Is it abuse to force atypical kids to conform to norms of society?

By David McElroy · February 11, 2022

I felt completely different from the other kids. We moved a lot when I was young, so I was in a new school every year. Atlanta, Knoxville, Meridian, Anniston, Birmingham and Pensacola. That was just through the seventh grade.

I was always the new kid in class. I was always the new “smartest kid in class,” too. But even beyond that, I simply felt different from the others. My thinking was different. I wanted different things. My play was different. I felt like an alien.

But on the outside, I complied with every norm of my childhood culture. I looked and acted like the others. I obeyed their norms. I learned to fit. I didn’t want to, but I learned to play the part that was expected of me. I was forced to learn.

I’ve been thinking about this lately because I’ve been learning about the experiences of high-functioning autistic children and their families. Until recently, I’d never thought about the challenges faced by such families, but now that I’m thinking through the issues involved, I feel a lot of empathy for children in such situations.

As I’ve learned about the therapy considered the “gold standard” for autistic children — “applied behavior analysis” — I’m comparing it to what I experienced as a child. I’m finding a lot of autistic people who say this therapy is abusive. And I don’t know what to think.

How far is it reasonable to go to mold and manipulate a child to fit into his or her society? Is it abusive and immoral to force someone whose nature is fundamentally different from ours to conform to our expectations?

I don’t have an answer to these questions. I feel as though I’ve waded into quicksand — where good people on both sides of an argument feel strongly that they have right on their side.

The people in favor of applied behavior analysis (ABA) say it’s the best tool to get children to be more like non-autistic children — so that they can function in mainstream society. They say that autistic children — especially those high-functioning children who mostly resemble their peers — have to be trained to emulate the behavior that’s expected of them.

Autistic people who say this therapy is abuse point to the history of the therapy, when its pioneers used harsh punishment to gain children’s compliance with behavior which seemed alien to them. And even though these negative punishments aren’t typically used in ABA today, they say that it’s still a manipulative attempt to force children to be something which they’re not.

Essentially, autistic people say that what they are is what is normal to them. They ask why they should be required to pretend to be something other than what they are. The ABA therapy seems to be about achieving outward behavior that emulates the behavior of mainstream children — but what is the cost to the child if this is sending him or her the message that he or she is fundamentally broken?

I constantly got the message when I was a child that I couldn’t be “good enough” to satisfy a harsh and demanding father. His methods worked. He turned his three children into completely compliant little robots who always acted exactly the way he wanted, especially around others. This allowed him to feel good about himself. But I’ve spent years coming to terms with the damage this did to me.

Maybe it’s not reasonable to compare what I went through to what autistic children go through with ABA treatment. I’m honestly not sure. But it feels similar enough in spirit that I can put myself into the mind of a young autistic child — and I wonder about the long-term effects of being molded to be something which feels alien to the child.

The people who oppose the therapy seem to ignore two very pragmatic considerations, though.

First, if an autistic child engages in some sort of behavior that is off-putting to the rest of the world — something which would cause him or her to be rejected by the mainstream in the future — is it kind or moral to allow that behavior to continue? If such behavior will make it difficult for the growing child to have friends and eventually to hold jobs, is it the more loving thing to take serious steps to change the behavior?

Second, the reality is that parents have to find ways that they can reasonably live with their growing children for 20 years or more. Some behavior which might be “authentic” to the child might make life a nightmare for a parent. How far is it reasonable to expect an autistic child to become something he or she is not — in order to allow the parent to have a sane and peaceful life?

When I was young, I was sure that I understood the best ways to raise and train children. I would use the same methods my father used, because I thought his methods had done such a good job with me. It took me a long time to realize this wasn’t the case — that I had actually been left damaged in ways that I struggled to understand.

But this issue takes that question to another level. If a child’s fundamental nature is completely different on the inside — different from what you or I will ever experience — what is most likely to allow that child to have a healthy and productive future? And what therapy will allow the best balance — to meet the child’s needs on his or her own terms, but also allow for peace and tranquility in a home?

I used to think I had all the answers — or at least most of them — but I understand now that life is far more complicated than I ever thought. Even for people who have the best of intentions.

Until recently, I had no thoughts about any of these questions related to autism and how it should be treated. Now, I just realize how much I still have to learn.

I now have tremendous empathy for autistic children, especially for the high-functioning child who could be mistaken for any other child much of the time. That child has a long path ahead — of learning how to fit into a world which operates on completely different thinking than he or she experiences.

And I now have great empathy for the parents who have to deal with this in their children. It’s one thing for therapists and academics and activists to debate this therapy (and call each other nasty names at times). But a loving parent faces real, difficult questions that can change everything for his or her child. It can require difficult choices.

It’s not so clear and obvious what a loving parent should do for a child with such needs. There appear to be no perfect solutions, but that loving mother or father has no choice but to make hard choices anyway — and hope he or she is doing the right thing.

That has to be heart-rending. It has to be scary. Those parents deserve love and support as they make these difficult choices and try to shepherd their children through a very complicated life.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts