Does anyone else like the USA level system (or is it just me)

I don't often find myself preferring the USA medical or clinical systems, so this is a new one for me, but...

I have to say, for me, having a simple way to say my level of autism quickly would be extremely helpful (I'm wondering if this is just because I still have speaking and language challenges).

I understand that they are limited and don't give a true picture of the level of support needs that exist for autistic people, and everyones experince differs and can not be placed into 3 simple boxes, but I think there is a place for them.

For me, the levels would allow me to quickly say to people, mainly professionals, what my support level is (not my support needs, just the level).  It would reduce misunderstanding, conflict, frusutration and gaslighting, and it would reduce the trauma I experience.

I also feel the levels should be updated, as I believe there are more than 3.

I think at least 4 should be introduced, I think:

Level 4 - Profound Autism and High Need (with or without intellectual disability)

Level 3 - Early Developmental Delays and Significant Need (with or without intellectual disability)

Level 2 - No Early Developmental Delays and Moderate Needs (similar to the old Asperger's profile)

Level 1 - Not meeting diagnostic criteria but recognised Neurodivergent brain writing - low or no support needs (I think it's important that this is clinically recognised as it could help people manage their mental wellbeing better with better understanding and better treatment options).


Parents
  • Personally I prefer to use low/high support for labels, but my brain really likes the neat organization of using levels to categorize. So I’m really torn about it, honestly. So I stick with low/high support, but I don’t get offended if someone else uses the level system.

Reply
  • Personally I prefer to use low/high support for labels, but my brain really likes the neat organization of using levels to categorize. So I’m really torn about it, honestly. So I stick with low/high support, but I don’t get offended if someone else uses the level system.

Children
  • I think low/high works if you fit either one of those categories, what if you are neither low nor high but in the middle (like the USA level 2).

    This is where I think low/high levels fail. I think everyone knows what high needs mean (in theory anyway), and low need again is a concept that is also easier to grasp (even if I think sometimes low needs are unfairly trivialised).

    Neither of these describes or aligns with people like me, who are neither low nor high; we are somewhere in the middle.

    This is my point about the current system working well for some but not others.

    Most people just assume I'm low need because I'm high masking (which I can understand), but this means I have to then explain that I have higher needs, which often is greeted with scepticism until I explain the significant developmental delays I had in childhood and the hangover of these into adulthood. 

    People generally get it in the end, but only after I've had to overshare my personal details just to get understanding and acceptance. This is both exhausting and soul-destroying in equal measures.  Having a label/level (level 2) would remove the whole trauma of having to do this over and over again.

    I am keen to try to understand why others don't like labels and levels. I know some people are passionate about labels being minimal, and I need and want to understand why.  Do labels cause them heartache and exhaustion (like the lack of them does for me) or is it just more about identity and how they want the world to view them (are they just more comfortable with it just being high or low)??