[SolaceQuantum]

Calling people who have autism to not have "real autism" is a misinterpretation of the many behaviors associated with autism and why it may be considered neurodivergence or a developmental illness instead.

There are people who are non-verbal but sign or write perfectly well, what are they considered?

There are people who are very vocal but speak with an awkward cadence and have mood swings, are they "really autistic"?

There are people who are verbally eloquent but constantly participate in stim behavior and need constant observation to make sure they clothe, bathe, and feed themselves appropriately, do they have "real autism"?

There are people who may be able to hold down a part time job but cannot have a full time position because they have no capacity towards basic organizational skills necessary to have regular hours, do they have "real autism"?

There are people who are nonverbal and constantly stim and have severe learning disabilities but have enough organizational ability to hold full-time hours in, say, construction, because they're highly organized and don't have sensory problems with the work. Do they have "real autism"?

Autism is complicated because it is more a set of descriptions of related symptoms, in which each individual may have more or less of each symptom. From what I understand, autism can't be viewed as a "rating" of better or worse autism. Instead it should be viewed as a gradient of behaviors, individually are considered more or less functional.

I should also note that your language is highly dehumanizing to your bother, emphasizing on the impact of his autism on the people around him, and defining "real autism" not by symptoms but by how it affects non-autistic people. I don't believe this is much different than trying to direct a conversation about autism to making it a conversation about how hard it is to be a non-autistic and live with autistic people.

EDIT: Of note, I agree that it may be more pertinent to create different categories of autism based on the group of symptoms, but I'm not sure (and I don't know if there are studies) if they can be so easily teased apart as implied here.

[dang]

> I should also note that your language is highly dehumanizing to your brother

No, please don't do that here. It's patronizing and, given the story we just heard, crosses into personal attack.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[mannykannot]

> From what I understand, autism can't be viewed as a "rating" of better or worse autism.

For the sake of making a pedantic and spurious semantic argument, you are willing to ignore the life-altering severity of jklinger410's brother's symptoms.

> I don't believe this is much different than trying to direct a conversation about autism to making it a conversation about how hard it is to be a non-autistic and live with autistic people.

Here you are not only ignoring the very severe consequences that autism has for jklinger410's brother, you try to dismiss jklinger410's evident distress and concern as self-serving.

[SolaceQuantum]

He isn’t speaking for his brother; he is only speaking for his own pain in expressing frustration of how he has been impacted by “real autism”.

[mannykannot]

You should give consideration to the distinct possibility that the pain and frustration arises from his love for his brother.

[tejohnso]

> Autism is complicated because it is more a set of descriptions of related symptoms, in which each individual may have more or less of each symptom. From what I understand, autism can't be viewed as a "rating" of better or worse autism. Instead it should be viewed as a gradient of behaviors, individually are considered more or less functional.

I guess that's what the article is about, but it doesn't communicate the range as well as your post does. I wonder though, what's the purpose of having such an amorphous definition? The word becomes completely useless the more symptoms it describes. And the more symptoms it describes, the more unlikely it is that they're even at all related in terms of root cause and treatment. And I would think that results in a reduction in research progress.

> I agree that it may be more pertinent to create different categories of autism based on the group of symptoms

I know little about this topic, but this seems destined to fail and unnecessary. What's wrong with simply describing the actual symptoms? They're clear enough on their own. And boxing them up into a convenient single word diagnosis doesn't seem helpful at this stage of understanding.

For example:

> There are people who are non-verbal but sign or write perfectly well, what are they considered?

I would consider these as people who communicate well via non-verbal methods only.

> There are people who are very vocal but speak with an awkward cadence and have mood swings, are they "really autistic"?

Drop the autistic binary and just call them people with mood swings. Perhaps clarify that the mood swings can be disruptive and uncontrollable, or if that isn't the case, don't mention it at all because everybody has non-disruptive mood swings and deals with it. The awkward cadence doesn't even require mentioning if they can communicate effectively.

> There are people who are verbally eloquent but constantly participate in stim behavior and need constant observation to make sure they clothe, bathe, and feed themselves appropriately, do they have "real autism"?

The description stands on its own perfectly well without trying to determine if it's "autism". How does it help to make that distinction?

[SolaceQuantum]

I should note in the parent it is making a distinction between people who have autism and people who have “real autism”.

[smittywerben]

>> if the child thrashing his head against a wall and screaming at the top of his lungs because his brain registers every other sensation as pain and pain as pleasure

This is sad. Is this the right way for me to speak about it? Your just jerking your internet boner to someone who is in pain.

[dang]

It's not ok to attack someone else like this regardless of how wrong they are. We ban accounts that do it, so please don't do it again.

Instead, read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow this simple heuristic: if you have a substantive point to make, make it thoughtfully; if you don't, please don't comment until you do.

[smittywerben]

Apologies I'll simply report next time.

Moderation guidelines on 'Depression' posts here are consistent and progressive[0].

Other disorders are filled with comments that routinely disgrace medical research. I'd still like to see these threads as impartial as Depression.

Looking around this post, you addressed most of the issues, so I appreciate that.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16491986