Doctor stated that Autism is not a medical condition.

I recall we had discussions on here several years ago about this. Diagnoses are being given to people who don't have a clinically significant impairment, as well as those who do.

I don't think I have a clinically significant impairment. I was given a diagnosis on the basis I could benefit from knowing and had good coping strategies already. I've never had to take advantage of any support, other than half a dozen post diagnosis councilling sessions, and I did get some workplace adjustments which I treated as a safety net as I managed mostly without them. I have always been and still am independent and self supporting.

That is a statement about myself and makes no other imputation.

I know I've got problems stemming from the Asperger's, some mild, some much more impacting. I'm just very fortunate that i'm not disabled by it. I'm just inconvenienced. Recalling the debate on here two years ago we are likely to end up back on this argument that if you are managing and successful you cannot be on the spectrum - so I've struggled over a delusion?

I'm managing but I don't know what is "round the next corner". Earlier in life, especially teens and twenties it did me a lot of harm. It is clear that if circumstances led to heightened stress it could make my difficulties more significant again.

The degree of disablement can vary over a lifetime and sometimes people can fall out of the disabled category. I suppose there's an argument that if you're doing OK you should have the diagnosis taken off you, and have to start the process again next time you have a crisis?

I think there is a distinction between a diagnosis and actually being disabled by it. So there could well be questions whether a diagnosis is in itself sufficient under the Equality Act. You are disabled if significantly impaired in what you can do, but you can be diagnosed as being on the spectrum and not definitively disabled.

I recall we had discussions on here several years ago about this. Diagnoses are being given to people who don't have a clinically significant impairment, as well as those who do.

I don't think I have a clinically significant impairment. I was given a diagnosis on the basis I could benefit from knowing and had good coping strategies already. I've never had to take advantage of any support, other than half a dozen post diagnosis councilling sessions, and I did get some workplace adjustments which I treated as a safety net as I managed mostly without them. I have always been and still am independent and self supporting.

That is a statement about myself and makes no other imputation.

I know I've got problems stemming from the Asperger's, some mild, some much more impacting. I'm just very fortunate that i'm not disabled by it. I'm just inconvenienced. Recalling the debate on here two years ago we are likely to end up back on this argument that if you are managing and successful you cannot be on the spectrum - so I've struggled over a delusion?

I'm managing but I don't know what is "round the next corner". Earlier in life, especially teens and twenties it did me a lot of harm. It is clear that if circumstances led to heightened stress it could make my difficulties more significant again.

The degree of disablement can vary over a lifetime and sometimes people can fall out of the disabled category. I suppose there's an argument that if you're doing OK you should have the diagnosis taken off you, and have to start the process again next time you have a crisis?

I think there is a distinction between a diagnosis and actually being disabled by it. So there could well be questions whether a diagnosis is in itself sufficient under the Equality Act. You are disabled if significantly impaired in what you can do, but you can be diagnosed as being on the spectrum and not definitively disabled.