This is a topic that comes up on and off regularly here. For a while the number of posts doing this was small but now it seems to be an in thing here and outside of WP. Lately, I noticed that often I am reading a blog, agreeing with it saying to myself "right on" when the inventible list of supposed autistic people comes up and ruins the experience for me. I am not talking about threads where people say they think someone is autistic based on so and so. I am talking about when it is stated that these people are autistic as fact, no caveats.
The idea is a good intentioned one and somewhat a natural reaction. Most autistics have been bullied, gaslighted, discriminated against for their autism and autistic traits. This was started by baby boomer/Gen X autistics during the 2000's who found out they were autistic very late in life. Using the example of other civil rights organizations they thought it was a good idea to highlight autistics with large accomplishments to debunk the notion among NT's and many autistics that being autistic makes one a ret*d loser destined to be a lifelong failure. It was and is a good idea. My problem is the way this tactic is often being lazily executed.
Right after I was first diagnosed I was seeing autistics everywhere. Others have reported the same thing.
To know whether a person is autistic one has be an autism expert and have a good idea of what the person was like as a child and their inner thoughts. That can only be done if it can be done at all on very limited bases for historical figures and celebrities. The problem with historical figures is that testimony from contemporaries may be misinterpreted because of words having a different context in their times. With celebrities, you have to be mindful that they often say things just to gain publicity for their latest project.
One can not be 100 percent sure about somebody's claim of Autism unless a diagnostic report is produced and vetted that it is real which is very unlikely to happen. So some unwanted compromising of standards and some degree of trust is necessary. That should not mean no standards and absolute trust. Because the person was or is a rebel or has little social filter, or seems quirky means the person might a rebel, has little social filter, and is quirky. It does not necessarily mean that person is autistic.
The first thing one should do is not believe the tons of internet lists of supposed autistic people out there. One should definitely not say so and so is autistic based on "I read it somewhere". At minimal the person should be quoted in a reputable source as saying they are autistic. Then the context of the person's claim should be looked at. A prime example is Dan Ackroyd who is often put on these lists of Autistic people. He is a quirky guy who did say he was diagnosed with Aspergers. But he said he was diagnosed in the early 80's and then he later said he was self-diagnosed. His "diagnosis" occurred at a time when Aspergers was barely known and then he changed his story. Autism claims for this guy have a large credibility problem.
IMHO the lazy diagnosing of celebrities and historical figures are often deluding autistics, propagating stereotypes, and giving those who think "mild" autism is fake or that we just need to try harder ammunition for their spurious claims. Autistics should not live our lives for the approval of NT's but that does not mean we should stupidly validate their bad thoughts or create bad thoughts about us.
This phenomenon seems unautistic to me, it is not "attention to detail" for sure.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
04 Jun 2018, 12:24 pm
