'gender incoherence' and Austism

A friend is reading Hendrickx's Women and Girls with Autism Spectrum Disorder (2015) and highlighted the following section. I have put it in this discussion board because I wonder what people's responses are.

Hendrickx writes "testosterone levels in women with autism were higher than control samples and that these women displayed more masculinised characteristics. It also found that men with autism presented more feminised characteristics, indicating that rather than women with autism being more masculinised per se, both genders may be more androgynous and represent a 'gender defiant disorder'. They go on o suggest that, 'gender incoherence in individuals with ASD is to be expected and should be regarded as one reflection of the wide autism phenotype.""

The frequently cited reference for this passage, omitted for readability, is Bejerot et al, ' The extreme male brain revisited: gender coherence in adults with autism spectrum disorder' (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../)

Parents
  • Gender is about identity. And then there is Biology. I can't magically order science about. I wish I could. 

    Identity is more than gender and one's sense of self needs to start with accepting and being aware of what we're made of, the character traits inherited, the ways we could use them to do harm or to heal. Becoming the self is potentially easier for someone who isn't subjected to the collective, and that's an important bit: Jung's collective unconscious (a good one to have as a momentary 'special interest) I have a feeling the current obsessing over Gender is really just another attempt to try and extract the NT self from the herd mentality they've been coded into, which seems to be ever closing in with homogenisation while 'Authenticity' just keeps buzzing with ever-growing intensity. It's all NeuroTypical theatrics (not putting it down, just putting it back on the stage it is better examined on). Once we recognise how being Autistic has actually kept us from this kind of encoding, the perspective on being marginalised can have an added positivity of liberation.

    While we may have tried to incorporate social-isms to to receive affection or kindness or connect (most of us have observed this is how it's possibly done), we may have missed the secret codes that engender behaviour, like how climbing trees is socially expected from boys and dressing well to present oneself is expected from girls. But the reality is any given character trait or behaviour or matter of being human isn't male or female. There might be particular expressions which are different due to Natural Biology, but really the goal is to make a bit of an effort to not be an a**hole. For instance, there's nothing wrong with taking your time shopping to make it relaxing and less stressful and doing it right on the first go. Why not open doors for others to be kind, have meaningful conversations and respect others who can't cope with them. The ideal man in the Victorian era apparently appreciated the Art of Sensory Awareness and created a quality self. Why should it be any different now simply because many have realised they can get by not caring about their self and virtue signal about being a complete armchair. Males aren't attractive when they're selfish and reckless. Nor are females. 

    It does take work to become oneself. Most things are earned or a privilege. Biology matters. And most of us have been misunderstood in character and being from a young age, so honestly, I really could care less if you call me they him her, it's such a micro-point. You don't affect My identity: something Autistics can more easily say, I believe.

    These studies and discussions leave much to be desired. 

  • To add: Not taking pleasure in domination of others, simply means I'm not Sadistic. 

    NT Women are just as competitive as NT Men - it just looks different. 

Reply Children
No Data