I am familiar with the post by Square8 and have read many discussions derived from that post (and posts derived from those posts, and so on).

I had not read the essay by Peggy McIntosh.

Having now read it, my opinion remains the same: Privilege is the wrong word. Look at the list she created. What on that list would you deny to the so-called “privileged” people so that nobody has it? Or, would it be better that everyone had the opportunity to share in those “privileges?”

Here’s an analogous Checklist of Neurotypical Privilege, developed at Square8: http://is.gd/TVpsv7. It includes linkage to several other adaptations of the Peggy McIntosh article, and some good discussion of privilege generally.

Sorry for the delayed response.

In regards to your question: No, this blog is not a hobby. I’m a professional writer and I do write about autism and neurodiversity a lot. This blog helps me to interact with people who are interested in similar issues and learn more about this topic through their responses.

That was not my intent. I was referencing the perception of minority and majority groups. I would agree with the Venn diagram hypothesis.

“No examples forthcoming as yet, this is a mathematical speculation.”

Here’s two:
1) A white woman is going to have more advantages (at least, in the broader culture) in the US than a black woman, because of racial bias, but both will face gender bias.

2) A neurodiverse straight man is going to have different advantages than a neurotypical homosexual man (which has more advantages will depend very much on location and surrounding circumstances).

Of course, the problem with the majority/minority argument is that if you change the accoustomed location, then those with the majority advantage can be put at a sudden disadvantage. For example, a white woman who moves into a predominantly black neighborhood is not going to have the advantage, but nor would she be in the preceived majority any longer.

Yet, I would contend that whether you treat majorities and minorities as absolutes or the more flexible, situational reality that they are, differences in treatment still relate to advantages and disadvantages, not privileges.

However after I have commented, someone else might add “well he would say that wouldn’t he”

Well he won’t unless if he ever gets past the preliminaries to saying it, so here goes.

The premise of your blog supposes the absolute distintion between minorities and majorities.

However if one instead looks at society as a large set of intersecting Venn diagrams, notions of majority and minority tend to fall apart somewhat to be replaced by relativety.

In that depending upon the perspective, that is to say where one lies in this seething spaghetti of Venn borders the advantage of one majority can be the privilege of the same when they are viewed again in a particular minority.

No examples forthcoming as yet, this is a mathematical speculation.

But then he would say that out of sheer perversity wouldn’t he