. It’s also hard to get employers to focus on the things which are truly important, rather than prejudices and “gut instinct”. We must work on both parts of this – we need to create a society with less prejudice and we need to be honest with people who will have a difficult time getting work. There’s no magic solution, whether it is a pill or a degree, that will immediately open all the doors. It is possible to get a good job as an autistic person. But it is definitely not an easy thing for us. There’s a lot we need to overcome, unfortunately.

It’s about time that all of us minority groups – the ones who have faced discrimination for years – let the world know what an inclusive society looks like. We can start by telling about what it is not: It’s not simply following the law. It’s not doing only what you have to do. It’s not trying to avoid doing more.

It’s going beyond what we are told to do by authority. It is looking for ways to make people feel welcome and part of society.

It is going beyond the “basics” and beyond the “requirements”.

History shows us that the law is slow to catch up to human rights. Yet, even when there is not a legal framework to require inclusion, it is possible to still be inclusive.

It’s also possible to follow the law completely and be non-inclusive. In fact most of the time I know an organization is at least partially non-inclusive when I see that they have an office dedicated to “disability issues”. What this typically means is that they have some people that are trained in the law and know what the organization does and – more importantly to the organization – doesn’t need to do to follow the law. An organization without an “ADA Office” but a desire for inclusion is likely to be much more inclusive. Yet, ironically, the organization will use this same office – with a primary purpose of saving the agency money by not being inclusive – to “prove” how inclusive they are (they will show this office doing the things that the law requires them to do anyhow, even if they had no such office; Following the law is hardly a great example of how you go out of your way to be inclusive!).

If we truly believe that society should allow contributions from all members, we shouldn’t need a law. And we should routinely go beyond law. Inclusion can’t be legislated, after all.

The US society has long recognized the justice and power in allowing guide dogs in most public spaces. Today, a blind person’s guide dog can enter restaurants, movie theaters, airplanes, workplaces, child care facilities, and many other places that “normal” dogs cannot. Few have a problem with this, in part due to the excellent training that the guide dogs receive. (Ironically, this excellent training that allows most people to accept these animals is not the training that gives the dog special skills to guide a blind person, but rather the fact that the dog is simply well behaved and won’t be a problem in public. More on this later).

Of course not everyone always supports the right of a blind person to take their trained service animal into a public accommodation, but that isn’t surprising – people fight for the “right” to discriminate against many other people, too, even when most people support the rights of the minority class. But, today, most people seem to understand and accept the role of a guide dog, despite the vocal few who don’t.

Over the years the category of “acceptable” animals in public places has grown to include other service animals. For instance, an animal that pulls a wheelchair or retrieves dropped items gets the same access rights that a guide dog previously received.

But, like the rest of the disability community, the service animal subculture still has deep seated prejudice.

Too many service animal activists have focused on physical and sensory disabilities, intentionally distancing themselves from animals that provide help to people with less evident disabilities, particularly those disabilities that are “in your head”.

Out of this movement, there have come a variety of technical definitions for animals, like “therapy animal”, “service animal”, “emotional support animal”, “psychological support animal”, etc. Now you won’t find consistent definitions for all of these categories, but “service animal” is the top dog in this list. It’s the only category that allows the animal nearly unrestricted access. The others are, at some level, considered “pets”, at least to some people. The federal government has contributed to this, with a definition of service animal that includes, “Service animal means any guide dog, signal dog or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability…”

At first, this sounds fine – and it goes back to a current thread among my blog posts: we as society don’t want people abusing the system, so it makes sense that we would create a definition of “acceptable” service animals. Someone who brings unacceptable animals into the public space, after all, could do harm to everyone who needs a service animal – or so the thinking goes.

The problem is that “allowing someone to leave their house” or “providing the support needed to avoid a meltdown” – very common things provided by animals to people with hidden disabilities – are not considered doing work or performing tasks, by the federal definition. The dog (or other animal, but I’m using “dog” for simplification here) may not need to do anything to give someone the confidence to go into the world – just simply be with the person.

Of course when you ask someone “Why is a guide dog okay, but not a support dog?” you get some strange answers. By far the most common one is the same ones that people with guide dogs faced decades ago – “What about people who are allergic to dogs?” or “There are sanitation concerns” or “We need to be a safe environment, and dogs bite.” I don’t generally question people further at that point, because I don’t particularly want them realizing that these reasons, if they were legitimate reasons to put a barrier up for disabled people, would equally apply to the service dogs that they already consider acceptable. But the arguments – and answers – remain the same. They’ve also been dealt with by organizations that use animals in other settings (animals that are not considered service animals), such as hospital visitation programs (do you not think a hospital is concerned about sanitation, allergies, or safety?). There are solutions to these problems (although they rarely are one-size-fits-all type of solutions).

I work for a company that encourages you to bring your pet dog to work. At any time, we probably have between 5 and 10 dogs in our small office building. Sometimes they are sitting in beds, sometimes they are leased, sometimes they are just walking around exploring on their own. These are not specially trained animals, but rather simply pets. Of course there is an expectation when you bring your pets to work: they must be well behaved, well socialized (to both dogs and people), non-agressive and non-territorial. I don’t think we’ve ever told people that they should be clean and not taken out while sick, but hopefully that goes without saying. So I know that even pets can integrate into places that normally disallow animals.

The key to the animal integrating well into a public space is not whether or not the animal knows how to respond to a curb cut for a blind person. Instead it is whether or not the animal is a risk to people and animals around it. This is really the key, and this is really what needs to be legislated. I don’t care if the dog is specially trained or not, nor do I care if it can perform a special skill, if it is attacking a child! The skill is irrelevant, as should be a narrow definition of acceptable uses for a service animal.

The definition needs to change. An animal should be eligible to be considered a service animal if the animal enables a disabled person to be part of society. It really is not more complex than that. That said, it is appropriate to impose an additional requirement: that the dog be well-behaved.

I think we could go a long way to both answering the fears of the people who think that allowing “support animals” would cause everyone to bring the family pet to the restaurant by simply requiring people using service animals to have sought independent confirmation that their animal is safe in public places. It would also answer legitimate concerns about whether or not it is safe to allow service animals in public. I realize that there is no fool-proof test, but at the same time there currently is no requirement on independent confirmation of safety, so while we wouldn’t be 100% certain of safety, we would be a lot more certain than under the current system (which focuses on what jobs the animals do rather than the safety of the animal). As an example of the starting point for this, I will suggest the AKC’s Canine Good Citizen Program. I suspect more involved tests may be appropriate before granting an animal access to public spaces that normally prohibit animals, but this is the type of thing that is actually important when talking about bringing animals into the public space. Whether the dog comforts a person enough to let them enter a new building or whether the dog is the person’s “eyes” is irrelevant.

Maybe one day we’ll see these changes. In the meantime, we can influence those around us to accept more diversity than the minimum required under federal law. The ADA and similar laws were never intended as examples of perfection, but rather simply as starting points.