Aspies to be demoted to Autistics.

Post Reply New Topic

Learn something new every day. I wasn't aware of that because I never actually looked into it.

Come to think of it, I've probably been underemployed most of my life, and never realized it because I never really thought about it.

I certainly am now.

I still think that popular opinion, when considering an individual, is that "This person doesn't seem disabled to me" because most simply do not understand autism well enough to recognize it unless it is rather severe, or at least very noticeable. I do think that for most of us, it's not that easy to see unless people get to know us pretty well.

For example, I have friends that were skeptics when I first told them, but over time they did begin to see the signs, and would even ask me about them. Those that do though, have kids diagnosed on the spectrum, so they are motived to want to understand.

Oh, I agree with you about the popular opinion. I have seen this attitude on this forum. I mean, I've been told I can't possibly be too disabled to work because I am a competent writer. I remember that argument vividly because my fibro was flaring and typing hurt a lot, and so being told that a job that required typing would be easy for me was rather bitterly funny.

In the real world, my niece - who also is diagnosed with fibro and can walk without mobility aids - complained about other people taking a disability spot before we could get it because they can walk, and are thus not disabled.

The CDC ratio is most likely inaccurate. How inaccurate, I couldn't say. However, I doubt this sort of tendency was controlled for:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... s-children

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/192 ... seriously/

I have a diagnosis of PDD NOS, and I meet the new criteria.

Actually, I really don't see the criteria as 'tightened' in any way. Sure, there's more criteria you have to meet, but they're more broadly stated.

And in terms of social skills issues without repetitive behavior, which gets called PDD NOS a lot, I really don't think that belongs on the autism spectrum. Piles of conditions cause poor social skills. ADHD, learning disabilities, even 'undifferentiated' MR (no identifiable syndrome causing it) has been suggested to be associated with weaker social skills than their IQ would predict. Really, the repetitive behavior is more autism-specific than the social issues. Sure, other conditions, like OCD, have repetitive behavior, but they don't include the 'love of repetition' stuff that autism includes, the things that are done more because they're enjoyable than because failure to do them causes anxiety. Only other condition I've heard claimed to include that aspect is giftedness.



Tell that to people on the broader autistic phenotype.

Seriously, that statement goes against every bit of research I've seen on the definitions and cutoffs of autism. Autistic traits are on just as much of a spectrum as IQ is. (And in fact different parts of the spectrum can vary independently.) It's not like with Down Syndrome, where you either have the extra 21 or you don't (with mosaicism as a rare exception). There are hundreds of autism genes, and each possible combination of them gives a different mix of traits, from 'full on autism' to full on NT and everywhere in between.



No, they'll easily meet criteria. Read it through, each criteria has a list of examples including the severe/young child expression all the way to the mild/adult expression. Severe autistic kids will tick off piles of the 'severe/young child' end of the criteria.

Unless they were misdiagnosed. It's pretty common to meet non-autistic MR kids who have a few autistic traits. For example, stimming is pretty common in moderate-severe MR.



Sounds like the DSM-5 agrees with you. Those people will be called 'social communication disorder' and classified under specific learning/language disorders.

I think that Catherine lord is talking about people who identify with AS without a diagnosis. That's why she said most who use asperger, not most who have asperger. The quote was from an article about eberryone being on the autism spectrum and use of AS to describe eberryone having a few traits. Is Obama autistic? Is Romney autistic? Etc etc etc.

There's not much question in my mind that she was focusing on those that self-diagnose from the context of the article. The offensive part is that she suggests "if someone needs someone to cut them slack, whether they have Asperger’s or not, that’s something they need to negotiate with their spouse." As a lead professional from the DSM5 working group the professional response would have been more appropriate that those that have Asperger's without a diagnosis, should have access and availability for a professional diagnosis to gain proper supports and therapy as needed, and encourage that diagnostic initiative, rather than negotiating the need for someone to provide them some slack with their spouse.

The CDC methodology is copied from the same methodology used in the Atlanta Metro Area, the first large scale epidemiological study associated with ASD in the US, in 1998. That Atlanta Metro area study identified the methodology as limited in assessing all cases of what was described at that time as "higher functioning/milder" cases of autism, specifically Asperger's Syndrome.

The fairly recent South Korean study assessed 1.89 percent of children ages 7 to 12, out of the mainstream school population as compared to the previous .75 percent for those receiving services for "special education". There was no breakdown in that study of specific categories of ASD disorders, but the additional children diagnosed were not identified as receiving special education services. The male to female ratio was similar to that seen in the US.

It bears noting though in that study that permission was necessary from the guardians/parents of the children, and there is a strong stigma against the diagnosis of any mental disorder in South Korea, so it's questionable how much that might have influenced the parental/guardian permission for females to be studied, previously undiagnosed, as that stigma could be even stronger for females to be diagnosed with what is considered a "male dominated diagnosis".

I think perhaps the most interesting result, was from the UK study among adults, where there is less stigma and greater acceptance over a diagnosis of an ASD than either the US or South Korea. The overall result was 1 percent, but the male ratio was 9 to 1. So, it appears that culture may have more to do with the male dominated result than either methodology or stigma of diagnosis of a disorder.

As far as the Asperger's subgroup, I would trust the actual clinical experience of Tony Atwood more than surveys or studies of existing clinical records, because of his direct experience with 2000 people diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome over 2 decades. He identifies a potential 2 to 1 male to female ratio in that subgroup, from his most recent clinical analysis, but he has the advantage of experience in identified nuanced differences on a case by case basis, not unlike Kanner or Han's Aspergers, but in much greater numbers.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/states ... -sheet.pdf

More potential evidence of the of culture in the Alabama specific part of the CDC study linked above. It gets interesting there as this was one of the largest population samples studied in any state in the US, but it also came from some of the least economically advantaged, as well as greatest patriarchal influenced cultural areas of the US, both per political and religious ideology, in the sample restricted to the southern half of Alabama.

One would expect an overall lower prevalence based on education/economic status per awareness and access to a diagnosis, which is evident with a 1 in 174 overall statistic. But, the female statistic is 1 in 909 and the male statistic is 1 in 123, a close to 8 to 1 male ratio. The pressure to adapt to gender roles is probably as high in Alabama as any state in the US, per patriarchal influenced expectations with pressure to meet those separate gender roles strongly enforced through culture at a very young age. Interestingly too, is that the rate of ASD's in Alabama actually decreased 17% from the previous CDC prevalence study in Alabama while on average the rest of the country increased close to that same percentage.

This was pretty much my point of that post, that the DSM5 standards are not going to make this any easier for females to get diagnosed, particularly adult females, as technically even if a female, under greater pressure than males in their culture had learned to mimic non-verbal expressions from others, or adapt in forming and maintaining friendships, neither of those two criterion elements were mandatory in the DSMIV and both are mandatory in the DSM5.

I think the UK study provides good evidence that this issue is more of one in adulthood among females, as that potential of adapting with the potentially greater stress of expectation of gender roles increase with age, even in a general population telephone survey study in a fairly "autistic" friendly country, as opposed to the narrow demographic studied by the CDC, per that 9 to 1 overall male to female ratio in UK adults, as opposed to the overall CDC 5 to 1 male to female ratio in 8 year old US children.

As this clinical issue may become more difficult in the future for females on the spectrum, the identification of it, recognition of it, and awareness of it, is more important right now than in the future, as a higher ratio of males to females as a result of DSM5 standards, on it's own, will only increase the bias at looking for males with the disorder rather than females. Not only that, there is the potential for those increasing odds provided as information by genetic counselors, for the option to abort male children based on that risk when a familial higher risk is assessed. When in reality that greater "assessed risk" may be negligible.

That's really unfortunate, and not something I had thought of.

I always bring this up regarding male to female ratio:

Asperger's should follow the same ratio as Kanner's, which is 4/5 to 1, male to female. That's if they're the same condition. Kanner's has been around for a long time as a medical entity, so said ratio is probably correct, especially considering that most with Kanner's are picked up (delays in speech and other cognitive areas are more in your face than other symptoms).

Read the articles I linked.

There's no talk of Kanner's Autism for the girl; it just says she can express herself. It doesn't say about the boy. Both are said to have an ASD, rather than any specific label. The second article focuses on school aged children, which isn't what I'm speaking of; I'm speaking of Early Infantile Autism, which is a far cry from Asperger's in females.

I'd assume that a female toddler/child displaying Kanner's would be just as likely to receive a label as if a boy was, as the symptoms will be exactly the same.

If we assume Kanner's is diagnosed in almost all cases (which it is), whether male or female, then we can postulate what the ratio is for Asperger's.

I'd be surprised if it was less than 4 to 1 for Asperger's. Unless they're including other forms of social and communicative disorders (which comes under PDD-NOS today), which aren't as well established as Kanner's and Asperger's in regards to symptomatology (but fall under the ASD umbrella anyway).

I think one flaw is starting from the assumption that Kanner's initial findings regarding gender ratios are correct. It's not as if sexism and bias in diagnosis was something invented in the past 20 years.

Also, from what I have read, more severe cases tend to show ratios closer to parity between males and females, which suggests either that autistic women tend to be more severe than autistic men, or that as the autism gets milder, the less likely a woman or girl is to be diagnosed on the spectrum. The latter seems more likely than the former.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that it's 1:1 male:female, just that the existing numbers are guaranteed to be inaccurate because of both focusing on how autism manifesting in boys and because of a clinical bias against diagnosing girls, as described in the articles I linked.

I totally get it. I don't poo or pee on myhself cause I don't know about the bathroom (not intended to offend those who know but cant) I don't go up and hit or hug strangers, I dont stand there repetive things over and over on the corner, etc. I am not autistic. I have some autistic traits. I have Aspergers. Fine, put me in the asylum and put me down as autistic. Lets see what you get as a return for that, why don't we?

Well hell thats not necessarily a bad thing.....to me that means that you can get some extra help while making your way in the world.

Most of what you described as autistic is a really narrow perspective on what autism is. There are people contributing to this thread who do not fit those traits you described who have been diagnosed with autism.

No one's going to be put in an asylum because the name of the label was changed.

Logically speaking, if you're not autistic, you don't have Asperger's Syndrome. You can't have the latter without being the former.

Yes, people are going to be put in asylums just because their label has been changed.