Is Autism too inclusive?!

Interesting that he seems to describe the same type of spectrum alternative that I did, albeit from my brewing interest: anyone looking at a better way of presenting the spectrum should look at hop flavour profile diagrams - it's basically wheel or whatever split into different subtypes - you could do that really easily for ASD and all Nuerodiversities pretty easily I think, with a gauging of how this impacts/presents in an individual.

As I said(/ranted) recently to more than one loved one, what is there to possibly gain from being (diagnosed as) autistic? It's 95% awful and maybe 5% gain tops (gain in a sense that I actually like to be alone and am never bored pursuing my own interests, not in an I actually get something kind of way - quite the opposite!) .

Is the spectrum too inclusive? I'm not even sure the spectrum is a valid reference any more. 

I find the Asburgers (and UK based need thing) thing a bit odd to be honest - while I agree the former is part of ASD, I'm not sure it needs to be assessed in quite the same way and think the levels definition is potentially more useful than just needs based: both is probably better, ie where you fit in the levels definitions and what support (lol!) is needed as a result.

That said, perhaps the diagnosis process needs a good look at across the board - it's crazy I can see a psychiatrist who can tell me I am 'highly likely' to be autistic because while he can and is qualified to diagnose he can't in the setting that he made the judgement in. There's clearly streamlining to be had. 

Of course, I come at this from a pov of someone who would like to see it work/benefit people. There's an increasing amount of people who won't want that... 

The worry is, ultimately I think we'll become the next immigrant/trans/race group where people/groups with an additional need are targeted due to their perceived 'drain' by whichever extremist group stands to benefit the most. 

And Autism costs money - it would be far more convenient for the state if it (and all the other disabilities) didn't exist, so why not remove it or make it so derided that it would be seen as better off not having due to stigmatisation or whatever. And then there's the reforms to send in schools - you can see what's happening here and it's not nice. Not that it will actually work - it exists and people will pull together and come through it as they always do, on way or another. 

So yeah, to the original question nope, and right now I absolutely hate whatever it is that is 'wrong' with me, because it's mostly very ***.

(Talking of schools we have a huge amount of people I'm schools who wouldn't have been able to get a diagnosis because schools knew nothing about ASD back then, and in my experience cared even less.)

As a person with slightly higher needs (not low and not high), I think it’s needs to be more inclusive, it’s not inclusive enough.

I don’t think the problem is over inclusivity, I think the problem is Professor Dame Uta Frith’s ‘Spectrum’ is not fit for purpose.

I am not opposed to the theory of the ‘Spectrum’ of Autism but when it’s the only model we have in the UK to gage presentation and need level, it falls very short and lets the community down terribly.

Just because someone studied Autism to a Doctor level, It does not make them the geru of autism and it definitely does not compensate for lived experience.  

Whilst I understand she has the right to her opinion particularly as she contributed to the design of ‘the spectrum’ but instead of blaming the community or diagnosis criteria as being to inclusive, maybe more self reflection is needed.  Maybe the first place to start would be reflecting and understanding that her ‘Spectrum’ system is fundamental flawed.

Seems to me Autism is basically 2 or 3 things, at root.

If you treat a person as a system:

1. Input differences. You experience the world through your senses, differences to these inputs will have an effect.

2. Processing differences. Your brain processes the inputs and decides on outputs. Run the same software on a different CPU and you get different behaviour. It run it on the same hardware with a different OS and you get different behaviour. You can hide this with an emulator, which is basically masking.
But your brain is also plastic so will.learm and accommodate what it can over time, although there are limits.

3. Outputs are dependent on 1 and 2. They are also dependent on your environment and history.

Linking 1 and 2 is your nervous system. Your brain and nerves are basically the same stuff, neurons. Differences can make the system more prone to overload, deadlock or problems. Layered on top of this is the same spread of intelligence (for want of a better word) as the normal population.

These are not defined by age, so I see no reason to constrain diagnosis to a specific age. Effectiveness of small changes is probably also not age specific. 

Humans are quite complicated systems and each person has a unique background, so the range of symptoms, problems, behaviours and issues is diverse. The consequences of input and processing differences being dependent on environment, learned behaviour, coping strategies, support and how overloaded you are at the time 

How to categorise it all seems quite difficult. Likewise, interventions, particularly later in life would be predicted to be highly variable as the cumulative cost of problems will be larger.

It would perhaps be better to ask where limited public resources for support should be most effectively directed, which is the underlying point, rather than trying to exclude some people from understanding themselves. That is different framing. But a better level of categorisation is most likely required.

It would almost certainly be better to treat the person holistically rather than symptom by symptom, but that requires more effort to know the person and requires more customised help. But this is precisely where AI could prove invaluable, as it can spot patterns more effectively than people. I think it will cause a big change in understanding if it is embraced. 

Autism is described as a spectrum. Truth is humanity is a spectrum. Autism is merely a part of the overall spectrum of Homo Sapiens. 

To me the question "is the spectrum too inclusive" is valid. As someone assessed as level1 I am possibly just inside the criteria. But on self reflection, I recognise I am the author of my misfortunes due to the way I have always behaved. 

I have read that they are considering bringing out a profound category for autism for those most affected and in need.  I don't know how reliable information this is as it has been raised since 2022 and never happened since. May be we do need levels used more  as an autistic verbal professor level 1 is not the same an a  autistic level 3 person who is non verbal with a borderline IQ. You tell some non autistic people that an autistic person is a verbal professor they may think they are not that bad off. This may have knock on effects on perception for those who struggle quite  a lot.

www.theguardian.com/.../profound-autism-meaning-what-is-parents-need-to-know

Thanks for sharing - very interesting. And I'm like Michelle, autistic traits without significant impairment in core areas of daily living, and I also embrace it as a positive identity which has helped me too.

I’m glad TES published this rebuttal, especially since Frith’s article has reached other newspapers.

A good article - thank you for sharing

Here are Atwood and Garnett’s thoughts. 

One aspect of their argument is that rather than restricting diagnosis to people with the highest support needs, the spectrum of autistic people’s experiences should be recognised and accepted. Commitment to inclusive practice within health, community and education settings could address the mental health epidemic.

https://www.attwoodandgarnettevents.com/blogs/news/prof-uta-frith-s-interview-what-do-we-think

This Psychology Today blog article really helped me to think around the subject in some different ways.

(epistemic: relating to knowledge itself, the study of knowledge, or knowing).

"Epistemic Injustice: The Great Gaslighting of Autistic Lives"

By: Ludmila N. Praslova, Ph.D., SHRM-SCP, is a professor of Organizational Psychology at Vanguard University of Southern California.

Updated: 9 March 2026

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/positively-different/202603/epistemic-injustice-the-great-gaslighting-of-autistic-lives/amp

"Key points

• Epistemic injustice occurs when people are seen as unreliable witnesses of their own experience.
• Autistic self-knowledge is often disputed and discarded in favor of "expert" knowledge.
• Epistemic injustice takes a major toll on autistic lives, including the lifespan.
• Believing autistic people can save lives."

TES have now published a rebuttal of the Frith article. This one is from Dr Sue Franklin (an educational psychologist). She focuses on the historical underdiagnosis of female autists and the difference between NT and ND masking: https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/why-uta-frith-wrong-about-girls-and-autism

That is a really positive side to unmasking, I love that you can reclaim your accent, it is good to be able to be proud of your heritage!

Yep, pens are good for stealth fidgeting. I rub my hands together and run my hands through my hair when stressed.

Another one I am proud of is that when under pressure at work, I cannot now mask my accent. This masking was taught to me in childhood by my immigrant mum who had been horribly verbally abused for her accent, so it is good to reclaim my own.

I forwarded the link to the TES article to my sister, a former primary school teacher. She emailed me her thoughts yesterday — she's skeptical, too, of Uta Frith's reasoning and motivation for her comments. She pointed out that removing the 'autism' label from some children, and/or giving them different labels, isn't really solving anything, particularly as there's no evidence of increased funding forthcoming from the government. In fact, it may be used to justify restricting funding to 'save money'. 

This line from her email really struck me. "Supporting children with autism starts with kindness. In my experience training teachers in mainstream school to accept autism as a condition that needs accommodation is key." Alas, my sister had to leave teaching due to the workload plus internal politics, and several times now she has met children through private tuition who are in need of that kindness.

I used to do that too! And I still wring my hands when I'm stressed or anxious.

Before I knew what I was doing, I always took a pen to meetings, not to write with, I didn't take paper, but I needed something to hold and play with feel less anxious. I love your ideas, they sound fun!

You can always make your own fidget toy if you don't want to buy stuff. Even a stone, a feather or a clump of sheep wool found in a field can help. That's what's in my feely tray.

Hi - they're also useful for sensory regulation for autistic folk or people with anxiety or sensory processing differences, and for others who just like their tactile qualities. 

I thought fidget toys were for ADHD rather than autism?