[shutupnerd0000]

> In my opinion, though, in many cases this is not autism but rather autism with an accompanying intellectual disability

That's just like, your opinion, man.

If autism warrants needing help with daily living then it's a disorder by definition.

[john01dav]

There are two ways that something can lead to needing help with daily living:

- society rejects the trait without good reason, so then someone needs help to deal with this rejection

- the trait leads to an inability to do something that the person wants to do, irrespective of any societal concerns

I am okay with calling the latter a disorder, but not the former. The traits that are recognized as part of autism (social incompatibilities, stimming, special interests, hyper or hyposensitivity — these are the DSM traits for autism rephrased more politely) are clearly in the former case. Traits that lead to being unable to function (such as an inability to feed one's self) are not on this list, but rather are characterized by intellectual disability.

[shutupnerd0000]

Do you always reply with definitions you invented on the spot to justify your view of reality?

[john01dav]

It wasn't invented on the spot. In the past, I have thought extensively about what should be considered a disorder, if the concept of "disorder" is even coherent, and how this applies to what treatments should be performed, available, and researched.

[AnthonyMouse]

Is it unreasonable in your view to distinguish between an intrinsic limitation and an externally culturally imposed one?