Aggression

 In light of yet another article propagating the myth that large percentages of autistic and other disabled and neurodivergent people have "aggression," I needed to clarify exactly what these writers, doctors, therapists and "experts" are getting wrong about what aggression is and isn't. So let's look at the differences among three distinct concepts: self-injurious behaviors, self-defense, and actual true aggression.

Self-injurious behaviors (SIBs) are things people do to their own bodies that may cause pain or injury. They are not suicide attempts, and, unless something goes very wrong, they are nonfatal.

*Is this behavior a problem?

Some people with SIBs consider them a problem. Some don't. Some people with SIBs who consider their SIBs a problem want to receive treatments/therapies to reduce or manage the impulse to the behaviors. Some don't. The only person who can judge whether a SIB is a problem and if so what to do about it is the person whose body it is.

*Should other people interfere in it?

No, unless the person with the behavior has explicitly asked you to interfere.

*Should this behavior be grounds for abridging someone's freedom of movement?

No.

Self-defense is the use of physical force to prevent or resist violence or abuse against oneself. Some common examples of self-defense by disabled people include:

A nurse tries to inject a patient with a drug against his will, and the patient hits the nurse.

A therapist tries to restrain a disabled person, and the disabled person bites the therapist.

A caregiver tries to touch, groom, feed, steer, or transport a disabled person against her will, and the disabled person hits the caregiver.

Drivers try to transport a disabled woman to a forced labor site, and the disabled woman attacks the drivers.

*Is this behavior a problem?

No. The abuse that makes it necessary is the problem.

*Should other people interfere in it?

Yes, if possible, other people should interfere to help the person defending him/herself.

*Should this behavior be grounds for abridging someone's freedom of movement?

No.

Actual true aggression is physical force or the threat of physical force against other people when it is not necessary for self-defense. Examples include hurting people in anger, hurting people to punish them, or hurting people in order to assert power over them.

*Is this behavior a problem?

Yes.

*Should other people interfere in it?

Yes, depending on the situation. If possible, the person exhibiting actual true aggression should be stopped.

*Should this behavior be grounds for abridging someone's freedom of movement?

Sometimes. Not necessarily. Depending on what is necessary to protect other people from the actually truly aggressive person's actual true aggression. Even in cases in which a person is being actually truly aggressive, the person should be entitled to basic human rights and civil liberties protections. In the U.S. criminal justice systems, this includes the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers, being presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment. Disabled people who commit actual true aggression should be held accountable for their actions, but they should not be subject to cruelties such as forced drugging, indefinite imprisonment/institutionalization, or sterilization. There are also ways to reduce and protect people from actual true aggression besides punishment and incarceration. For example, people with access to education, employment, financial security, and meaningful control over their lives are less likely to be actually truly aggressive than those without those things.