What I meant was relating to my comment about pathologizing variations in typical childhood behaviour (Vs. a legitimate disability).
The tricky thing is that in our family's experience that line between variation and disability is hard to define in a way that isn't highly personal. (With some disabilities, it can definitely be more clear-cut, but even something like Deafness can become a point of proud differentness rather than stigmatized disability.)
Our DS10, who has autism, has done a lot of thinking about this. He feels that his autism both is and is not a disability. When it's letting him memorize gobs of data and hyper-focus and excel at things that interest him, it's a "difference" from other people. When it's getting him into trouble because he's out of his depth in social situations, it's a disability. Which one it is depends on which situation he's in. He is okay with knowing that it's both.
I guess I'd like to get to a place as a society where what's in the DSM is just useful heuristic information and not stigmatized, so that people can use it as needed without anyone feeling judged, like they're being told they're inferior or challenged about their kid being odd in some way. I (idealistically) think that is how this information is meant to be used: as clarifying help.
DeeDee
