I would like to read more about those researches that prove the causation.

E.g. Asperger was introduced into the DSM-IV in 1994 and will be removed in the DSM-5 in 2013.
Introducing and removing physical illnesses as a diagnosis (broken arm, brain tumor) would be crazy, but in the case of 'mental disorders' in the DSM this seems okay.
Remember homosexuality and the DSM ? Introduced as a mental disorder in 1952. Removed in 1973.

It's commonly accepted that autism probably has a genetic factor due to clearly observable heredity.
Regarding the head thing:
I am autistic and have a large head.
My girlfriend is NT and her head is the same size as mine.
This 2 case study is inconclusive

There was nothing wrong with phrenology as a theory. It's general acceptance despite a lack of satisfactory evidence was illogical to say the least, but in psychology theories are disproven rather than proven.

Not at all. On the contrary.
No point in 'curing' homosexuality either.

It's commonly accepted that autism probably has a genetic factor due to clearly observable heredity.
Regarding the head thing:
I am autistic and have a large head.
My girlfriend is NT and her head is the same size as mine.
This 2 case study is inconclusive

There was nothing wrong with phrenology as a theory. It's general acceptance despite a lack of satisfactory evidence was illogical to say the least, but in psychology theories are disproven rather than proven.

Yes, commonly accepted. But after I dug deeper into the genetic claims -and there are quite a lot- I found it's never proven.

The very interesting part about the social construct theory is that it can make bold claims, like: A genetic basis for autism will never be found. This is easily disproven: Find the genetic basis.
- If autism is a social construct (like slavery), autism is a label, not a mental disorder or something physically existing.
- Talents, headsize, specific hobby's, communication with people etc. are all real and can either be positieve or negative.
- Autism as a mental disorder makes no sense: There's no cure -and will be none, and it's insulting-, no medication and no biochemical background.

I'm aware some people will argue "well, they will find the genetic basis eventually", but genetic research is relatively cheap and millions are spent already by lots of autism researchers having spent lots of time.
And no proof yet, only vague claims.
E.g. The chance of the second person of monozygotic twins also having autism is only 90%. These MZ twins are genetically identical. For a genetic basis for autism you would need 100%!

Twins can be genetically identical but have physical and mental differences including conditions/diseases which are known to have a genetic link.

"clearly observable heredity". Genetics are not the be all and end all but there seems to be an obvious link.

Of course, genetic claims have never been proven. That's why it's called a theory.

It seems to me like the social construct theory has some validity to it. Most people are, after all, a product of their surroundings. The big problem I have with it as it relates to autism is that I know that I'm incapable of thinking the way most people around me do. Even in situations where no one knows that I'm autistic, I can still see the differences. Other autistics I've talked to say the same thing. That tells me that there must be some neurological difference.

I agree completely but as I've said, a genetic link seems obvious. That doesn't exclude other factors.
I have of course observed and talked to people about how they think etc. Problem solving skills also vary from person to person but are quite different in auties. Environment is often very similar; siblings for example.
I definitely think differently from NTs and I grew up in the same environment as many other people who are not autistic.
Also although no-one has yet found a definite physical component to autism itself, there are physical effects in the form of co... Co... (I hate it when I lose words) lupus etc. It's like saying wind has no physical form because you can't see the wind itself. But you can feel it and see it's effects.

I feel like I should point out that, while there is no conclusive proof of autism being genetic, there is also no proof of autism being a social construct. In the interest of playing by the same rules, I would like to ask that the social construct theory be proven to us.

If it were a complete working theory which could be used to help people then it wouldn't need proof; like everything else in psychology.
However, it is neither complete nor working thus it is of little consequence.

It is almost impossible to provide absolute proof of any genetic link for anything. What generally passes for proof is a strong correlation backed by observation.

And nobody is claiming that 100% of cases that are diagnosed as autism are 100% genetic. Diagnosis is, after all, subjective. I am actually very surprised that the chance of the second twin having autism is as high as 90%.

If you are trying to convince anyone that the social construct theory has validity, how about concentrating on that? Trying to prove that it isn't genetic is a dead-end street. And even if it can be proven that autism is partly, mostly or even wholly genetic, would that disprove the social construct theory? Of course not!

It does resemble a political campaign: vote for us because everyone else is ****.
That sort of argument does not convince me that the campeigning party is better and does not win my vote.

Personal experience again, please forgive me!  

I'm the only AS diagnosed among my siblings.    My husband has an older brother who is AS.  Our daughter is AS.  One of my sister's daughters is AS.  

Of the preschoolers I had who were AS diagnosed, there was a higher number of other AS chldren in the family than in the families of those who had NT children.  

It really does seem to run in families and be highly heritable, however, I suppose that would support the social construct theory as well, since we can then argue that the same social factors are at work.  I suppose in the long run it comes down to the old argument about nature versus nuture.

Interesting discussion.  

Alison

There's no natural division between a hurricane, a tropical storm, and a tropical depression, or between the different categories of hurricanes.  The dividing lines were drawn by humans in places that are essentially arbitrary in order to give us a way of distinguishing between different severities of storms.  However, even if the borders are arbitrary, there is a very clear difference between a tropical depression and a category 5 hurricane.  Similarly, even though the dividing lines between the different autism spectrum classifications and between autistic and neurotypical are a human creation, there is a very real difference between someone who is LFA and someone who is NT.  This difference includes genetics, brain structure, and the resulting abilities/disabilities and behavioral differences.

The term "social construct" has been used in conjunction with race and ethnicity to reflect that they are labels placed on people by society based on their ancestry and cannot be determined from a person's genes or physical traits (even if they do correlate strongly with skin color).  This is clearly not the case with autism, even if the labels used may be flawed and not reflective of the genuine differences in biology.  Therefore, to call autism a social construct is misleading.

To call one colour red and another pink is simply recognising that there is a difference, not creating a difference. The colour pink used to be called red. That doesn't mean pink didn't exist before it had its own name. It was never the same as red. There are African tribes who cannot differentiate between the colour of the sky and the colour of coal. Their word for this colour translates to roughly to black. They havn't defined or acknowledged a difference and are oblivious to it. That does not mean there is no difference.