Aspies For Freedom

I feel fortunate that the (male) psychologist who diagnosed me is on the spectrum himself...which I would not have guessed from meeting him, since he seems to make eye contact in the conventional way, didn't noticeably stim during the appointment, overall "blends in."  (He later mentioned trouble he has picking up social cues, and the difficulty this causes him in his relationships.)  He took longer than usual to mull over my case, seeing schizoid-like aspects to me that made the final diagnosis a close call.  I don't know if either of us would have seen autistic traits in the other if we had met under different circumstances; we each seem to be at the near-NT end of the spectrum.  How frustrating it must be to deal with a doctor who immediately rules out autism simply because of gender...

Great topic- this is one of the areas I'm most interested in and where a lot of my research will be focussed after I graduate from College (many years from now, since I'm only in highschool now).  Since it's my current Special Interest (the term I prefer to "obsession"), I think about it and plan it out even though it will be years before I'm doing it.
I'll be taking a two pronged approach, maybe more if my research points that way.
First I'm going to examine diagnostician prejudice.  I'll start with a survey, which will include questions about how many girls vs. boys get referred to them, how many girls vs. boys they actually diagnose, what they believe the male-to-female ratio is in the overall population, and what they believe an autistic female "looks like".  Then I am trying to plan an actual experiment where previously diagnosed females will be sent to the participating diagnosticians, who will be asked to evaluate them.  We'll see how many of them they actually manage to correctly identify as autistic.

That is the first prong.  The second is to examine the way autism presents itself in females and whether or not there are differences in traits between females and males, as well as whether or not autistic females are harder to identify because of gender roles.
I haven't got as detailed a plan for this part; it's too complicated and it doesn't lend itself well to experiments.  I will probably at least begin with some surveys and do some case studies and such.  Hopefully having some actual instruction and experience in the field under my belt will help me form this plan better.

It's my personal belief that the rate of autism is approximately the same in females as in males.  There is currently a reported difference of 4 males to 1 female.  I would like to know where this number comes from.  I suspect it is from diagnosis rates.  These are heavily flawed.  I expect diagnostician bias can account for nearly all of this difference, and that the rest will be made up by the differences- for whatever reason- between the way females and males present traits, which would cause many females to slip through the cracks, as it were.  Unfortunately, I have seen that many professionals, if not most or all of them, take this number for gospel truth and act is if it were established fact.  As far as I know, it is a practically untested assumption.  Whole theories of causation and of services needed are based on this unexamined assumption.  Until it is examined, we can't possibly have accurate science coming out about autism.

I played with dolls, but mostly in one of two ways- most frequently I put their clothes on and then took them off, on and off, on and off, on and off, all day.  Usually I did this while making up a story in my head, but I didn't speak it or act it out, so no one could tell.  The other way I played with dolls was to make up these mind-bogglingly bizarre stories and act them out with the dolls- usually involving kidnapping, mistaken identities, evil spells, long journeys, and many changes of clothing.  A favorite of mine was to have the weather get cold and then I would put as many layers of clothes as possible on the same doll, one over the other, and then when it warmed up I took them off.
This was part of my ongoing obsession with clothing, which began at an early age and is markedly different from typical NT interest in clothing- I never cared about brands, designers, labels, styles, trends, or even what other people were wearing, I just loved clothing itself, as an art medium, and I loved the sensations surrounding it.  But of course, to most outsiders it seems just like a typical girl's interest in fashion, since I am always talking about clothes.  They don't notice the difference.  And I have had people who know about asperger's say I can't possibly have it because "aspies don't care about clothes".  Well, actually, a lot of us do (at least a little!), as I have learned from this website!  

In terms of tom-boy-ish-ness.  I was kind of in-between.  I climbed trees, caught snakes (as well as just about any wild animal I could get my hands on- I just had a particular gift with snakes, and have never been bitten), was rude and wild and made up fantastic adventure games.  At my school, when we played capture the flag, we'd send people to sneak through the woods to the other side to get the flag.  I was always one of the sneaky ones.  And I had a reputation as one of the fastest kids in the school.  I still am, although now I can only sprint for about a minute before I am no longer capable of breathing (untreated asthma.   ).  But I wore pink, I wore dresses, I wore frills- not every day, but enough.  I was wildly emotional (still am) and the littlest things made me cry.  I hung out with boys, but my two closest friends were girls (a pair of identical twins, actually!  Their names were Jewels and Lia), and they were real girly-girls, although they were less girly than most (probably due to my influence).
So, I fell in-between.  My parents never tried to force any gender roles on me.  The furthest extent of that was that my mother would always ask me if I was going to wear makeup or jewelry, when we were going out to a play or something.  She never pressed, but she always asked.  I went through a phase where I occasionally wore makeup, but it didn't last very long.  It's too much of a bother.  I do wear jewelry, though- I never take off my commitment ring or the necklace my bf gave me.  Other than that, I usually wear a pair of earrings, sometimes two pairs (double piercings), and occasionally a bracelet or a second necklace.
I think I'm in some ways more girly now than I was as a kid, which is funny because if anything I'm less likely to sway to social rules now than I was then.  Back then, I just didn't notice them- but if anyone pressured me, I usually broke.  Now, I do notice them more often, and I get upset when I'm pressured, but I don't back down.  I have a stronger set of values, ideologies, and philosophies now than I used to.  And it's against my philosophy to do something only because other people think I should or expect me to.  I do what I want.  That doesn't mean I act totally insane (by most people's standards), because I don't just do things at random, either.  I do what makes sense to me.  I'm not comfortable being nude, therefore I wear clothing.  I don't want to hurt anyone, therefore I don't fight with people.  I don't like pink, therefore I don't wear it.  Etc.

Not to further derail this thread, but girls can and do masturbate, too, you know.  And we could do it in public if we wanted.  So no, I don't really see how that is a big gender difference.

Speaking as a female who has worn both "male clothes" and "female clothes" (including both boys' pants and girls' pants) this is bullshit.  And actually, also speaking from experience (unfortunately), it's a hell of a lot easier for a girl to masturbate without removing any clothing at all than for a guy, but every bit as obvious to those around her.
Unless you can actually produce a study showing that there is any difference at all in the reported numbers of male autistics and female autistics who have masturbated in public, I will not accept your theory.  Even then, I may not accept your "evidence"- after all, the diagnosis rate shows a ratio of 1:4 girls to boys, but I doubt that is even remotely accurate.  Why should the biases that lead to this innacurate number not also affect other studies?  I've actually seen several very promising studies fail to achieve accurate results because they began from faulty premises, such as the premise that boys are more likely to be autistic than girls.

I have known a hell of a lot of people on the spectrum, of more or less all ends, excepting fragile X and rett syndrome (although I did once date a chick with the latter), and have never known anybody masturbate in public, done it to/for a few women, but never seen one do it themselves

Disclaimer: above post is salacious, I'm in a wierd mood, so sue me

Hi Ender
Welcome to AFF.

Especially since gender (as opposed to biological sex) is ENTIRELY a construct of society- gender roles are different in different cultures, etc.  And to say that just because someone doesn't fit the gender role your society expects them too, they are disordered- that's disgusting.  Who even NEEDS a gender identity in the first place?
I know I'm odd in this respect, but to me gender AND biological sex are virtually meaningless.  I'm bi, so what do I care if you're male or female?  Meaningless.  And I care more about what kind of a person someone is than any ridiculous roles they are expected to fulfill.  Actually, I'm pretty much fed up with all the roles society has for us- age roles, social class roles, hell even fashion roles (i.e, if you dress goth you are expected to "act goth", and if you have unnaturally colored hair you MUST be a violent punk).  They're all made up, with no basis in reality, and they are there for the sole purpose of controlling and excluding people that don't fit into your group.
If you ask me, you'd be better off raising your son to ignore all that crap.  He'll be a lot happier feeling free to live his life the way he wants to, without feeling the need to kowtow to society's expectations.

P.S:  Hello, Ender and riches!  As you may have noticed, some people on this forum feel very strongly about societal roles!  Expect more rants in the future!  

What I really hate is the so-called "non conformist" groups like the goths used to be, which quickly become just another group to conform to.  If you don't do the look "right", you're horribly ridiculed and kicked out.  And yet they still call themselves non-conformist.  Being an actual non-conformist (as in, I don't avoid conforming like the plague, nor do I conform for the sake of conforming, but simply do what I want to do regardless of whether it is conforming or not; and most of the time it just happens to not be conforming, probably since the things we're expected to conform to are stupid), it makes me angry when this label is co-opted so hypocritically.  I usually don't refer to myself as a non-conformist because of it- people just roll their eyes, assuming that you are the usual hypocritical type of "non-conformist".  Instead I go for the same thing you did- I say, "I'm me", which is far more accurate anyway.

Ah, but no!  Because I don't avoid conforming just because it's conforming.  So I'm not conforming to *not* conforming, because I don't always do things that are not conforming.
For example, I wear clothes.
I also follow most laws.
These are also conforming to societal rules, but I happen to like those particular rules.
So I am not conforming to conformity, nor am I conforming to non-conformity.  So I'm not conforming at all!

Of course, at this point it all gets rather silly.  You can't really break it down that much.  
And that's another shortcoming of so-called "non conformists"- they take it way too seriously!

^_^;  Thank you!  I am 16.

A thought-provoking article I read in the latest New Scientist magazine was "Brains Apart", about the differences gender makes in how the brain functions.  (Link below)
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/bein...sexes.html

What I found interesting was the quote: " Most of what we know about the brain comes from studies of male animals and male human volunteers.  If even a small proportion of what has been inferred from these studies does not apply to females, it means a uge body of research has been built on shaky foundations.  Working out exactly how women are different could explain some long-running mysteries, such as why men and women are prone to different mental health problems and why some drugs work well for one sex but have little effect on the other."  Another quote, from a researcher currently looking into the differences: "Women are the most common pain sufferers, (different drugs have now been shown to affect the genders in very divergent ways) yet our model for pain research is the male rate.  Every year we see a paper that says that something reported earlier is actually only true in males.  We keep missing suff completely."

If this is so, then autism in women should be recognised and researched more; it could be that we just process things differently and have different responses to our autie brothers.  Doesn't mean we're not autistic, just gender-specific autistic.
Alison

No! Never grumpy!

I've thought along somewhat similar lines and come up with much the same answer - I don't know if I would want to be friends with myself because I can't see myself from anybody else's perspective.

There is also an exercise that can be done to ease childhood hurts - imagine yourself as a small child who has been insulted/rejected/suffered a big disappointment and then been comforted by the adult you.

I can remember something of what I used to think in those days but can't imagine how I could comfort the younger version of myself although I could comfort another child who I know was hurt. Maybe it means I can't see how I would have expressed hurt back then.

It seems kind of odd and I wonder if aspieness has anything to do with the lack of imagination.