Well here's my question: How functional are you?
If you're generally able to function, then even if you think like an aspie, you wouldn't meet the "significant impairment" part of the criteria. That's not to say that you don't suffer, or that things haven't been difficult for you. (Of course, I don't know how functional or dysfunctional you are, so I could be talking out my butt here..)
I don't know if this is still the plan, but I remember looking at information from the PDD workgroup for the DSM-V (although I think they're changing it from PDD to ASD..) and they had a "picture" of the spectrum that actually did include subclinical autism as part of the spectrum. They specified that it wasn't a diagnosable disorder if the person can function and adapt fairly well, but that it was still a part of the autism spectrum, because those people have autistic traits even without a disorder. That may also be the level somebody gets to when they get "un-diagnosed." They're still essentially autistic, but no longer meet the impairment criterion. Doesn't mean they don't have trauma issues from an aspie childhood..
Diagnosis is mostly based on impairment and what someone needs help with. Not everything that's diagnosed is a disorder anyways. Take ODD. It's the definition of adolescence. It's specifically NOT serious enough to be a conduct disorder. It means "fairly normal child having issues with adolescence." So why diagnose it? Because some people do need therapy to get through adolescence.
So unless you can benefit from some sort of service based on an AS diagnosis, most professionals would find it silly to diagnose.. unnecessary labeling. Unfortunately, there is a population that seems to think that only the "properly" labeled have gone though anything at all, but we all know that that's a load of BS.
(If you actually are really impaired, I guess this whole post didn't mean much, but you didn't specify how impaired you are.. )
Edit: Official diagnoses exist for the purpose of getting somebody to do something inconvenient or pay for something. An insurance company pays for a therapy because you have a disorder that makes that therapy necessary, a school provides special education for the same reason. So right there, if you're an adult, half the reason doctors will see for giving a diagnosis is right out the window, because there's not a school that has to pay for something based on it. Since there isn't much in the way of proven treatments either, there gets to be this "why?" about being diagnosed. Are there specific things an employer has to do for someone with AS?
The biggest reason I can think of for a diagnosis is so doctors will stop trying to bully you into therapies that aren't going to work anyways. That, and so other people will believe that you really have trouble with things. Both of those are kinda dubious reasons, mostly because they shouldn't technically exist in the first place.
Last edited by Maggiedoll on 03 Nov 2009, 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.