New research shows 'high functioning' is an inaccurate autism label

The premise of this thread is kind of irrelevant for 2 reasons:

1. DSM-5 doesn't mention 'functioning' just severity of each diagnostic criteria i.e. requires; support, substantial support, very substantial support plus whether there are any associated; intellectual impairment, language impairment; medical or genetic condition or environmental factor, other neurodevelopmental, mental, or behavioural disorder, catatonia

2. High/low-functioning as a label has long been deemed 'divisive' and inappropriate by the ASD community, particularly as autism is a non-linear, spectrum disorder i.e. you can be 'high' in some areas and 'low' in others with everyone having a different 'profile'

This...

Not this...

See Functioning labels and why you shouldn't be using them by Autistic Advocate

The premise of this thread is kind of irrelevant for 2 reasons:

1. DSM-5 doesn't mention 'functioning' just severity of each diagnostic criteria i.e. requires; support, substantial support, very substantial support plus whether there are any associated; intellectual impairment, language impairment; medical or genetic condition or environmental factor, other neurodevelopmental, mental, or behavioural disorder, catatonia

2. High/low-functioning as a label has long been deemed 'divisive' and inappropriate by the ASD community, particularly as autism is a non-linear, spectrum disorder i.e. you can be 'high' in some areas and 'low' in others with everyone having a different 'profile'

This...

Not this...

See Functioning labels and why you shouldn't be using them by Autistic Advocate

ASD is a wide-range of differences, including social, emotional, occupational, societal, language, sensory differences. And also possible IQ differences. 

You ARE allowed to talk about a specific one when you want to. For example, you can start a conversation about autism focusing mainly on sensory issues. There are many people who post treads only about a single topic among the many of the spectrum. But why are people not allowed to talk about IQ as a single subject? 

It's really what psychologists mean when they say high/low functioning. They are only talking about IQ during that time. It's not that they are not ignoring the other issues. So, I think the only reason that the ASD community thinks high/low functioning is inappropriate is because they do not know that psychologists are talking only about IQ when talking about functioning. It's a difference between scientific use and laypeople use. High/low functioning is not a diagnostic label itself, and IQ is not needed in the diagnosis. The diagnosis criteria requires the diagnostician to consider communication, sensory, behavioural, social, emotional functioning, and the IQ is just an extra specification that is added on because it's not part of the criteria.

high-functioning + ASD = high-cognitive-functioning (i.e., normal IQ) + ASD
low-functioning + ASD = low-cognitive-functioning (i.e., low IQ) + ASD
The scientific jargon "functioning" naturally means IQ to psychologists/neuroscientists, and it has nothing to do with autism at all. Many people study cognitive functioning in the neurotypical population. There are loads of research done on individual differences in cognitive functioning in neurotypicals. 

So it seems like this argument is really just pointing out the obvious that low/high functioning is not a functional assessment and referring to IQ only, and that is what psychologists mean when they say that. But it's a problem because (1) laypeople think functioning means "general functioning", or (2) laypeople think psychologists are missing out on other areas when they are not...

I agree with you guys.

Given that the main diagnostic 'points' on the 'star' as per the image above are:

1. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across multiple contexts
2. Restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour, interests, or activities
3. Symptoms must be present in the early developmental period (but may not become fully manifest until social demands exceed limited capacities, or may be masked by learned strategies in later life)
4. Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning
5. These disturbances are not better explained by something else (I'm paraphrasing)

You could be considered fully 'functional' until you hit the bit in point 3 that I've put in bold and it may be that you only hit that 'tipping point' due to the loss of support e.g. a relative or other carer becoming unavailable, or through either sudden or gradual accumulation of the 'demand load' resulting in it exceeding the limit - seems to me this is the 'classic' trigger for late diagnosis 'aspies'...

"I thought I was doing OK, then <thing> happened and my life fell apart... oh, I'm autistic you say? That would explain it..."

Plus I'm not convinced 'impairment' and 'functionality' are interchangeable - if I have cataracts I have 'functional eyes' but 'impaired vision' does this mean I'm 'visually low-functioning'?

Bleurgh!

Point 2 is more relevant than point 1. Degrees of support seen as being needed would need to factor in functioning , whether functioning was implicitly stated or not.  The lower  one can function the greater the level of support that would be needed , with there being a range of ability to function across various domains .