“The difference between people diagnosed with autism and the rest of the population is shrinking. ”

Honestly? I feel like everyone is unnecessarily 'losing it' about this article.

I read it as saying:

1. It's becoming too easy for people who probably aren't autistic to get a diagnosis due to poor application of diagnostic criteria

2. This leads to a dilution of the understanding of the impact autism has on genuine autistics and

3. As a spectrum condition, those with low support needs are held up as 'it's not so bad, really' examples while those with high support needs are ignored/marginalised

How can you object to an article which ends:

"Contemporary autism discourse and research are both skewed in favour of the verbally able autistic population at the expense of the most vulnerable and, with the growing popularity of the neurodiversity concept, this gap is sure to increase.

It’s high time that changed and that the lower end of the autism was treated with the seriousness it deserves. The wellbeing of some of society’s most vulnerable people depends on it."

I feel we should be pushing this message from that article, along with:

"It has become apparent, not just to scientists but to many in the community, that autism needs dividing into separate conditions, starting with the reintroduction of Asperger syndrome, as an important differentiator between mild and severe variants."

By removing the concept of mild/severe and/or high/low functioning we appear to have shot ourselves in the foot by making it difficult to easily identify those who need the most support.

Take deafness as an example - you have nice, clear-cut severity definitions which would allow identification of the required support:

• mild (21–40 dB)
• moderate (41–70 dB)
• severe (71–95 dB)
• profound (95 dB)

Yeah, I know - it's hard to do that with autism, but "It's too hard...!" is not an excuse for not doing things right.

Honestly? I feel like everyone is unnecessarily 'losing it' about this article.

I read it as saying:

1. It's becoming too easy for people who probably aren't autistic to get a diagnosis due to poor application of diagnostic criteria

2. This leads to a dilution of the understanding of the impact autism has on genuine autistics and

3. As a spectrum condition, those with low support needs are held up as 'it's not so bad, really' examples while those with high support needs are ignored/marginalised

How can you object to an article which ends:

"Contemporary autism discourse and research are both skewed in favour of the verbally able autistic population at the expense of the most vulnerable and, with the growing popularity of the neurodiversity concept, this gap is sure to increase.

It’s high time that changed and that the lower end of the autism was treated with the seriousness it deserves. The wellbeing of some of society’s most vulnerable people depends on it."

I feel we should be pushing this message from that article, along with:

"It has become apparent, not just to scientists but to many in the community, that autism needs dividing into separate conditions, starting with the reintroduction of Asperger syndrome, as an important differentiator between mild and severe variants."

By removing the concept of mild/severe and/or high/low functioning we appear to have shot ourselves in the foot by making it difficult to easily identify those who need the most support.

Take deafness as an example - you have nice, clear-cut severity definitions which would allow identification of the required support:

• mild (21–40 dB)
• moderate (41–70 dB)
• severe (71–95 dB)
• profound (95 dB)

Yeah, I know - it's hard to do that with autism, but "It's too hard...!" is not an excuse for not doing things right.