Talk:Asperger syndrome

Is there a link between this illness and people who are gay and lesbian (LGBT)?

I've read somewhere that this illness sometimes (not always) is slightly linked (in some cases) to people having this are sometimes attracted to the same sex. Is there any link? Are there alot of LGBT people with this illness? 10:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Some people who had or have been thought to had the illness are gay, ie. Daniel Tammet, Michaelangelo 24.188.204.121 (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, diagnosing anyone dead is pure speculation. Similarly, diagnosing someone outside of a clinical setting (without meeting them) is speculation. As to the supposed "link": Yes, there are people who are LGBT and aspies. There are also people who are LGBT and have the flu. There are people with broken arms who are aspies. Are any of those "links"? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what we're seeing here is simply the fact that gay people and people with Asperger's share some stereotypical personality characteristics in common (such as being intellectually inclined, "clumsy" or unusual mannerisms, less "macho" in the case of men, etc.) When we're talking about dead people for whom only anecdotal evidence is available, this could potentially lead some people who were gay (but didn't have AS) to be misidentified as having AS. This kind of "stereotype overlap" (different groups sharing a lot of the same qualities in stereotypes) is also found elsewhere (for example, people with Asperger's also share some of the stereotypical qualities historically ascribed to Asians, Jews, the British, among others). Some of these stereotype overlaps may have a basis in fact (for example, Asperger's is more common in Japan than in most other countries); most of them probably do not, however. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Kizcat (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me! As a mother of a daughter with Asperger's Disorder I have NEVER heard of there being any connection between having A.D. and being a homosexual. What does your sexual orientation have to do with A.D.? This is my opinion only, I think that the gay & lesbian lifestyle is caused by a sexual brokenness. I don't believe that you are born gay. I believe that it comes from a brokenness (sexually) caused by sexual abuse at a young age, or relationships that were not nurtured by the mother or father. Something caused this brokenness in your life. kizcatKizcat (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some studies that indicate that people with Asperger's are more likely to be asexual, but no study that I'm aware of has turned up a statistically significant surplus of homosexuals. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to stay on the safe side, I'm crossing out the first part of what I wrote because I cant find the study I read that in and cant be sure it's a reliable source. Someone else may be able to help here. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I have read, males with Asperger's syndrome may actually be less likely to be gay; there was a study I read about in which they "randomly" selected 100 or so men with it for a study, and mentioned specifically that none of them were gay; this is interesting given that between 5-10% of the general male population is believed to be gay. Of course the results of that study could just have been a coincidence; nonetheless, it strongly implies that there is not a positive correlation between Asperger's syndrome and being gay. If there is any correlation at all (and there might not be), it is likely a negative correlation (men with AS less likely to be gay). I am not sure about women with AS, in any event. They have not been studied as extensively. As far as the asexual thing goes, I have AS and I strongly doubt it. I think they may be perceived by the outside world to be asexual due to their social difficulties (which would make any form of dating or romance extremely difficult, since those relationships are far more difficult to maintain than simple friendships, and even simple friendships are often hard for people with AS to maintain.) This difficulty with dating (some people with AS have been known to become frustrated and give up altogether) could be misconstrued by "well-meaning" psychologists as a lack of interest in romance or sexuality altogether. Hence the "asexual" rumor. People with Asperger's are, unfortunately, widely misunderstood according to what I have observed.

I also happen to believe that the "people with Asperger's syndrome lack empathy" thing is a myth; it is my experience that people with AS do have empathic feelings, but usually do not know how to express them "properly" and so keep them bottled up inside. Or they may feel empathy for some people, but not others; I myself am like this. Mostly I feel empathy for people I get along with or who are nice to me, but I have a very difficult time having empathy for people who are mean to me (or who are racist, bigoted, etc.), since it seems, after all, that these people don't deserve empathy from me! Stonemason89 (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Article fails to address the following

• What are the parts of Asperger syndrome?
• What things are not compared to Asperger syndrome?
• What things are not connected to Asperger syndrome?
• What things do not affect Asperger syndrome?
• What forms are not of Asperger syndrome?
• What things do not qualify to substitute Asperger syndrome?
• What things do not require Asperger syndrome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points, all. --Nerd42 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand any of the above points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding points 2, 3 and 4, I've never heard of cheese and bacon sandwiches ever being compared or linked to Asperger syndrome in any way. However, I don't have a source for that, it's just a personal observation. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I at least think I understand most. A lot is in the article but embedded in deeper areas as they should be. This is Wikipedia and not a Q&A... I guess one could spinoff an article on "public misunderstanding of AS" since it's been coming up more as of late in the media and those are all oft-confused bits, but is likely still a stretch. "Not connected" might be indirect possible medical complications caused from having AS but not a part of it proper? Depression and bi-polar disorder would be my guess on the editor's questions. "Do not qualify" would I think relate to social problems. "Do not affect" is already covered on the most assumed answer of medication as there is no chemical treatment. ...I'm at a loss about "do not require", though. Are there things one does not qualify for if they have, or special prizes in some kind of lottery? I'd feel bad if I've been missing out. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

New article in need of attention

I've created a new article (stub) for Yale's Ami Klin, a fairly high-profile autism/Asperger's researcher. As this is rather out of my field, I'm looking for any assistance in expanding the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Add Link Asperger Czech Republic

Hello, my Name is david, I tried add a link about the single organization in Czech about the Asperger Syndrome, that is the link: Organization Asperger Czech Republic but the Wikipedia Robbot delete this links, can you something explain me please what I can do for register this link in this topic: Asperger Syndrome Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcz1989 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It was me not a robot... Anyway, please check your talk page there is a link there to the external links policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Genetic contribution

If there is a genetic contribution to AS does that means that children from parent(s) with AS will also have some form of ASD ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.135.211 (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Things are not that simple. Please see Heritability of autism. Eubulides (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Genetic issues never are. However I seem to remember that Simon Baron-Cohen's group had recently identified something like 34 genes involved in the autistic spectrum. Soarhead77 (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

DSM V will be deleting Asperger's

Released proposed changes for DSM V include deleting Asperger's and continuing to classify afflicted people as part of the autism spectrum. As such this article will need to be redirected to autism or have the language changed to a more historical tone referring to a previous disorder once the DSM V is officially released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.175.87 (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The DSM-V is not the sole authority for mental health conditions and diagnoses. Asperger Syndrome remains a diagnosis outside of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, (i.e., ICD-10 code F84.5) so it remains a (present-tense) condition.68.230.53.193 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It may not be the sole authority to you or to the people that desperately want to have a special affliction but not one that makes people lose the higher functioning sympathy towards them, but to the rest of the medical community and indeed the leading edge of the mental health academic circles it's THE book with well thought out, well studied and well justified decisions. Autism it is and any article relating to Aspergers will have to refer to it being a diagnosis seperate to autism as a historical fact with a mention that other older publications (like the one you've just mentioned) have not yet updated themselves to show this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.89.78 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This should probably be marked for deletion or redirected to Autism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.246.96 (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

DSM-V won't come out until 2013, though. Should this be redirected before it's officially released, even though they've leaked the information that it will be changed?

I changed the article to reflect the change in tone about aspies. 70.70.128.20 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your revision was, to put it mildly, inappropriate without consensus and has been reverted. Doniago (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your revision to the revision was, to put it mildly, inappropriate without consensus and should be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.55.13 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the articles on this proposed change mention that there is a comment period before the change will take effect in the DSM. I think it is safe to say that the Aspie community at large will play a significant role in forming any final change, if there even is one. It is much too soon to change this article, lableing Aspergers as Autism. And I think all the people saying Aspies should not be able to edit this article are biggots. Should civil war reenactors not be able to edit the civil war article? If anything you should be reaching out to the Aspie community to help in creating a complete article on this afflictment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.239.48 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose redirect. The subject is still notable, regardless of the reclassification. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, it shows how ridiculous an article of this depth and length is on a condition that doesn't really exist. It's a spectrum of autism, not a separate disorder. It deserves, at most, a sub-section in the autism article. This article should be seriously pared down and the redundant information between it and the autism article should be removed. 74.12.50.21 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that way I recommend proposing a merge. Just talking about it here won't accomplish your goals, and without consensus a merge/redirect isn't appropriate. Doniago (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not dumb enough to think a proposal for merging the aspergers article by an anonymous user has any chance whatsover of happening. IMO this article is edited by far too many interested parties who self identify as "Aspies". Frankly I think they should be blocked from editing the article because of significant bias. 74.12.50.21 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. If you're of the opinion that a merge/redirect isn't going to happen yet you feel that the article as-is needs improvement, I'd recommend adding sourced material that supports your views. Doniago (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that those who identify as "aspies' should be blocked from editing, as I feel that some amount of bias will always be present in such users. I would propose that the pages autism and aspergers syndrome be merged into the page autism spectrum disorder, with that page becoming the main article on autism and aspergers. Immunize (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable! Luckz (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines don't advocate blocking users just for having a bias, provided they can maintain neutrality in their edits. It would be a real failure of the assume good faith policy to preemptively block users because they have a bias that -might- influence their edits.

If I wanted to agree with him agreeing with blocking, I would have just replied to the first user suggesting this. But no, I mainly agreed with his additional suggestion.Luckz (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, misunderstood you then, sorry. Thank you for the clarification, though I still disagree. Doniago (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, exactly how would one implement this? Have any potential editors take a psych test? Doniago (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a good guiide would be if the editor has one of those "This person has aspergers syndrome" then they should be expected to refrain themselves from it. Perhaps someone could make a aspergers barnstar as a reward for their restraint. Duckmonster (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(blinks) How would you prove someone has chosen not to edit an article, and why should someone be prohibited from editing an article as long as their edits are reasonable? If their edits aren't reasonable, by all means sanctions should be considered, but again, AGF works for me. Also, the thought of a barnstar sounds almost, to me, like "Good little Aspie leaving your article alone. Here, have a cookie!"

Again, IMO - there's no reason to block or otherwise discourage anyone from editing any article, regardless of bias, provided their edits are free of said bias. If not, the editor should be dealt with appropriately. Frankly I trust the editors who would make some of the earlier comments (and the ones who attempted to summarily delete/merge/redirect this article without discussion, much less consensus) a lot less than I'd trust an anonymous editor who may or may not have Asperger's. Doniago (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So should we also ban baseball players from editing the baseball article or ban scientists from editing the science article? Perhaps you should encourage those of us who truly understand Aspergers to contribute to creating a complete well rounded article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.239.48 (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comparison is flawed at best. If a person is a scientist or a baseball player, then at some point they have undergone training and have, one would think, a fundamental understanding of their field. A person born with Aspergers does not. What next, are you going to suggest all black people intrinsically know all there is to know about Africa? --Sothicus (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it would depend on whether or not the black person was from Africa or perhaps from the Caribbean, or America, or just a person of a different race with a Skin pigmentation disorder. I see your point though. However I would say that an article about Africa written by a black man would be more likely to convey the reality of life "down under" than one written by a white or European man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.239.48 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Down Under" is Australia. Luckz (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, it shows how ridiculous an article of this depth and length is on a condition that doesn't really exist. It's a spectrum of autism, not a separate disorder. It deserves, at most, a sub-section in the autism article. This article should be seriously pared down and the redundant information between it and the autism article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.176.181 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Athiests and many scientists say God does not exist. Biologists generally agree that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. Few besides small children believe that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny exist. Government studies have concluded that there is no evidence for Flying Saucers. Existence versus nonexistence is not a guideline or policy for having article. Notability is. If Aspergers has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, then it satisfies the notability requirement. One document like DSM does not set Wikipedia policy. Edison (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have to beg to differ, your logic seems to work against your argument user 'Edison'. I would urge you to consider this statement;

       "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
       Friedrich Nietzsche
       German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

You are insisting that your FAITH in this "syndrome" supersedes the AGREED UPON FACT of the matter at hand. unsigned comment - must be another sock huh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.176.181 (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Exact same comment (about how ridiculous the article is) was made by a different anon user earlier. Brings to mind WP:SOCK. Doniago (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Zomg, two people without accounts disagree with you, they must be them puppetz of sockz. Luckz (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me if I find two anon IP's using -exactly- the same block of text somewhat unusual. Also, it would have been nice if you could have responded without belittling me. Doniago (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposal to remove Asperger's from the DSM-V is certainly notable. It was mentioned in the article already, but it deserves to be summarized in the lead as well, so I just now did that. As for merging into Autism, that's not appropriate: even if Asperger's is removed from the DSM, the existence of the diagnosis for decades will mean that the article will continue to be important, even if it's an article about a historical rather than a current diagnosis, just as Vapors (disease) should continue to exist as a separate article even though vapors is no longer a current diagnosis. It would make more sense to merge Autism spectrum into Autism, though, as those two articles will essentially overlap once the new DSM is out. Eubulides (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're comparing a pretty huge article to one that's barely two lines. Not much of a fitting comparison. Nobody said there can't be a similar two-lines stub reminding the world that there once was a great article here, before it was all merged into a) Autism b) Autism spectrum c) soemthing entirely different.Luckz (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(Shrug.) OK, if you want a longer article, how about Demonic possession? This is a diagnose that was formerly used for cases of autism. But we shouldn't remove the Demonic possession article, or shrink it to two lines, simply because that diagnosis is no longer standard. Eubulides (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering whether any of the pro-move/merge people are going to formally propose such, or just continue making arguments here that would be better served by making such a proposal... Doniago (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging isn't really practical, as Autism is already too large. If anything, Autism needs to be split, instead of being made larger. Eubulides (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're expecting me to disagree, you're going to be disappointed. :) Doniago (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User 'Doniago' it seems as though someone has already made such a proposal, for your -astute- consideration I waded through four whole paragraphs of text to bring it to the light, -just for you-;

I agree that those who identify as "aspies' should be blocked from editing, as I feel that some amount of bias will always be present in such users. I would propose that the pages autism and aspergers syndrome be merged into the page autism spectrum disorder, with that page becoming the main article on autism and aspergers. Immunize (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Very kind of you, but it appears you missed the part where I said -formally- propose, not just bring it up on the Talk page. See WP:MERGE.

Unsigned comment disagreeing with me, brings to mind WP:SOCK. (/sarcasm) 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is some bias on the part of someone with Asperger's, but there is also bias on the part of people who do not have Asperger's. Should we ban them, too (effectively banning everybody)? The proposal to ban Aspies from editing is like a KKK member saying blacks should be banned from editing the African-American article because they are biased on account that they were born black — which is totally ridiculous. The negative vehemence of the anti-Aspies should be an indication that there is bias going-on on the other side of the aisle. What is your hatred (so it appears to me from what is written) toward Aspies or Aspie designation come from?

The article should not be deleted, either, as Asperger's will still remain a significant designation for these people, even if the medical community abandons the term (as many other terms still remain in use among the non-medical community, even though the medical community no longer uses them, or even never used them to begin with). Wiki policy states that just because a topic is no longer in vogue does not, in itself, kill its eligibility for an article, other factors are involved in that decision (such as notability).

Asperger's isn't a separate designation from Autism Spectrum, it is a sub-division of it. This is similar to Heavy Metal being a genre of music, specifically a sub-genre of Rock. Like Asperger's, it does exist. Heavy Metal is Rock, but it has its own characteristics just as Asperger's is a form of autism, but it has its own characteristics as well. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't compare something that is or is not a medical diagnosis to racism, that is a knee-jerk reaction and a logical fallacy. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Logically sound in that blacks are born by what some people term as "black" (it is their genetic/medical situation). Aspies are born by what some people term as "Asperger's Syndrome (it is their genetic/medical situation). People argue that "black" is now a no-longer acceptable term, but yet it is still an accepted term (more so among the older African-American community). People argue that "Asperger Syndrome" is now a no-longer acceptable term, yet it is still an accepted term. People are prejudiced against blacks. People are prejudiced against Aspies. Where is the logical fallacies. Both groups are dealing with how they were born. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you do the Wiki community a kindness and register. It's good for both you and us. :) — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an 'apples and oranges' argument from antiquity. If you happen to decide to, you know, actually research and understand the terms you are trying to invalidate my use of. 'Negro' is argued to be an unacceptable term, if you want to continue illogical arguments, yet people still call other people the arguably worse version of the term, which rhymes with 'nagger'. The fact that a term is still in use by the 'common man' does not equate to it's continued FACTUAL VALIDITY, which you are implying by continuing to support the term's related article. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm... actually, a terms popular use does equate to its "continued factual validity". Additionally, that is part of what Wikipedia considers when considering a topic's notability. — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Popular use indeed equates to 'notability' however popular use does NOT equate to factual, scientific VALIDITY, that being what I believe a respectable source of information should hold as it's first concern. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Autism

Oppose - Reason: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/11/aspergers.autism.dsm.v/index.html?hpt=C1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twolves14 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

^ So your only argument is "Wah they took away his feeling of being special"? If Wiki desires to ever become a reputable CITE-ABLE source then SCIENTIFIC FACTUAL VALIDITY must become it's first concern, not "Aww it made that aspy feel bad :-(".

Oppose - Only brought up proposal due to lengthy discussion above. Let's get consensus and move on. Doniago (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - The 'syndrome' was ONLY brought up BECAUSE of it's inclusion in the DSM, and given it's merger with the Autism spectrum the articles MUST reflect this. You CANNOT pick and choose based on what suits your ideals and what does not. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - per some of the arguments I made earlier. To previous person's argument that it was brought up because of it's inclusion in the DSM, an idea or term may originate with one thing, but over time it can grow beyond its original source, independent from the original source. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

^Ridiculous and also a logical fallacy, there was ONE reason for the 'syndrome' to be given it's own article, and now that medical, peer reviewed support has now vanished. Your argument is on par with Jenny McCarthy insisting vaccines cause autism, ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE A CORRELATION DOES NOT MAKE. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - Wikipedia's classification of things should reflect the scientific consensus. 24.4.168.91 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Support I belive that Wikipedia should include only current scientific information, and that now that Asperger's disorder is an obsolete term, it should be merged with the autism, the current diagnosis in use. Immunize (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Are you supporters even aware that the new DSM is currently only a draft, and won't be finalized until 2013? Until then Asperger's remains an officially supported diagnosis. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Support per Immunize, it's clear the scientific consensus has changed. 67.9.133.14 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose No matter what the DSM says, this is still a notable topic, and, the new DSM is not out yet. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)