Sarah's recent post over at autisticcats.blogspot.com is yet another undermining of what can be considered disabilty. A very cruel one in my opinion. She ponders what it is like to disclose one's identity of autism and what worries her about it, and complains of possible negative reactions towards her from others from it. I'm disturbed by seeing this nonsense about "invisible" disability and "disclosure", which she brings up.
She has no business claiming any "identity" as a disabled person if it's based on ideas like "invisible disability" and disclosure of "disability". If one has a real mental disability, there's no such thing as concealing it for significant amounts of time, therefore any question of disclosure of it is absurd. Such a disability is apparent eventually as complete sets of abilities are very often needed and shortfalls in them are noticeable. I'm talking common sense here. There is no way of avoiding the specific problems resulting from it, without keeping away from the situations involved. The way it is now, being known as autistic along with mental health "stuff", as she describes, doesn't necessarily qualify as disability, or at least shouldn't be considered to.
The implications of someone who isn't impaired disclosing a diagnosis, are way different compared to those that would result based on someone who is significantly impaired. I can't determine what motivation she would have to tell others about her autism, and what reasonable outcome she would look for. I don't know what understanding of her from others she seeks. If only she wouldn't misconstrue the basic concept of what disability is by even just bringing it into her trivial discussion of disclosure and others' reactions to disclosure. Her reputation with those she knows at graduate school likely isn't delicate or in turmoil, as it would be for those who are known to be impaired and who are in less rewarding settings. When those in her position talk to others they know about their autism, I can't expect that their descriptions of it to them won't be done in a way that will distort others' perceptions of what it can be like for many of those with autism and how it should be handled.
How dare she complain about "ableism", with her directing indignation at the disabled themselves! And for what? For viewing disability as awful and tragic! (As if such a natural thought would have to be taught.) Her and the other vermin shouldn't go on the assumption that autism presupposes disability, as many of them themselves lack disability, unless they would consider questioning whether or not they should be labeled autistic. I surely don't expect them to not consider themselves autistic, but it must be acknowledged that those highly-abled autistics do not have a stake in the disability issue that concerns autism. They don't bear the burden of the impairments that they declare as being just and not of negative quality.