Different levels of autism?

battybats said:

Things like severity and functioning labels are often a better reflection of what someone's autism looks like to others than they are of how that person really feels or what they need.

I agree with this.
Levels wouldn't be so problematic if they were left to the individual to decide where they fell on a scale. The reason I say so is because "HFA/Aspergers" gets equated to level 1 but my assessor never saw me on one on my profoundly nonverbal or meltdown days, because I find in reality I go up and down the levels situationally and depending on how much background stress/overload I have on the day. I have had years decades even of being at level 2 with periods of being at level 3, and yet that's not what the daft peice of paper said because my assessor doesn't really know me as a person and what my overal life is like.

I think it would also be more useful if people who use levels accepted that they are fluid not fixed, because I've seen flawed reports of so called "level 3/2" people whose (and I hate this phrase because of the medicalisation) "autism improved". When really we all know that "the autism" doesn't improve, an autistic person does not get less autistic, they just either get the support they need to cope better or figure out a way to cope better on their own, it's coping skills that improve not "the autism" and even masking when faced with social rejection gives the appearance of "fixing the autism" until it doesn't. Which is the problem with the idea of using a fixed level scale, because if you only ever saw an autistic person when they feel they can cope enough to leave the house well presented on their own you could be under the illusion their whole life is at "level 1" when actually they seldom leave the house because they can't cope very well very often.

This is why I've personally chosen to do away with functioning labels and just tell people how I feel and what I need on the day instead.

battybats said:

Things like severity and functioning labels are often a better reflection of what someone's autism looks like to others than they are of how that person really feels or what they need.

I agree with this.
Levels wouldn't be so problematic if they were left to the individual to decide where they fell on a scale. The reason I say so is because "HFA/Aspergers" gets equated to level 1 but my assessor never saw me on one on my profoundly nonverbal or meltdown days, because I find in reality I go up and down the levels situationally and depending on how much background stress/overload I have on the day. I have had years decades even of being at level 2 with periods of being at level 3, and yet that's not what the daft peice of paper said because my assessor doesn't really know me as a person and what my overal life is like.

I think it would also be more useful if people who use levels accepted that they are fluid not fixed, because I've seen flawed reports of so called "level 3/2" people whose (and I hate this phrase because of the medicalisation) "autism improved". When really we all know that "the autism" doesn't improve, an autistic person does not get less autistic, they just either get the support they need to cope better or figure out a way to cope better on their own, it's coping skills that improve not "the autism" and even masking when faced with social rejection gives the appearance of "fixing the autism" until it doesn't. Which is the problem with the idea of using a fixed level scale, because if you only ever saw an autistic person when they feel they can cope enough to leave the house well presented on their own you could be under the illusion their whole life is at "level 1" when actually they seldom leave the house because they can't cope very well very often.

This is why I've personally chosen to do away with functioning labels and just tell people how I feel and what I need on the day instead.