Read my latest story, "The All-Nighter", at 52|250.

To function in society as an autistic person, I have to tolerate and sometimes even participate in activities and preferences that I do not understand. This does not mean that I do things that go against my sense of ethics; a good (but by definition trivial) example would be small talk. I treat it the way you might treat a foreign country’s customs (if you are a respectful visitor, that is). As that comparison may suggest, I do not always get it right. When I get it wrong, there are consequences: maybe I don’t make a good impression in a job interview, for example. Rarely am I given an explanation of what I have done wrong and what I should have done, let alone any indication of why.

While I am not typically considered to be entitled to an explanation of how to be respectful and considerate of neurotypicals, it is common to see or hear demands for detailed reasons behind the actions of marginalized groups. How often do cis people insist that trans people fully explain what it means to have a gendered identity (as if cis folk like me don’t have one) as a prerequisite to being treated with respect? (Though of course it’s rarely spelled out like that.)

Ultimately, this dichotomy has its roots in the nature of normativity. If you do not fit the norm, you are expected to strive to become like the norm unless you can plead your case for why your deviations should be considered acceptable. It may seem as if it should then be acceptable for someone to ask about what is considered the norm. The reason it is not is that when the norm is described, it becomes subject to discourse and inquiry. It loses its power to function invisibly, and the people who fit inside its boundaries face the risk of losing their privilege.