Is autism a disability?

Honestly, once you link disability status to legal protections or benefits, it's inevitably going to get political and people are going to define autism to achieve their own ends.

In terms of the Equality Act, it probably doesn't make much difference whether we're applying a medical model of disability (a person deviates from a supposed "norm" of humanity) or a social model of disability (a person is "disabled" by a society that fails to adjust to include their needs). Many disability rights campaigners would prefer the latter. What matters is protections that help us function in society.

In terms of my own lived experience, I would like to say that I experience autism as a "difference" and that my troubles are purely imposed by society, but I feel some of my issues e.g. with alexithymia and executive function are inherent without any social causes. I therefore feel myself to be medically disabled, on some level, not just socially disabled. I know this isn't always a popular opinion.

Luftmentsch said:

and that my troubles are purely imposed by society, but I feel some of my issues e.g. with alexithymia and executive function are inherent without any social causes. I therefore feel myself to be medically disabled, on some level, not just socially disabled. I know this isn't always a popular opinion.

I’ve read this multiple times and it’s not going in (sorry I don’t known why, just some things I can’t grasp). So alexithymia is something I also struggle with - but that word won’t stay put in my head, and executive function too. But I struggle to see the difference between medically disabled and socially disabled. Do you mean something like anxiety is only socially disabled, what about depression? And why do you say at the end it isn’t always a popular opinion? 
I feel like I’m being really thick - sorry. 

You're not being thick, I didn't explain well.

There are two models of disability. The medical model compares a person to a "normal" or "ideal" human and, if they significantly deviate from that model, they are seen as disabled.

The social model sees disability as not inherent in a person's biology, but in society. A person is disabled inasmuch as society doesn't help them to function like other people. This model is often preferred to the medical one in the disability rights movement (which is how I came across it).

So, if someone had both their legs amputated, the medical model would say, "They have no legs, they can't walk, they are disabled" whereas the social model would say it depends on society. If society provides a wheelchair and wheelchair access then they might not be disabled, but if buildings and public transport are inaccessible to them, then that is a disability caused by society.

With regard to mental illness or neurological difference, as you indicate, I feel the social model breaks down here, as things can be disabling without any social "cause" or any social "cure" being possible. When I suffered from depression, I felt, well, depressed, and that was an innate feeling, it wasn't because society was stopping me (or at least not helping me) from doing things I wanted to do.

Similarly with autism, while there are definitely things that society could make easier for me (No muzak! No omnipresent video screens!), I definitely struggle with things I would like to do simply because of the way my brain is "wired" e.g. trouble understanding my own emotions, difficulty changing tasks and multitasking. I see this a "medical model" form of disability, not a "social model" one, as it's about my inherent biological abilities not whether society provides adaptions for me or not.

As for why I said it's not popular, I've encountered a lot of autistic people (here and elsewhere) who believe very strongly in the social model of disability and argue that autistics are not disabled and could function just as well as allistics (non-autistics) if society adapted to us. As I said, I don't think this is entirely true, certainly not in my case, but I know some people get very angry about this, so I wanted to acknowledge that I know my opinion isn't the only one here.

You're not being thick, I didn't explain well.

There are two models of disability. The medical model compares a person to a "normal" or "ideal" human and, if they significantly deviate from that model, they are seen as disabled.

The social model sees disability as not inherent in a person's biology, but in society. A person is disabled inasmuch as society doesn't help them to function like other people. This model is often preferred to the medical one in the disability rights movement (which is how I came across it).

So, if someone had both their legs amputated, the medical model would say, "They have no legs, they can't walk, they are disabled" whereas the social model would say it depends on society. If society provides a wheelchair and wheelchair access then they might not be disabled, but if buildings and public transport are inaccessible to them, then that is a disability caused by society.

With regard to mental illness or neurological difference, as you indicate, I feel the social model breaks down here, as things can be disabling without any social "cause" or any social "cure" being possible. When I suffered from depression, I felt, well, depressed, and that was an innate feeling, it wasn't because society was stopping me (or at least not helping me) from doing things I wanted to do.

Similarly with autism, while there are definitely things that society could make easier for me (No muzak! No omnipresent video screens!), I definitely struggle with things I would like to do simply because of the way my brain is "wired" e.g. trouble understanding my own emotions, difficulty changing tasks and multitasking. I see this a "medical model" form of disability, not a "social model" one, as it's about my inherent biological abilities not whether society provides adaptions for me or not.

As for why I said it's not popular, I've encountered a lot of autistic people (here and elsewhere) who believe very strongly in the social model of disability and argue that autistics are not disabled and could function just as well as allistics (non-autistics) if society adapted to us. As I said, I don't think this is entirely true, certainly not in my case, but I know some people get very angry about this, so I wanted to acknowledge that I know my opinion isn't the only one here.

Thank you for taking the time to explain that. I understand the difference now.