Autism Gone Too Far

Today I listened to this video of the neurobiologist Gina Rippon talking about Autism. You can listen to the interview on Facebook here. 

My response to Rippon's claims here is that her argument is incoherent. Yes there seems to be a gender bias inbuilt here, but not in the way she is suggesting. First, it is artificial: the bias was towards boys, now the bias is towards girls and women. What previously you thought was normal in girls you now label autistic eg passionate about something eg animals, quiet and shy, perfectionist, cute. But how are you helping girls if you now consider their previously considered 'normal', neurotypical behaviours as suddenly a sign of neurological abnormality ie autistic? Has there always been a gender bias which means feminine or effeminate behaviours are seen as more abnormal? Hence, when a boy was passionate about animals he was seen as autistic. If the boy was less outgoing he was labelled autistic. Too emotional? Then the boy was seen as autistic when a girl wouldn't be because females are stereotyped as being more emotional. But: if he talked too much he was also autistic or ADHD although she was seen as just over talkative, over social - for who? A girl? 

It seems to me it's a form of controlling people through labelling their behaviour as you wish to interpret it. Something more objective like brain MRI scans, which should sufficiently show up brain developmental and neurological disorders are not taken to be diagnostically definitive. There's too much reliance on subjective observational assessment of supposed behaviours, which is far to open to prejudice and cognitive bias from the observer / diagnoser. 

It also seems to me that autism has become more of an ideology. It's a fashionable diagnosis at the moment. And one that is fast becoming nonsensical if there's no one set of coherent, clear and sufficiently disordered symptoms to track when making a diagnosis. No other condition has such a wildly different, and even highly contradictory, set of 'symptoms'. 

Many descriptions of autism are simply too typical, normal and mild to constitute something that can be plausibility considered a neurological and behavioural abnormality and atypical. Science is only just starting to deepen knowledge and research into just how broad the 'normal', naturally occurring range, and spectrum of neurological diversity, is. So it's too early to gain a proper understanding of what is within the normal, typical range and what falls into being atypical or abnormal for people's brains and neurology. How can we say what's abnormal yet when we still don't know enough about what is normal? 

What Rippon is describing isn't autism. It's just being an introvert, lacking self confidence, and maybe the result of bullying at school which can make girls socially awkward. Lots of girls do this. It doesn't make them autistic. It's not atypical enough. They're just trying to become popular at school. All children /teenagers do that. 

Autism is a broad spectrum. As WHO says autism is first and foremost a neurological condition related to brain development often co-occurring e.g. with epilepsy. It's a disorder related to sensory processing, repetitive behaviour, poor information processing, and inadequate motor skills. It's not about social interaction unless it's extremely debilitating or repetitive. An example of repetitive behaviour would be something like tourette syndrome although you're not necessarily autistic if you suffer from tourette syndrome. 

Autistic responses are, for instance, an over-sensitivity to the ticking of a clock, light, sound (loud noises) unusual reaction to sensations, difficulty transitioning from one activity to another to a problematic level causing extreme distress, aversion to touch, rocking and spinning, delayed speech, learning issues, walking on tiptoes, social confusion, fixation, flat speech, tics, difficulty understanding time concepts and so on. Fearing eye contact is also a typical syndrome. 

You should need several of these symptoms before you start diagnosing someone with autism. And they must be distinctively atypical otherwise a diagnosis that says they are atypical is meaningless and nonsense. 

However, autistic skills as put forward by SPOT Children's therapy centre (Hong Kong) are normal behaviours such as, creativity, deep thinking, long-term memory, logic, pattern spotting, being honest and loyal, compassionate, and a strong sense of justice. Yes, traits that normal people have and are abnormal if they don't! 

So what have these skills got to do with autism? These are very good skills everyone should possess. 

How daft is Psychology and Neurobiology? Psychology is applauding bigotry and dishonesty if it labels accepting differences, being generous, compassionate, truthful, with a strong sense of justice as positive autistic skills. It's like saying these are abnormal traits. Pardon? These are virtues not a mental disorder or a neurological problem! 

How can we turn moral traits, recognised for centuries as such, into atypical behaviours and neurologically abnormal? Maybe psychologists and neurobiologists today need to study philosophy and ethics! Even my Psychology A Level books described 'abnormality' properly, in depth, and far better than so-called experts today! How fast has Psychology and Neurobiology gone backwards in the last 20 years?! 

Autism is too baggy a term! You've covered just about everyone by claiming autism is about individual differences. This is especially serious and dangerous, given that autism can be categorised as a type of disability which requires specialist care. So it's preposterous to include normal, ethical behaviours as, in any way, being signs of such a severe medical category.