Does anyone else ever have skepticism over too many dx?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

What are you trying to say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

What are you trying to say?

You are suggesting that I said masking means the child has no symptoms of autism at school. I have said repeatedly that masking does not eliminate the symptoms. The symptoms are there. They might not look like what you or another untrained person would expect. That does NOT mean it is not autism.

It is preposterous, disingenuous and offensive to suggest that you are allowed to unilaterally erase someone's diagnosis because it is not obvious to you. You are not trained to diagnose autism. It might not look like what you think it looks like. Sorry, not sorry.

A person trained to diagnose it based on the criteria in the DSM will recognize the symptoms if they are there. If they are not there they should not diagnose. I know a few people who have suspected autism in their children, gotten them evaluated and the evaluator did not diagnose autism. From what I have seen, evaluators do not diagnose autism lightly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

What are you trying to say?

You are suggesting that I said masking means the child has no symptoms of autism at school. I have said repeatedly that masking does not eliminate the symptoms. The symptoms are there. They might not look like what you or another untrained person would expect. That does NOT mean it is not autism.

It is preposterous, disingenuous and offensive to suggest that you are allowed to unilaterally erase someone's diagnosis because it is not obvious to you. You are not trained to diagnose autism. It might not look like what you think it looks like. Sorry, not sorry.

A person trained to diagnose it based on the criteria in the DSM will recognize the symptoms if they are there. If they are not there they should not diagnose. I know a few people who have suspected autism in their children, gotten them evaluated and the evaluator did not diagnose autism. From what I have seen, evaluators do not diagnose autism lightly.

I still have no idea what you mean by “masking.” social challenges will be visible to most observers. we moms all know how to ID other kiddos on the spectrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

What are you trying to say?

You are suggesting that I said masking means the child has no symptoms of autism at school. I have said repeatedly that masking does not eliminate the symptoms. The symptoms are there. They might not look like what you or another untrained person would expect. That does NOT mean it is not autism.

It is preposterous, disingenuous and offensive to suggest that you are allowed to unilaterally erase someone's diagnosis because it is not obvious to you. You are not trained to diagnose autism. It might not look like what you think it looks like. Sorry, not sorry.

A person trained to diagnose it based on the criteria in the DSM will recognize the symptoms if they are there. If they are not there they should not diagnose. I know a few people who have suspected autism in their children, gotten them evaluated and the evaluator did not diagnose autism. From what I have seen, evaluators do not diagnose autism lightly.

I still have no idea what you mean by “masking.” social challenges will be visible to most observers. we moms all know how to ID other kiddos on the spectrum.

Sounds like you should open an autism diagnosis business. People pay thousands to get their kids evaluated. You could make good money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

What are you trying to say?

You are suggesting that I said masking means the child has no symptoms of autism at school. I have said repeatedly that masking does not eliminate the symptoms. The symptoms are there. They might not look like what you or another untrained person would expect. That does NOT mean it is not autism.

It is preposterous, disingenuous and offensive to suggest that you are allowed to unilaterally erase someone's diagnosis because it is not obvious to you. You are not trained to diagnose autism. It might not look like what you think it looks like. Sorry, not sorry.

A person trained to diagnose it based on the criteria in the DSM will recognize the symptoms if they are there. If they are not there they should not diagnose. I know a few people who have suspected autism in their children, gotten them evaluated and the evaluator did not diagnose autism. From what I have seen, evaluators do not diagnose autism lightly.

Look I guess if an autism diagnosis helps someone then it almost doesn't matter at this point - it's SO broad.
Maintly - diagnosticians are losing credibility due to the word 'social deficits'. It's COMPLETELY subjective. A kid could have no friends in one school and tons in another. Does that mean they have 'social deficits'? we need a better measure of autism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

What are you trying to say?

You are suggesting that I said masking means the child has no symptoms of autism at school. I have said repeatedly that masking does not eliminate the symptoms. The symptoms are there. They might not look like what you or another untrained person would expect. That does NOT mean it is not autism.

It is preposterous, disingenuous and offensive to suggest that you are allowed to unilaterally erase someone's diagnosis because it is not obvious to you. You are not trained to diagnose autism. It might not look like what you think it looks like. Sorry, not sorry.

A person trained to diagnose it based on the criteria in the DSM will recognize the symptoms if they are there. If they are not there they should not diagnose. I know a few people who have suspected autism in their children, gotten them evaluated and the evaluator did not diagnose autism. From what I have seen, evaluators do not diagnose autism lightly.

Look I guess if an autism diagnosis helps someone then it almost doesn't matter at this point - it's SO broad.
Maintly - diagnosticians are losing credibility due to the word 'social deficits'. It's COMPLETELY subjective. A kid could have no friends in one school and tons in another. Does that mean they have 'social deficits'? we need a better measure of autism.

Do you know a child diagnosed with autism in this situation or are you just making up hypotheticals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

What are you trying to say?

You are suggesting that I said masking means the child has no symptoms of autism at school. I have said repeatedly that masking does not eliminate the symptoms. The symptoms are there. They might not look like what you or another untrained person would expect. That does NOT mean it is not autism.

It is preposterous, disingenuous and offensive to suggest that you are allowed to unilaterally erase someone's diagnosis because it is not obvious to you. You are not trained to diagnose autism. It might not look like what you think it looks like. Sorry, not sorry.

A person trained to diagnose it based on the criteria in the DSM will recognize the symptoms if they are there. If they are not there they should not diagnose. I know a few people who have suspected autism in their children, gotten them evaluated and the evaluator did not diagnose autism. From what I have seen, evaluators do not diagnose autism lightly.

Look I guess if an autism diagnosis helps someone then it almost doesn't matter at this point - it's SO broad.
Maintly - diagnosticians are losing credibility due to the word 'social deficits'. It's COMPLETELY subjective. A kid could have no friends in one school and tons in another. Does that mean they have 'social deficits'? we need a better measure of autism.

Do you know a child diagnosed with autism in this situation or are you just making up hypotheticals?

do i know kids diagnosed with autism who appear neurotypical and have at minimum several friends? Yes of course, assume we all do - that's the whole conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

What are you trying to say?

You are suggesting that I said masking means the child has no symptoms of autism at school. I have said repeatedly that masking does not eliminate the symptoms. The symptoms are there. They might not look like what you or another untrained person would expect. That does NOT mean it is not autism.

It is preposterous, disingenuous and offensive to suggest that you are allowed to unilaterally erase someone's diagnosis because it is not obvious to you. You are not trained to diagnose autism. It might not look like what you think it looks like. Sorry, not sorry.

A person trained to diagnose it based on the criteria in the DSM will recognize the symptoms if they are there. If they are not there they should not diagnose. I know a few people who have suspected autism in their children, gotten them evaluated and the evaluator did not diagnose autism. From what I have seen, evaluators do not diagnose autism lightly.

Look I guess if an autism diagnosis helps someone then it almost doesn't matter at this point - it's SO broad.
Maintly - diagnosticians are losing credibility due to the word 'social deficits'. It's COMPLETELY subjective. A kid could have no friends in one school and tons in another. Does that mean they have 'social deficits'? we need a better measure of autism.

Do you know a child diagnosed with autism in this situation or are you just making up hypotheticals?

do i know kids diagnosed with autism who appear neurotypical and have at minimum several friends? Yes of course, assume we all do - that's the whole conversation.

And how does this affect you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

What are you trying to say?

You are suggesting that I said masking means the child has no symptoms of autism at school. I have said repeatedly that masking does not eliminate the symptoms. The symptoms are there. They might not look like what you or another untrained person would expect. That does NOT mean it is not autism.

It is preposterous, disingenuous and offensive to suggest that you are allowed to unilaterally erase someone's diagnosis because it is not obvious to you. You are not trained to diagnose autism. It might not look like what you think it looks like. Sorry, not sorry.

A person trained to diagnose it based on the criteria in the DSM will recognize the symptoms if they are there. If they are not there they should not diagnose. I know a few people who have suspected autism in their children, gotten them evaluated and the evaluator did not diagnose autism. From what I have seen, evaluators do not diagnose autism lightly.

Look I guess if an autism diagnosis helps someone then it almost doesn't matter at this point - it's SO broad.
Maintly - diagnosticians are losing credibility due to the word 'social deficits'. It's COMPLETELY subjective. A kid could have no friends in one school and tons in another. Does that mean they have 'social deficits'? we need a better measure of autism.

Do you know a child diagnosed with autism in this situation or are you just making up hypotheticals?

DP. My child with the dx has more friends than I did at his age. (I’m not on the spectrum.) So yeah there are questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

What are you trying to say?

You are suggesting that I said masking means the child has no symptoms of autism at school. I have said repeatedly that masking does not eliminate the symptoms. The symptoms are there. They might not look like what you or another untrained person would expect. That does NOT mean it is not autism.

It is preposterous, disingenuous and offensive to suggest that you are allowed to unilaterally erase someone's diagnosis because it is not obvious to you. You are not trained to diagnose autism. It might not look like what you think it looks like. Sorry, not sorry.

A person trained to diagnose it based on the criteria in the DSM will recognize the symptoms if they are there. If they are not there they should not diagnose. I know a few people who have suspected autism in their children, gotten them evaluated and the evaluator did not diagnose autism. From what I have seen, evaluators do not diagnose autism lightly.

Look I guess if an autism diagnosis helps someone then it almost doesn't matter at this point - it's SO broad.
Maintly - diagnosticians are losing credibility due to the word 'social deficits'. It's COMPLETELY subjective. A kid could have no friends in one school and tons in another. Does that mean they have 'social deficits'? we need a better measure of autism.

Do you know a child diagnosed with autism in this situation or are you just making up hypotheticals?

do i know kids diagnosed with autism who appear neurotypical and have at minimum several friends? Yes of course, assume we all do - that's the whole conversation.

And how does this affect you?

It affects me because I have a diagnosis for my child that doesn’t make sense to any of his teachers or therapists and yields no effective therapies, because the dsm is too inept or too lazy to come up with more than one or two ‘answers’ to any childhood neurodiversity. And I know I’m not alone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

What are you trying to say?

You are suggesting that I said masking means the child has no symptoms of autism at school. I have said repeatedly that masking does not eliminate the symptoms. The symptoms are there. They might not look like what you or another untrained person would expect. That does NOT mean it is not autism.

It is preposterous, disingenuous and offensive to suggest that you are allowed to unilaterally erase someone's diagnosis because it is not obvious to you. You are not trained to diagnose autism. It might not look like what you think it looks like. Sorry, not sorry.

A person trained to diagnose it based on the criteria in the DSM will recognize the symptoms if they are there. If they are not there they should not diagnose. I know a few people who have suspected autism in their children, gotten them evaluated and the evaluator did not diagnose autism. From what I have seen, evaluators do not diagnose autism lightly.

Look I guess if an autism diagnosis helps someone then it almost doesn't matter at this point - it's SO broad.
Maintly - diagnosticians are losing credibility due to the word 'social deficits'. It's COMPLETELY subjective. A kid could have no friends in one school and tons in another. Does that mean they have 'social deficits'? we need a better measure of autism.

Do you know a child diagnosed with autism in this situation or are you just making up hypotheticals?

DP. My child with the dx has more friends than I did at his age. (I’m not on the spectrum.) So yeah there are questions.

Np - yes this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

What are you trying to say?

You are suggesting that I said masking means the child has no symptoms of autism at school. I have said repeatedly that masking does not eliminate the symptoms. The symptoms are there. They might not look like what you or another untrained person would expect. That does NOT mean it is not autism.

It is preposterous, disingenuous and offensive to suggest that you are allowed to unilaterally erase someone's diagnosis because it is not obvious to you. You are not trained to diagnose autism. It might not look like what you think it looks like. Sorry, not sorry.

A person trained to diagnose it based on the criteria in the DSM will recognize the symptoms if they are there. If they are not there they should not diagnose. I know a few people who have suspected autism in their children, gotten them evaluated and the evaluator did not diagnose autism. From what I have seen, evaluators do not diagnose autism lightly.

Look I guess if an autism diagnosis helps someone then it almost doesn't matter at this point - it's SO broad.
Maintly - diagnosticians are losing credibility due to the word 'social deficits'. It's COMPLETELY subjective. A kid could have no friends in one school and tons in another. Does that mean they have 'social deficits'? we need a better measure of autism.

Do you know a child diagnosed with autism in this situation or are you just making up hypotheticals?

DP. My child with the dx has more friends than I did at his age. (I’m not on the spectrum.) So yeah there are questions.

Np - yes this

DP. Yeah, and the friends all have ADHD, which there are more of now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Btw masking does not mean a person with autism is trying to hide they have autism. It means they have adapted to society's expectations to a certain extent even though it is uncomfortable or not intuitive for them. They may not know they have autism. They may have simply realized people expect them to use eye contact, for example, because adults have told them to look at people when they talk to them. Adults tell this to young children all the time.

a person who can adapt to the point they do not appear autistic by definition has normal social-communication learning ability and is not autistic.

Autism is a brain disorder - what is going on *inside* the brain is what makes the condition, not *only* what you can see on the outside.

Or are you saying a magician who can convincingly perform an illusion has, by definition, actually performed magic?

Autism is NOT a “brain disorder”. It is a disorder defined by behaviors. So no, there cannot be hidden autism. I’m confused why this is even a question- if your kid shows no outward social-communication issues, rigidity, etc, why do you think they should be diagnosed with autism.

DP they actually DO have outward social communication issues, rigidity, etc. This has been stated in different ways throughout this thread. The way these issues manifest, however, are not always recognized as symptoms of autism by people who aren't trained to diagnose autism.

Well that’s very different from other claims being made about “masking.”

No it isn't. Masking makes them look different from what you would expect but it does not erase them. Again this has been stated in different ways throughout this thread.

The idea that a child is “masking” such that they are having no symptoms of autism at school is just not tenable. That’s the point. And yes the symptoms have to look like what you “expect” otherwise its not autism. I’m not a huge fan of the DSM but this drive to claim autism can be diagnosed in the absence of the DSM criteria is just silly. Autism *by definition* is not hidden. It’s not like a physical disorder that may be silent, like a brain tumor or something.

You completely and probably intentionally mischaracterizing what I have said.

What are you trying to say?

You are suggesting that I said masking means the child has no symptoms of autism at school. I have said repeatedly that masking does not eliminate the symptoms. The symptoms are there. They might not look like what you or another untrained person would expect. That does NOT mean it is not autism.

It is preposterous, disingenuous and offensive to suggest that you are allowed to unilaterally erase someone's diagnosis because it is not obvious to you. You are not trained to diagnose autism. It might not look like what you think it looks like. Sorry, not sorry.

A person trained to diagnose it based on the criteria in the DSM will recognize the symptoms if they are there. If they are not there they should not diagnose. I know a few people who have suspected autism in their children, gotten them evaluated and the evaluator did not diagnose autism. From what I have seen, evaluators do not diagnose autism lightly.

Look I guess if an autism diagnosis helps someone then it almost doesn't matter at this point - it's SO broad.
Maintly - diagnosticians are losing credibility due to the word 'social deficits'. It's COMPLETELY subjective. A kid could have no friends in one school and tons in another. Does that mean they have 'social deficits'? we need a better measure of autism.

Do you know a child diagnosed with autism in this situation or are you just making up hypotheticals?

do i know kids diagnosed with autism who appear neurotypical and have at minimum several friends? Yes of course, assume we all do - that's the whole conversation.

And how does this affect you?

It affects me because I have a diagnosis for my child that doesn’t make sense to any of his teachers or therapists and yields no effective therapies, because the dsm is too inept or too lazy to come up with more than one or two ‘answers’ to any childhood neurodiversity. And I know I’m not alone

I can see how that would be frustrating.