Melanie Sykes have just been diagnosed with autism

Are you basing this on her job? 

Based on stereotypes of autism, I shouldn't be able to do my job either, as my job requires a lot of empathy and people skills. Something Melanie said on Loose Women really resonated with me actually, when she said people are her interest. I've said this many times that people are a fixation for me, especially meeting people (I get bored once I know them well).

If you question her diagnosis then you are questioning a lot of us. My difficulties are often very internalised, nobody ever sees my struggles until I'm approaching meltdown or shutdown. Even that is usually private at home. 

Referring to people as high or low functioning is pretty outdated too these days. Even "high functioning" autistic people have support needs. Just because you cannot relate them to your non-verbal child doesn't mean that they don't exist. 

You've worded this so perfectly. Thank you.

“When you debate a person about something that affects them more than it affects you, remember that it will take a much greater emotional toll on them than on you. For you it may feel like an academic exercise. For them, it feels like revealing their pain only to have you dismiss their experience and sometimes their humanity. The fact that you might remain more calm under these circumstances is a consequence of your privilege, not increased objectivity on your part. Stay humble.”

I'm sorry about your son. I hope he gets the support he needs. It's very wrong that someone is accusing you of not loving your child; I've worked with children for many years now and it's clear from the way you speak about your child that you do love him and want what's best for him. But I have to say I agree that you shouldn't be bringing these things up on a forum for Autistic people. As a woman diagnosed at the age of 33 and who nearly died of anorexia recently having suffered since my early teens (the anorexia – which will never leave me – is a result of Autistic tendencies, as it is for many women). Yes I can speak and hold down a job and a marriage (when I'm not in hospital) but that doesn't mean I'm well or capable. I understand why people ask these questions and can certainly understand why the parent of a child with your son's difficulties would ask these questions, but whilst I don't think you're necessarily being disrespectful, perhaps you need to show a little empathy and sensitivity and not debate about it with people who are actually affected by 'high functioning' Autism. You keep saying you 'don't want to offend' etc and then don't seem to take the hint when people assert boundaries. There's a time and a place. We hear this stuff all the time, and it takes an emotional toll. This is supposed to be a safe space for us.

I am glad to have been of some service.

In that Autistic Spectrum Disorder describes limited, narrow and repetitive patterns of social interaction, communication and imagination ~ or as the acronym of ASD it has always been a diagnostic descriptor; rather than as being according to you a malevolent entity!?!

And yes I have read extensively on the for and against arguments.

People on this forum can identify with autism according to the terms and conditions of here so doing, so refrain from imagining that people are speaking on behalf of your son and then assuming that you are justified in criticising them for your own actions!?!

In terms of conscious embodiment autism describes being neurophysiologically self-centric, as such it should neither then be compared with cancer nor in any way metaphorically, allegorically or literally is it to be surgically, chemically or radioactively removed from the body of society.

Well the basic issue is that autism is a developmental condition rather than being a medical one, and as a developmental condition it is not then a developmental disorder either ~ as being autistic just involves to various degrees being otherwise enabled.

Using that as an unfounded ‘if’ based criticism reflects badly upon yourself though.

I have on numerous occasions been an advocate for those who could not do so for themselves, and when I am unable to speak or write for myself ~ there are those that do so as advocates for me.

The Aspie quiz is neither mine nor technically does it include me either ~ being that although I have a quite significant Knowledge Quota, I only have an Intelligence Quota of 62 rather than the required 90 or more to take that particular test.

Rather than describing millions of parents such as yourself as being like *****~ for not being able to fulfil the neurotypical dream that is actually a nightmare for those who cannot, recognise that autistic children’s developmental impairments require research from the social sciences involved in education, and their co-morbidities require research from the medical sciences involved in health.

When the word ‘cure’ is used on autistic forums in relation to the word autism or the description of autistic people ~ it can have all the functional equivalence of the word ****, and of course the coercive threat to collaborate with the ‘****’ just makes things even more of a communicational crash and burn at an explosives storage depot session.

You have though been high-jacking and criticising the credibility of this threads topic matter regarding Melanie Sykes socially functional autism diagnosis, and by default the campaign to make the education system more befitting for everyone on and off the autism diagnostic spectrum.

This is not though a two dimensional argument ~ but a discussion about three dimensional states of affairs with at least as many perspectives as there are people existentially addressing them.

Remember that autism is a spectrum condition with negative, neutral and positive attributes ~ so if you see nothing positive about autism; you are failing to recognise the difference between autism as a neurophysiological condition ~ and autistic developmental impairments as being educational specialisations and psychological and physiological co-morbidities as being medical specialisations.

Only your view is not inclusive and your misunderstanding and incomprehension of things is not serving you well.

Autism is not being used as a political correctness debate aside from yourself stating that it is, along with your continual emphasis about being a struggling parent with a non-verbal autistic child ~ without mentioning or inquiring about any research or treatment modalities that might be relevant, but rather by default negating and dismissing the campaign to have individuality appropriately facilitated, identified and affirmed in the education system.

Autism is a fact of life.

Imagine that this topic could very simply be analogous to a cuboid block, with contextually four rectangle shaped sides and two square shaped sides ~ with each perspective of which being as valid as every other, and as such I am only presenting information that is the case ~ for the sake of consideration and discussion, and not for the sake of any argumentative dismissal.

Not according to the National Health Service in the UK:

Autism is not an illness

Being autistic does not mean you have an illness or disease. It means your brain works in a different way from other people.

It's something you're born with or first appears when you're very young.

If you're autistic, you're autistic your whole life.

Autism is not a medical condition with treatments or a "cure". But some people need support to help them with certain things.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/autism/what-is-autism/

And from the National Centre of Biotechnical Information in USA:

The outlook for many individuals with autism spectrum disorder today is brighter than it was 50 years ago; more people with the condition are able to speak, read, and live in the community rather than in institutions, and some will be largely free from symptoms of the disorder by adulthood.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7398158/

We have not gone back and fourth with articles and youtube links at all ~ being that you have only offered opinions rejecting things as not being so, when in fact they are. You may just as well be arguing that a cuboid block only has square shaped sides whilst I am explaining there are rectangle shaped sides also.

Neurological diversity involves individuality in every case ~ whereas by contrast you have been debating against the relevance of high social functioning on the autistic diagnostic spectrum, and debating for the greater relevance of parents that have socially lower functioning autistic children ~ as being a philosophical and personal campaign involving therefore your sense of identity.

In that the Latin prefix ‘dis-’ means broken into pieces or separated apart ~ being disabled in concrete terms involves having lost an ability; such as going deaf or losing a limb and such like, whereas autism involves developmental impairments that can develop further due to inappropriate or incompatible facilitations, identifications and affirmations of individuality in society, to greater or lesser extents.

I can being that after seizures I am sometimes quite unable to speak, write or cope with some of my basic needs, and I have family and friends who work in care facilities dealing with such needs as you describe also.

For them, they do not want to celebrate their autism. Autism for these people can only be described as torture, pain and suffering.

Keep in mind that statement you made about not speaking for everyone ~ as some are by contrast quite content as long as their basic needs are being met and their particular interests and scheduled routines are being maintained.

Not in the least.

No one but yourself with the usual methodology to prevent self-harm being described via the following link:

Self-harm and autism ~ a guide for parents and carers

https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/topics/mental-health/self-harm/parents

After I had a near death experience at the age of three I started having stress induced body buckling room wrecking seizures several times a week at best, or several times a day at worst ~ and everyone in the family desperately hoped each one would be the terminal one.

During my childhood, my mother tried to get help for me but the doctors and social services made out it was either her responsibility or my responsibility to be better behaved and more responsive to treatment, so eventually everyone felt better imagining I was responsible and just gave me loads of stress about being more dependable ~ and the more of that I got the more body buckling room wrecking seizures everybody had to deal with!?!

Along with the problem of being another unfounded ‘if’ attack, there is the further problem of you wanting the absolute best for your child which involves by contrast someone else’s child having the absolute worst chance of life involving whatever pain and suffering maybe the case.

Everyone has the right to argue against finding a cure for all the characteristics of being autistic, whereas no one has the right to stop autistic people having their impaired abilities reasonable adjusted for socially, nor does anyone have the right to stop autistic people having their co-morbidities sorted out medically ~ when and where possible.

That is your imagined interpolation of what you did not fully understand and therefore could not fully comprehend.

Redefining the diagnostic criteria works for everyone involving neurophysiological behaviourisms that are typical, atypical and divergent, what with making the assessment protocols more refined in their contextualisation and more accurate in their description of the different character traits.

Not as far as you have misconstrued things ~ no, but yes they do in respect of calling for a better quality of social facilitation, identification and affirmation for everyone on the autism spectrum in terms of involving anything from having no autistic traits to some, all the way up to those having enough traits to be somewhere on the autism diagnostic spectrum itself.

Autism Spectrum Conditions are developmental in nature, not medical. Autistic Co-morbidities are though psychologically and physiologically diagnosed as being medical conditions.

The Autism Spectrum Disorder acronym of ASD has become the Autistic Spectrum Condition acronym of ASC increasingly in the UK ~ yet no matter what the current or future nomenclature or acronyms may or may not become, they will still be describing what has been described in one way or another for along as mammalian life has been on the go.

There are non-verbal autistic people who are able to use technological devices to write with and websites of forums including this one amongst others to communicate on, so if there is the personal aptitude and the appropriate facilitation, identification and affirmation of their autistic individuality to do so ~ it shouldn’t be a problem.

Diagnostic criteria describe peoples behaviour and or symptoms, so in choosing to dismiss the credibility of which ~ you chose to undermine and demean those people’s sense of identity, and as such quite a few on the autism diagnostic spectrum feel particularly hypersensitive after a life time of personal rejection and social isolation.

As long as you no longer promote your son’s autistic impairments as valid and whoever else’s as being invalid or unwarranted in terms of diagnosis ~ and no longer promote **** ideologies, you wont have anywhere near as many problems addressing your or your son’s personal needs.

Yes, just as people compulsively comfort eat, shop and so forth on account that their primary social needs having been obstructed and corrupted by what parents, teachers and peers etcetera enforced behaviourally instead. A slightly different approach is required by you.

Just like autism; down’s syndrome is a neurophysiological embodiment of consciousness, and to end that correlation as such involves killing them, and that is the issue.

Wanting to live is a choice though for her.

It does though upset at least some people with down’s syndrome that they like autistic people and so forth are undesired, and it also angers or depresses them that they like many other minorities are deemed too disturbing or troubling to bare.

Hence the neurological diversity movement attempting to encourage society at large to accept diversity as being a good thing; rather than as being something to be ignored, criticised or mourned as a bypass to an ideologically normalised life ~ in that trying to live the dream of normality sidelines reality and excludes diversity, sort of thing.

Still it is her freedom to enjoy what and as much is experientially available and amenable to her.

It is not the condition that is being celebrated, it is in fact the individual dealing with their condition that is being respected, and it is as such their achievements that are being celebrated.

I used the ‘neurodiversity’ video as an example of not being a discriminatory movement against those with the most severe co-morbidities of autism ~ but as a universal celebration of individuals who are otherwise enabled having fulfilling experiences for themselves, without having to live up to social value systems that ordinarily exclude them and make them feel incomplete.

So no one is trying to change your opinion as that is up to you as being your decision, we are merely addressing your mistaken use of the word ‘autism’ as being the plural and the word ‘autistic’ as being the singular, and that it is your dismissive attitude and continued enforcements of misconceived and demeaning assumptions that have been offending people.

Yes ~ and as such you have cognitive dissonance in terms of continuing to dismiss Ekblad's paper as holding no water; despite having in fact been peer reviewed as you state here:

Only the subject of neurological diversity has been covered in the Medical Humanities Blog section of the BMJ as follows here:

Neuro Diversity Explored In Film – Review by Professor Janet Harbord, Professor of Film, Queen Mary University, London

When cinema has depicted autism it has almost exclusively sought to translate the world of the autistic person for a supposed neurotypical audience. But what happens if we start from a position of autism as a benefit, a modality that can renew our experience of what cinema can be? Cinema’s assumptions about how communication takes place, what the eye is drawn to in a scene, about who or what is at the centre of a story or even that a story has a centre, begin to figure as particular choices in the history of film that can be overturned. Autism through Cinema is a four-year project that explores how autism can transform the medium of film and its reliance on normative codes of body language and social interaction, https://www.autism-through-cinema.org.uk.

https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-humanities/2021/09/08/neuro-diversity-explored-in-film/

And by contrast in terms of observing the neurophysiological diversity of autistic people ~ we also have the following from another one of the BMJ’s Medical Humanities pages:

Theorising the neurotypical gaze: autistic love and relationships in The Bridge (Bron/Broen 2011–2018)

In popular media, autistic subjectivity is most often produced through the lens of the neurotypical gaze. Dominant understandings of autism therefore tend to focus on perceived deficits in social communication and relationships. Accordingly, this article has two primary concerns. First, it uses the Danish/Swedish television series The Bridge (Bron/Broen, 2011–2018) and critical responses to the series as examples of how the neurotypical gaze operates, concentrating on the pleasures derived from looking at autism, how autism is ‘fixed’ (Frantz Fanon, 1986) as a socially undesirable subject position, and the self-interested focus of the gaze. Second, it analyses key scenes from the series to expose and challenge the dominance of the neurotypical perspective in scholarly accounts of autistic sexuality and relationality. Using Lauren Berlant’s (2012) work on love, I argue that the non-normative ways of being constructed by the series do not fit easily within neuroconventional frameworks of love and desire. Consequently, autistic expressions of love are rendered both undesirable and illegible to the neurotypical gaze. The article therefore offers a flexible framework for understanding how the neurotypical gaze functions across cultural and academic spheres and gives vital insight into how autistic love and relationships are narratively constructed.

https://mh.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/26/medhum-2020-011906

Anyone with the appropriate reading proficiency can yes, but that is exactly the point of them as being a means of being better informed and thereby having a more balanced opinion regarding the latest research findings and directions of research.

The online tests serve in the first instance as assessments for people to see if seeking a medical referral from a GP and so forth to an assessment team is warranted, and in the second instance they serve to make it easier for the assessment team to come to a more informed decision at the end of the diagnostic process.

Well obviously the Sage, Lancet and BMJ articles describe and as such demonstrate otherwise, being that autism is not the problem ~ whereas autistic impairments being inappropriately facilitated, identified and affirmed in society to become co-morbidities are problematic.

That is not the case. They can define the nature or character of their experience politely in accordance with the terms and conditions here and that are in general involved with describing the characteristics of autism, remembering that autism describes every variety of being autistic.

Respect does not mean compliance with your demands and or expectations ~ therefore appreciate the required semantics here, and describe things accordingly and thereby respectfully.

Your son’s neurology and physiology cannot be cured or fixed in respect of being autistic, but his conscious embodiment and developing awareness through which can be better facilitated, identified and more appropriately as such affirmed.

They actually want their individuality as neurologically divergent people to be accepted, and thereafter the success of their achievements to be respected or celebrated, rather than being themselves castigated or rejected for not being otherwise or elsewhere than they actually are.

Keep secure in mind then that Kanner’s, Asperger’s and Down’s Syndromes etcetera are neurophysiological embodiments of consciousness ~ and can neither be ‘cured’ or as such ‘culled’, whereas developmental impairments can be better facilitated, identified and affirmed sociologically, whilst psychological and physiological co-morbidities can be better treated and healed ~ especially with more funding and support for research being involved.

[All quotes in this thread have been removed following a data deletion request - if you have any questions about this please contact communitymanager@nas.org.uk 

[Username removed by moderator] I've read your posts, and I'm struggling to follow your line of thought. Firstly, let's try dropping the talk of 'identity politics', 'bubbles' etc. I'll ask for forgiveness in advance, as I'm not trying to be insulting, but it's clear that this is an 'identity politics' issue for you. You're defining yourself very much as 'parent of autistic child' and are arguing from the basis of that identity. You talk about wanting respect for people's beliefs. Again, this is very much an 'identity politics' type of response. I do not respect opinions that I consider harmful, nor should anyone. We should, however, not assume bad intentions in others unless demonstrated. So perhaps we should proceed on that basis. I'm going to assume that you've accurately described your personal circumstances and are motivated by trying to help those close to you.

Firstly, the comparison between autism and cancer is disanalogous. Cancer is a disease that causes death; autism is not. That is not a credible position. I am unfamiliar with any serious agency with any knowledge of the topic that is calling for a cure for autism. This isn't because they've been captured by identity politics. It's because that position is inherently implausible. Putting aside the diagnostic criteria, the best description of autism in practice I've seen is an atypical distribution of skills; people with autism tend to be very good at some things and poor at others. I'm unsure about what a 'cure' for that would even look like.

I wonder whether you're confusing autism with comorbidities. Many of the things you've described don't seem to relate to autism directly. From the literature I've read, people with autism are prone to a range of other conditions, sometimes inherently, and sometimes because of the social response to autism. This is why functioning levels are typically considered unhelpful, and why the DSM-5 removed the old diagnoses; when comorbidities were accounted for, there were no meaningful differences. Naturally, a person with multiple comorbidities may have greater care needs, but that doesn't add any credence to the 'cure autism' position, because they are extraneous to the general position.

I agree with you that the 'politics of representation' are difficult, and advocacy groups struggle to cover a range of views. However, here's another problem. Despite being well intentioned, parents don't always accurately represent the interests or feelings of their children. I've known many circumstances where parents have very strongly advocated for certain positions when their child was unable to speak for themselves, and, years later, the child has disagreed. Just because a person is in distress doesn't mean that they would necessarily wish that their neurotype is different, even if that was possible.

A word on context too. A major problem that autistic people face, which is well represented on these threads, is that people aren't believed when they say they feel a certain way. This can be very harmful. I suspect that this is why your earlier conversations became so heated. Saying that someone isn't autistic because they seem to communicate fine is wrong in fact; the diagnostic criteria talks of 'difficulties in social communication'. Finding something difficult doesn't mean that a person can't do it well. The antonym of 'difficult' is 'ease', not 'skill'. The reaction may have been caused by you using a formulation that many people have heard and has caused them harm. It's not that the robustness of the diagnostic procedure shouldn't be challenged, but it is questionable to do so in that particular way on this forum. People who allege domestic violence do need to be challenged as to whether their accounts are true, but to do so when they are seeking help in a refuge may be insensitive.

May I ask out of interest why it would cross your mind (ie "how can you tell")? Just curious.

I also think that diagnostic criteria are evolving butI know there has to be some sort of "cut off". I scored just above the cut off on my assessment. With some people, it may seem that they have more obvious difficulties but many years ago they might not have even got a diagnosis. So I think things are evolving all the time.

I do think as more people explore information which is available and so start talking about their own experiences,  this goes to redefining what autism means. For example,  when I started reading about autism and aspergers for myself I discounted it in the first instance because I couldn't relate to it. It was about stereotypical male behaviour and from official sources like the nhs. But then as I started reading more (a mixture of first hand experiences and also that of qualified people) it began to make more sense. As I talk about my own experiences this may feed into how other people relate to it too. 

Edit - I think I'm trying to say there may be common shared experiences of people with autism which are not in "official" material but it's only since we have more access to sharing information that these are brought to the open more.

On the other hand, I do wonder sometimes if what people describe can be attributed to autism or if it's something else like personality. And then these things get thrown into the unofficial mix of autism. I would say there's plenty I cannot relate to but a lot i can. 

I have thought about this before going off on so many branches in my head. I don't know if I have explained correctly what I mean and its certainly not a personal attack on anyone autistic or not. 

Oh is THAT what a spiky profile is!!!

If by 'this' you mean what M described as being the 'spiky circle thing':

Then read:

Autism, Personality, and Human Diversity: Defining Neurodiversity in an Iterative Process Using Aspie Quiz

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2158244013497722

And check out perhaps the following website explaining and for taking the Aspie Quiz:

https://embrace-autism.com/aspie-quiz/

M said:

The spectrum isn't a straight line from mild to severe = not linear. Usually it is demonstrated with a diagram that I don't know the correct term for but a spiky circle thing. 

The same for me and suicide. It would ruin my daughter's life if I died. So I am always trying not to kill myself.

Brill, that's the one! I like how she says we have got to learn each others' language. Her hair looked like a freshly windswept cat! 

She does! That appearance on the talk show was good. it was an Irish chat show, it's on youtube somewhere. 

she has 2 programmes on Netflix 

There's a great comedian called Hannah Gadsby. She is diagnosed autistic. Maybe check her out. One of her interviews on a talk show I seem to remember she discusses how she is fine with being on stage because she is in control. This is also true to a certain extent of myself as a tutor. I know my role. Conversations are on my terms and usually functional. 

I feel compelled to reply and attempt to explain why your comments are causing so much upset - I read this thread last night and was also upset by it and the assumptions being made.  This is not an attack - this is me attempting to address points you have raised.

• 'many of the difficulties you are describing are challenges I can easily relate to, maybe even more so.' - yes, lots of people have problems with different things, what differs is that those are often caused by the autism in people who are autistic and are accompanied with a myriad of other 'symptoms' (I don't like that word in this context) that have been present since a child. By stating this - you are trivialising other people's experiences and it reads like you are saying 'yes you struggle with communication, so do lots of people - it doesn't mean we're all autistic' - no it doesn't, but it is a feature along with other symptoms.
• 'understand how her diagnosis is logically possible’ - and neither should you. You do not know her personally - you know the person she presents on camera. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. Many people who are autistic can communicate effectively - this is only one of the 'symptoms' and some people have strengths in some areas, and weaknesses in others.  It does not make them 'more' or 'less' autistic. This is a misunderstanding on your part, and perhaps you need to start seeing this from a wider angle.  For example, once a year I have to present to a room of approx 300 people (yes I am diagnosed - no I did not seek it, I saw a new psychiatrist who immediately said it was blatantly obvious) - in this meeting you wouldn't think I was 'autistic' because I am putting on a show, I can interact, communicate, look at people etc.  But it is absolute hell, and when it's over I tend to be sat on the floor of a hotel room banging my head against the wall because I've kept everything so tightly controlled that I cannot cope anymore, I even tried to kill myself after one of these.  But those people in the meeting do not know that.  I'm not saying this is what happens to others, or Melanie Sykes - but what you see presented for a few minutes, is not necessarily the person.  
  Her diagnosis is possible because she has been assessed by qualified assessors who know what they are doing.
• 'Melanie Sykes does not require anywhere near the level of support that my son does. She may well require support and I hope she get it, along with anyone with autism, but there needs to be perspective.' I do not believe anyone has every said that there should not be perspective. But why does this mean that she should not talk about it? Does this mean that those of us who struggle silently do not have a right to be heard because we do not need constant support?  I don't leave the house other than for occasional work meetings - I don't go shopping, I don't see anyone - maybe I need support? I have to have someone else with me if people come to the house etc.  Where do I fit in this perspective? Do I not deserve anything because I can speak?  It is all about perspective - but by (I'll use the word again) trivialising people's experiences and needs - you are appearing quite rude. I'm sure you do not mean to - but you are.
• 'Does someone who has establised a career, a social life, family life really require as much finding as a child who cannot speak, does not respond to his name, self harms and may never live an independent life, may never get married , may never get a job or ever even have friends? Or should we just accept autism is just a quirk of nature, requiring no support or the same support based on subjective self diagnostic criteria?'
  Autism as a quirk of nature - you may want to rethinking this sentence, referring to something as a 'quirk' when it can cause debilitating problems seems entirely inappropriate.
  I can speak, respond to my name, but I self-harm, I need help to live independently, I'll never get married, but I have a job, and 1 friend.  So where do I fit in your 'require as much funding' - you are again suggesting that only people who have those autistic characteristics requires help.  Yes your sun should have help, but so should many, many others who may have problems as severe as him, or less severe, or more severe in other areas, and not in others.  Why are they not deserving of help?
  I think suggesting the diagnostic criteria as being 'subjective' is dangerous territory - people get a diagnosis through a process which is often challenging and lengthy - by professionals who are qualified to do this.  Full stop.  It is not for someone non-specialised in this area to suggest that the diagnosis processes are inappropriate, or subjective.
• 'But its one thing to say ASD can be subtle/almost an invisible disability, and quite another to have the polar opposite characteristics of ASD, and still say this is autism.' Why? Why can two people who are autistic not be different.  If two people are slightly different, then a third person is slightly different again - and you keep going and you start to get people who are very different from those at the start.  That's like saying, well people who only have stage 1 cancer can't really say they have cancer as it's subtle/invisible disability. 
• I have said I do not understand MS diagnosis.' - it is not for you to understand or not, because you do not know the person. If someone appeared on tv and said they were bipolar - would you say that you don't understand that when you've only seen them for a few minutes on screen?

Sorry I've run out of steam. 

I feel compelled to reply and attempt to explain why your comments are causing so much upset - I read this thread last night and was also upset by it and the assumptions being made.  This is not an attack - this is me attempting to address points you have raised.

• 'many of the difficulties you are describing are challenges I can easily relate to, maybe even more so.' - yes, lots of people have problems with different things, what differs is that those are often caused by the autism in people who are autistic and are accompanied with a myriad of other 'symptoms' (I don't like that word in this context) that have been present since a child. By stating this - you are trivialising other people's experiences and it reads like you are saying 'yes you struggle with communication, so do lots of people - it doesn't mean we're all autistic' - no it doesn't, but it is a feature along with other symptoms.
• 'understand how her diagnosis is logically possible’ - and neither should you. You do not know her personally - you know the person she presents on camera. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. Many people who are autistic can communicate effectively - this is only one of the 'symptoms' and some people have strengths in some areas, and weaknesses in others.  It does not make them 'more' or 'less' autistic. This is a misunderstanding on your part, and perhaps you need to start seeing this from a wider angle.  For example, once a year I have to present to a room of approx 300 people (yes I am diagnosed - no I did not seek it, I saw a new psychiatrist who immediately said it was blatantly obvious) - in this meeting you wouldn't think I was 'autistic' because I am putting on a show, I can interact, communicate, look at people etc.  But it is absolute hell, and when it's over I tend to be sat on the floor of a hotel room banging my head against the wall because I've kept everything so tightly controlled that I cannot cope anymore, I even tried to kill myself after one of these.  But those people in the meeting do not know that.  I'm not saying this is what happens to others, or Melanie Sykes - but what you see presented for a few minutes, is not necessarily the person.  
  Her diagnosis is possible because she has been assessed by qualified assessors who know what they are doing.
• 'Melanie Sykes does not require anywhere near the level of support that my son does. She may well require support and I hope she get it, along with anyone with autism, but there needs to be perspective.' I do not believe anyone has every said that there should not be perspective. But why does this mean that she should not talk about it? Does this mean that those of us who struggle silently do not have a right to be heard because we do not need constant support?  I don't leave the house other than for occasional work meetings - I don't go shopping, I don't see anyone - maybe I need support? I have to have someone else with me if people come to the house etc.  Where do I fit in this perspective? Do I not deserve anything because I can speak?  It is all about perspective - but by (I'll use the word again) trivialising people's experiences and needs - you are appearing quite rude. I'm sure you do not mean to - but you are.
• 'Does someone who has establised a career, a social life, family life really require as much finding as a child who cannot speak, does not respond to his name, self harms and may never live an independent life, may never get married , may never get a job or ever even have friends? Or should we just accept autism is just a quirk of nature, requiring no support or the same support based on subjective self diagnostic criteria?'
  Autism as a quirk of nature - you may want to rethinking this sentence, referring to something as a 'quirk' when it can cause debilitating problems seems entirely inappropriate.
  I can speak, respond to my name, but I self-harm, I need help to live independently, I'll never get married, but I have a job, and 1 friend.  So where do I fit in your 'require as much funding' - you are again suggesting that only people who have those autistic characteristics requires help.  Yes your sun should have help, but so should many, many others who may have problems as severe as him, or less severe, or more severe in other areas, and not in others.  Why are they not deserving of help?
  I think suggesting the diagnostic criteria as being 'subjective' is dangerous territory - people get a diagnosis through a process which is often challenging and lengthy - by professionals who are qualified to do this.  Full stop.  It is not for someone non-specialised in this area to suggest that the diagnosis processes are inappropriate, or subjective.
• 'But its one thing to say ASD can be subtle/almost an invisible disability, and quite another to have the polar opposite characteristics of ASD, and still say this is autism.' Why? Why can two people who are autistic not be different.  If two people are slightly different, then a third person is slightly different again - and you keep going and you start to get people who are very different from those at the start.  That's like saying, well people who only have stage 1 cancer can't really say they have cancer as it's subtle/invisible disability. 
• I have said I do not understand MS diagnosis.' - it is not for you to understand or not, because you do not know the person. If someone appeared on tv and said they were bipolar - would you say that you don't understand that when you've only seen them for a few minutes on screen?

Sorry I've run out of steam.