Doctor stated that Autism is not a medical condition.

And this is what I struggle to understand as someone who is disabled by the Asperger's condition. I have never not been disabled by this condition, although it was only diagnosed when I was 21 years old. I was labelled as a disabled child at school, and only got into the secondary school of my choosing because I was on the disabled child list - the school ( a faith school) had a duty to include a small number of disabled children who did not attend church. At school I was disabled because I was socially excluded, experienced chronic anxiety and stress, and could not live life to the full. As an adult I am disabled because I still experience anxiety, cannot maintain full time mainstream employment, cannot live without support, and struggle with executive function and planning. If I was not disabled and life was hunky dorey, I would not have sought a diagnosis. I was not aware that diagnoses are now given to people without a clinically significant impairment? If that is the case, then maybe my Dad qualifies because he has hardly any friends, has obsessive interests, and is not the most social of people. But I don't think anyone would think he has Asperger's - he has managed life well, has never suffered because of his traits, and functions completely normally.

I heard an interview with Simon Baron Cohen where he said that diagnoses are only given to people with a clinically significant impairment. The DSM and ICD have this as a criterion, but maybe this clause has been removed?

Of course you can be more or less disabled depending on your environment. Now I have the correct support in place, I am not as disabled as I was in my early 20s, when I only ventured out as far as the corner shop. However if my support was removed, I could easily become a recluse and would not be able to function. Admittedly my Asperger's is complicated by having OCD and mental health problems, but then Asperger's hardly ever occurs in its 'pure' form anyway. Maybe Asperger's should be further sub-divided into 'type 1' and 'type 2' forms because it strikes me that the condition is so variable in its effects, that quite different protocols should be in place for the different types? It would clearly be simpler if it was taken for granted that all diagnosed cases of Asperger's fell under the Equality Act because it is a registered disability; but if Asperger's is now diagnosed when there is no disability present, then further sub categorization of Asperger's might be needed.

It seems that there is a stark divide in the Asperger community between those who only have a 'difference' and those with a 'disability'. Historically Asperger's was always conceived as a disability, so something must have changed.

And this is what I struggle to understand as someone who is disabled by the Asperger's condition. I have never not been disabled by this condition, although it was only diagnosed when I was 21 years old. I was labelled as a disabled child at school, and only got into the secondary school of my choosing because I was on the disabled child list - the school ( a faith school) had a duty to include a small number of disabled children who did not attend church. At school I was disabled because I was socially excluded, experienced chronic anxiety and stress, and could not live life to the full. As an adult I am disabled because I still experience anxiety, cannot maintain full time mainstream employment, cannot live without support, and struggle with executive function and planning. If I was not disabled and life was hunky dorey, I would not have sought a diagnosis. I was not aware that diagnoses are now given to people without a clinically significant impairment? If that is the case, then maybe my Dad qualifies because he has hardly any friends, has obsessive interests, and is not the most social of people. But I don't think anyone would think he has Asperger's - he has managed life well, has never suffered because of his traits, and functions completely normally.

I heard an interview with Simon Baron Cohen where he said that diagnoses are only given to people with a clinically significant impairment. The DSM and ICD have this as a criterion, but maybe this clause has been removed?

Of course you can be more or less disabled depending on your environment. Now I have the correct support in place, I am not as disabled as I was in my early 20s, when I only ventured out as far as the corner shop. However if my support was removed, I could easily become a recluse and would not be able to function. Admittedly my Asperger's is complicated by having OCD and mental health problems, but then Asperger's hardly ever occurs in its 'pure' form anyway. Maybe Asperger's should be further sub-divided into 'type 1' and 'type 2' forms because it strikes me that the condition is so variable in its effects, that quite different protocols should be in place for the different types? It would clearly be simpler if it was taken for granted that all diagnosed cases of Asperger's fell under the Equality Act because it is a registered disability; but if Asperger's is now diagnosed when there is no disability present, then further sub categorization of Asperger's might be needed.

It seems that there is a stark divide in the Asperger community between those who only have a 'difference' and those with a 'disability'. Historically Asperger's was always conceived as a disability, so something must have changed.