what kind of autism research would you do?

Yes, it is fraught with difficulties.  I already have an unrelated genetic condition and any life insurance I were to take out would involve paying a premium of at least triple the usual rate.  I'm not sure I'd be able to take out another mortgage either, knowing what I now know. Or pass the medical for a new job. 

I feel differently about autism (it's not a progressive disease like my other condition and I see it more as relating to my identity) but when it comes to the open market of insurance my feelings are neither here nor there.  That means I'd have to believe my information was held securely and for my own purposes only.  Very hard to guarantee this so i would definitely have concerns. 

Noneltheless, since we're now diagnosed anyway, I guess we'd have to declare it to avoid invalidating any policies.  i suppose I'd also have to tell a potential employer (although i'm now convinced that if I ever work again it will be on a self-employed basis, very probably because of issues relating to autism).

It's certainly a vexed area but I still wish i'd known sooner.  If an NHS blood test could have identified this, i'd have gone for it.  My need to know would be too great.        

Who on earth do they think advanced science and technology? To some degree they would be shooting themselves in the head. 

I worry about the genetics research into autism as there is the risk that it could open the door to eugenics, also what worries me is alot of the people who are studying this in the states have firm ties with people who want to eradicate autism. 

You are JennyButterfly as far as I’m concerned! The labels and diagnoses are for professionals to use to categorise a myriad of personalities and even perhaps those they think of as ‘difficult’, ‘time wasters’ and ‘heart sink patients’. I’m me. It’s my personality. Ain’t nothing going to change that, except if I make an honest mistake and someone tells me so.

Oh for sure, there are plenty of women who abuse women, children and men, but it’s a different thing to misogyny. Misogyny is deeply rooted in the make up of society and men can be victims of it just as easily as women can, in that many men don’t even realise they’re being misogynistic. It can play out on an individual basis but it’s a societal problem that has to be dealt with on that level, not just on an individual level. But of course, female to male abuse exists and can even go unreported as men can often feel ashamed to be treated badly by a women as we are so used to it being the other way round and it is almost accepted that men treat women badly and it’s seen as unusual and not the norm for a woman to abuse a man so men can be victims in that way as well, in that they feel reluctant to speak out about the abuse because it’s not seen as manly to take abuse from a woman. 

Misandry is apparently the counterpart in women who hate, abuse or put men down. So it can happen either way. I guess it’s not so topical, but it sure does happen. I live next door to a misandrist! 

Jenny Butterfly said:

Overall I tend to agree that the emphasis on genes can take us into a very unethical direction.  I can feel i might upset people on this subject and so often pull back for precisely that reason.

Unfortunately, people are so dumb that they are handing their DNA and relationship information over to 3rd party companies without realising the implications about where this information is ending up - some police forces have admitted getting access to it.

Once insurance compainies start mining the information, you might find you become uninsurable because of your likelyhood of developing an expensve medical problem.

If people don't believe your information is being sold on, then they are naive.

No nothing to do with vaccinations. It clearly states they are not a cause I was referring to this page which they updated February this year 

www.nhs.uk/.../

I see it all the time in mental health settings, where people lean more into their diagnosis and almost become it, which is why a diagnosis isn’t always the best way forward for everybody, so I can see where you’re coming from but I think the differences in our brains, that we’re born with, are different to what you’re talking about.

However, I totally understand where you’re coming from in doubting your diagnosis and wondering if you  picked up the traits etc, because I have had those same thoughts many times and so have others and I think it’s because we have spent a life time or at least a long time, for many of us (late diagnosis) doubting ourselves and being almost forced to see ourselves as wrong and others as right, so we haven’t yet built up the muscles of believing and trusting in ourselves to the point of no doubt, but many of us are getting there. 

Yeah, I see what you’re saying now and I agree  completely

Overall I tend to agree that the emphasis on genes can take us into a very unethical direction.  I can feel i might upset people on this subject and so often pull back for precisely that reason. 

But that said, if there had been a genetic test I would have been able to identify my autism much earlier and this would have helped me to access support and also gain more awareness and understanding while i was in the workplace and at an earlier stage  in my parenting.  I might also not now be in the position of seeing my sons flounder in life because they weren't diagnosed either and so likewise didn't receive any support relating to issues arising from autism. 

As it stands decades have gone by and so any benefits associated with early identification have been lost.  Can we make up for lost ground?  I don't know.   

Yes, this is similar to my experience.   i couldn't identify autism in my sons because many of their behaviours were our "normal" and fitted right in. 

I'm also wondering about personality type and I think that would definitely make another interesting thread.  For years I identified more as a highly sensitive person (HSP) so am now left pondering how this differs from our brand of autism.  To me this is very puzzling.  I can find myself as "autistic" in the DSM, "highly sensitive" in Elaine Aron's books or INFJ-T on the Myers Briggs test ("Other interesting personality tests are also available" :) ).  To which of these might I give most credence and why?       

I find it fascinating and I think we could (as a society) learn a lot from research into it, in terms of females on the spectrum, so I have a feeling this is what I might do my PhD in. Already, I’ve found that autistic females seem to be much more in the background compared to males, but this is just my limited experience so far. I have a history of rape/sexual abusive/mental abuse and psychological abuse in relationships but I had never related it to the wider society, but I am starting to see a pattern emerging around this. 

Rip Van Wrinkle said:

Can women be misogynistic towards men?

I don't think so.

But women can be ableistic towards autistic men and abuse all sorts of feminist tools to essentially act on their prejudice towards autism.

I’ve only just become aware of it so I’m probably not the best person to be able to talk about it just yet, but from what I’ve gathered so far, no, women can’t be misogynistic to men as it’s based on a society which is based largely on male dominance and an understanding of power from a male perspective. It’s very subtle in many ways, in the different ways it shows up, which is why I’m not surprised that I missed it but now I’ve discovered it, I’m fascinated and especially on the effects it has on autistic women. My support worker did say that it’s part of her thing to do work around this with me, she told me this before I had even discovered it, so from that alone, I’m guessing it’s a problem for females on the spectrum. And from the research papers I’ve looked at so far, there’s definitely a higher prevalence of females with autism in abusive relationships, low self esteem, sexual abuse etc etc, so I’m looking forward to diving in deeper.

But as yet, I can’t really talk confidently on the subject as it’s very new to me and I’m not sure if I have a full understanding of it yet. 

Yes, totally.

I think misogyny is often the way men abuse women.

So this link to why autistic people have such high risk of being bullied and abused, why do they end up in relationships with abusers and what forms it takes...

What is your understanding of misogyny? I don’t fully understand that word. I will go and look up the definition. Can women be misogynistic towards men? 

Yes, you're right, I explained myself wrongly. Autistic people do learn, do develop and grow in their skills, experiences and abilities.

I meant you cannot unlearn to be autistic, you would still be autistic, you are not autistic because you observed and copied autistic behaviour, but because of your wiring, it is inherent to you.

I am autistic, apparently, but I grew up surrounded by such behaviours/attitudes, so it was ‘normal’ for us. I wonder whether such an environment/situation in the early years (pre school) can further shape an already autistic type personality? To me it is a broad type of personality, not a defect at all. However, the behaviour I inadvertently seem to have mirrored in psychiatric settings, perhaps to ‘fit in’ I defininitely learned there! Perhaps that’s for another thread one day. 

YaY, I’ve worked with Dr Harbottle and I’ve done several of her courses, she’s great, I really like her and I love her courses, it was nice to see her in this video as I haven’t seen her for a few years, it kind of makes me miss my old job.