I am seeking with this meta post for help with this answer to "First account of autism in speculative fiction" specifically the last sentence being problematic. The problem with the answer is, it made me and some other autists feel offended by the way it was being phrased. especially the last sentence as being a footnote to an external source.
We tried to clarify in the comments the reasons for our edits. The important part was the "to be said" wording. Granted... what Buzz is writing in their answer is covered by the Wikipedia entry for autism. But what Wikipedia is writing about autism is by the current medical understanding wrong. That matter is not that easy to explain without a length of in-depth details. And I am aware that this is a scifi site, so it is understandable that an answer is not supposed to have an in-depth overview of what autism is about.
Hence the "to be said" wording was a good solution, keeping the answer's content being the same, but emphasizing, that this understanding of autism is for some reason considered not the way one might think(/for some reason outdated). After multiple rollbacks and rollbacks of rollbacks, Buzz seems to have been insistent on not taking on the wording we tried to advise. Whatever the reason might be for this, is probably what only they can answer. With the last edit that was made the idea of the autism spectrum ranging from less autistic to more autistic as asked for and explained in the comments, was not present anymore. But now it is saying
*That statistic is for people with classically-defined autism only.
Now it is very unclear what actually is being meant by "classically-defined autism"? I am an diagnosed autist. If someone would ask me:
So is it classically-defined autism?
I would answer "Yes.". And given that, the claim, that 3/4 of those with classically-defined autism being found to have "mental retardation of varying degree" is simply wrong.
So I am not sure what this is supposed to mean here. Again, I don't expect a scifi answer to be delving deep into medical up to date understandings. But would appreciate if at least the help of those affected by the matter would be accepted.
So I am either asking for help in finding a way of having this post remain in a state that feels not offensive for an autist, whatever that form would turn out to be. Or if they were willing to, I would appreciate a statement of Buzz here regarding, what is their objection with the "to be said" phrasing, so we could maybe find together a way that would serve the purpose of all who are involved.
Either way, I decided it to be an better idea writing a meta post for that, then engaging into further aggressive edits, or writing further comments.
Could everyone please stop commenting on the matter without having a clue what it is about nor even having the slightest idea what I am here for!
To be honest, I'm not sure what is the point you're trying to make here. It seems more about semantics and Buzz resisting your edits, rather than any real offense made by the latter.
I actually didn't do ANY edit! And also I didn't come here to having to justify WHY I feel offended. I came here to find a way i.E. in dialogue with the poster of that answer to resolve the problematic wording. Not to expect anyone "catering to the preference of an offended person on the internet.".
Also, it is nonesense to discredit the offense I am taking by something, due to "it has been ok to use that terminology in the past". Homosexuality was once a crime, so by that analogy there is also an consent here that no one has to feel offended being called names due to their sexuality, since.... "It was done at one point in the past?"