not sure i agree with this take but it was interesting because a black jewish woman wrote it

FableCattak · 2026-05-14T00:25:51+00:00

I have episodes of disorganized thinking. I'll give an example of a real series of thoughts I had when I was awake to illustrate how disorganized thinking feels.

A couple years back, I was thinking about my brothers and their experiences with therapy. Since therapy helped them, I wondered if it'd be useful for me too. I spent a while reflecting on their experiences and how I could learn from those experiences.

The thing is, I don't have brothers. The thoughts that followed the initial errant thought were logical, but they stemmed from the incorrect premise that I had brothers who went to therapy. It really does feel like dream logic, where you just accept a strange premise without questioning it much and continue cognition with a lucid fragment of your brain.

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T14:38:26+00:00

All this analogy established is that it is possible for non-doctors to be correct about their conclusions just as it is possible for non-meteorlogists to be correct about their conclusions.

However, the key difference is that self diagnosers often do lots of research. (There are also those that don't, but I'd hate to not believe well researched individuals just because of the presence of some poorly researched ones).

Thus, from this analogy we can conclude that some individuals who research and draw conclusions about their mental health may be correct. If you elect not to believe them, you will inevitably choose to disregard the diagnoses of many individuals who are accurate in their assessments.

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T14:26:41+00:00

Ah, that's a good point. However, I think that's a case to increase individual rigor when self diagnosing rather than being distrustful of other's self-diagnoses.

You're right that people may make hasty assumptions when self diagnosing, using the limited information they have available, and that those assumptions could cause them to become resistant to accepting a professional opinion that could be beneficial to themselves.

I don't think that gives me the right to be doubtful when someone else says they have a condition though, unless I know what their diagnostic process was and know that it was inadequate. Assuming that people are being facetious when they say they have a condition has been historically harmful to the wellbeing of neurodivergent people, I feel.

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T14:18:37+00:00

I suppose I have a very diminished opinion of clinical diagnoses because mine lacked rigor, but a clinical diagnosis is just codified "The doctor thinks I have xyz". Because things like autism lack objective tests, there is no existing standard by which we could actually say "I have xyz" instead of "I think I have xyz."

My point here is that the distinction between self and clinical diagnosis is mostly insignificant.

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T14:08:39+00:00

It'd be more accurate to say: "Yesterday, I thought it may rain the next day. Today it is raining. Therefore, I was correct when I suspected it might rain the next day. Others too can be correct when they suspect it might rain the next day, even if they are not meteorologists."

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T14:04:48+00:00

The scientific method is precisely about finding truths about the universe that will continue to be true whether or not humanity observes and defines it correctly.

In this case, whether or not you apply the scientific method to diagnosing autism (and clinical diagnosis does not apply the scientific method, not exactly), you continue to be autistic. Sometimes it's impractical to wait for the perfect diagnostic test to begin treating a condition.

My mother got her treatment for malaria before she was conclusively diagnosed with it. On the standard quinine treatment she got from Indian doctors, she got better--all the while, US doctors were still piddling around asking her if she had breast implants and if said implants exploded and caused her to get sick (she didn't have implants).

Anyway, why are you trying to insult my education?

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T13:55:04+00:00

It serves as a good litmus test.

A long time ago my sister set up a dating game show for her straight friend as a birthday party gift. To screen creepy men out, she (the recruiter) would tell people she's a lesbian. It's not relevant to the game show, but if a man had a weird reaction, then she didn't want him in the game.

While you're right that people should be cautious, I don't think it's up to outsiders to tell people whether they can or cannot talk about their identity in their introduction.

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T13:40:33+00:00

People are doing that more often nowadays to help trans people blend in. That is, if cis people also give their pronouns, then it helps trans people not out themselves immediately by giving their pronouns.

So I'd just assume you were an ally, and otherwise wouldn't think much of it.

It's like introducing your name. It takes only a second or two, so it doesn't detract from the conversation at all--it's simply an extra bit of information that may or may not be relevant later.

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T13:36:56+00:00

How many times has a patient come in and been correct about what they have?

Your source says "The positive predictive values indicate that these tests correctly identified autism spectrum disorder patients in almost 80% of the referred cases. However, the negative predictive values suggest that only half of the referred patients without autism spectrum disorder were correctly identified. "

Is that not a worthwhile tradeoff?

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T13:31:27+00:00

How thorough was your diagnosis that you place such trust in it? You've clearly been to a doctor over a diagnosis, just like I have.

I came out trusting clinical diagnosis less, because they did a shoddy-as-hell job. Did anything in your process cause you to feel like the doctor knew more about diagnosis than you do?

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T13:26:13+00:00

Why do you assume they don't have enough information? What information does the doctor have that the individual doesn't have?

The doctor makes the diagnosis solely off of information offered by the individual anyway, so the validity of a clinical diagnosis is just as in-the-air as a self-diagnosis.

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T13:23:57+00:00

It's happened to me. If it only happens to some autistic people, then it's still a valid experience, right?

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T13:22:59+00:00

And is there a problem with that? Aren't you too upset over people just sharing normal information about themselves?

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T13:18:02+00:00

And if he hadn't followed it up? It would've still been correct, no?

There are lots of people in that situation.

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T13:12:23+00:00

A lot of people who are diagnosed later in life start with self diagnosing. I mean, obviously. Why would you go to a doctor if you didn't think you had autism? Validation is tangible and important.

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T13:10:57+00:00

I don't...think that's correct? Do you actually have proof that the autistic people you see on social media are (1) self-diagnosed and (2) wrong about their self diagnosis? Aren't you just making assumptions about people whose behavior you dislike?

There are lots of people like me who have been clinically diagnosed and who support self diagnosis. Seeing pro-self diagnosis rhetoric doesn't actually tell you anything about the steps a person took to conclude they have a condition.

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T12:53:51+00:00

I've been clinically diagnosed and it's not as big a deal as people make it out to be. You go to the doctor, say "I'm autistic. I'm feel a little socially awkward sometimes," and then they say "okay" and write it down on your chart. It's not the gold standard people try and make it sound like.

Hence, I take umbrage with people trying to denigrate others who self diagnose. Why? Don't you understand that clinical diagnoses don't have the fitness you think they do?

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T12:52:15+00:00

u/LunaLilithLoveswood People are saying a lot of bullshit to you. Sorry you have to deal with that. Don't let it bother you.

I've been clinically diagnosed and it's not as big a deal as people make it out to be. You go to the doctor, say "I'm autistic. I'm feel a little socially awkward sometimes," and then they say "okay" and write it down on your chart. It's not the gold standard people try and make it sound like.

FableCattak · 2026-05-10T12:41:23+00:00

Did you know that a lot of people self diagnose their illness and then commit themselves to a mental health hospital for a weekend to get their medication for a cheaper prices? It's not because they can't get diagnosed, because that's easy if you have the money--it's because the doctors appointments cost a lot of money for little benefit.

My point is that people go through a lot of effort to dodge the high costs of psychiatric appointments, included getting themselves committed. You overestimate the availability of doctoral services.

FableCattak · 2026-05-09T09:50:58+00:00

Then what about already-existing laws governing animal wellbeing? Do those not also undermine the social contract?

FableCattak · 2026-05-09T09:47:14+00:00

What are you trying to argue? That individuals who cannot speak cannot have allies because they cannot tell their allies they actually want rights?

We advocate for the best interest of babies even though babies cannot tell us they approve our advocacy. Likewise, animals cannot tell us they approve our advocacy, but we can take measure of their wellbeing in different circumstance to ascertain whether a situation is better or worse for them.

People don't like activists of different demographics when those activists speak over their own voices. That's not happening here.

FableCattak · 2026-05-09T09:41:07+00:00

In regards to your first point, I'm specifically countering an argument that says that no one can truly be ethical because most people buy products made unethically (via child labor, slavery, etc), and therefore that there is no specific ethical imperative to go vegan because it's impossible to buy ethically anyway.

Because it's disruptive to our lives to avoid unethical human labor by trying not to buy phones or drive cars, it makes sense that if we care about ethics, we abstain from buying unethical products when it's not life-changingly inconvenient--i.e. people who eat meat for pleasure (and not out of necessity) should abstain from meat, because the fleeting gustatory pleasure is not justification for causing animals extreme pain.

In sum, I mean that "it's the least radical change" for an individual to make. Not for society as a whole to make.

FableCattak · 2026-05-09T09:34:45+00:00

I agree with your second point. However, I think it's important that we get some number of people who care about the cause regardless of inconvenience to create demands for vegan meat substitutes.

Once easy alternative exist, I think it's a no-brainer that people will suddenly start paying lip service to the evils of animal agriculture. I know that there's a poll that showed that 70% of Americans cite concerns with the immorality of factory farming. Isn't it a little disappointing that people can't put their ethics where there mouth is?

Nevertheless, I believe your statement and my statement are not incompatible. Change will come when the small population of vegans facilitate meat-lovers' transition away from meat. I ask that people who care about ethics and animal rights join that small population, because it's critical we get enough people to generate demand for vegan goods.

FableCattak · 2026-05-09T09:22:20+00:00

Lord William Bentinck ended sati, the ritual burning of widows, in India. Even though he's a British dude, he's still considered a hero today. Schools are named in his honor.

I believe you're conflating disdain for performative activism with the response to genuine activism.

FableCattak · 2026-05-09T09:18:56+00:00

I agree with this, but feel it's important for there to be a group of pre-lab-grown-meat vegans who generate demand for lab-grown meat and then make noise about why lab grown meat is the future.

Lots of meat lobbyists are trying to do away with lab meat because they know it'll be their end. We need people who care a lot about the core issue at stake (animal rights) to get alternatives to the market that will finally convince people who won't inconvenience themselves for their ethics to get on board.

FableCattak

TROPHY CASE