Is Autism too inclusive?!

https://www.tes.com/magazine/teaching-learning/general/uta-frith-interview-autism-not-spectrum
(Found one that isn't paid.)

Basically she wants to go back to autism is only diagnosed between 3-5, mostly males, and the rest are basically making it up. 

"It’s understandable, because they listen to the lived experiences of people who say they’ve been masking, that they spend their time imitating what neurotypical people do, and they’re exhausted every day because of this. So, the harm is not the masking, but the exhaustion afterwards. I can’t quite understand that, because exhaustion could arise from lots of other causes.

I expect we could say we are all masking, all the time, trying to adapt to our society’s norms. So, from this point of view, I’m very critical of this idea."

She says there are too many later diagnosed people, so the answer for her is it's not real, and we should go back in time to when it was easier for them to understand.

Cinnabar_wing said:

Basically she wants to go back to autism is only diagnosed between 3-5, mostly males, and the rest are basically making it up. 

I can't agree that that's what she said. The relevant part of the article was 

"Now, I think the people in the second group [those diagnosed much later than 5 years old] really do have problems. I would definitely not say they are “making it up”. But I would say that these are problems that can perhaps be treated much better than under the label of “autism”. I would fight for that label to be limited to the first group."

To me, she is saying that what's now labeled ASD embraces too wide a range of conditions, with too wide a range of support needs to be under the same umbrella. She's looking at it from the viewpoint of child educators, where the expertise needed for children with profound support needs will be vastly different to those with minimal needs. 

I'm sure I'm not alone amongst the members here in not having received any special support at school. Thinking back, I suspect any benefits I may have gained by getting such support would have been minimal, if any. But the peer pressures for being singled out could have been very damaging. Kids can be vicious creatures - they're all too often bad enough when one of their peers puts in the effort to do well in class. They would be unbearable for the classmate who is identified as needing extra help in class.

Without any such assistance throughout school, I learnt how to fend for myself, how to quietly put in the extra effort to keep up with my more able peers, how to visibly succeed. Had I been told then what I now know, I may have risked giving up because I had an excuse. I probably wouldn't be the fighter that I am today.

So I actually agree with Uta Frith - the autism spectrum is trying to embrace too much. Fixed labels can detract from where the most help is needed and limit progress where it isn't.

Cinnabar_wing said:

Basically she wants to go back to autism is only diagnosed between 3-5, mostly males, and the rest are basically making it up. 

I can't agree that that's what she said. The relevant part of the article was 

"Now, I think the people in the second group [those diagnosed much later than 5 years old] really do have problems. I would definitely not say they are “making it up”. But I would say that these are problems that can perhaps be treated much better than under the label of “autism”. I would fight for that label to be limited to the first group."

To me, she is saying that what's now labeled ASD embraces too wide a range of conditions, with too wide a range of support needs to be under the same umbrella. She's looking at it from the viewpoint of child educators, where the expertise needed for children with profound support needs will be vastly different to those with minimal needs. 

I'm sure I'm not alone amongst the members here in not having received any special support at school. Thinking back, I suspect any benefits I may have gained by getting such support would have been minimal, if any. But the peer pressures for being singled out could have been very damaging. Kids can be vicious creatures - they're all too often bad enough when one of their peers puts in the effort to do well in class. They would be unbearable for the classmate who is identified as needing extra help in class.

Without any such assistance throughout school, I learnt how to fend for myself, how to quietly put in the extra effort to keep up with my more able peers, how to visibly succeed. Had I been told then what I now know, I may have risked giving up because I had an excuse. I probably wouldn't be the fighter that I am today.

So I actually agree with Uta Frith - the autism spectrum is trying to embrace too much. Fixed labels can detract from where the most help is needed and limit progress where it isn't.

Politicians do that a lot too -they say 'I'm not saying X' and then the rest of the article goes on to say X. It's a common way to say something controversial and get away with it as you can point at the disclaimer. If you are good at pattern spotting you can see them doing it.

Yes in the future they might decide again to split up autism, that is down to those that write the criteria. But saying the criteria should change and saying the symptoms don't exist are very different view points.

There IS a difference currently in how needs are met for those that meet her criteria. If you aren't profoundly autistic you don't get the same support, only some accommodations which she sounds like she is suggesting should be removed as she doesn't believe in them. In my son's school there are a few on the spectrum, but it's only the kid who is profoundly autistic who has their own support worker. Everyone else it's just some notes on a file and some understanding from the teacher, they aren't costing any other money.