Number (3) has better explanatory powers than (1).

However, for the purpose of assessing social and family impact, it is rendered to (1). Both schools and state (US) programs use (1) to assess if a child qualifies for support. This is not always related to how to parent or educate the child.

Fortunately, the US school system with IEP (individualized educational plans) are developed along (3). (Source: two of my kids have ASD)

None of that necessarily helps in informal social contexts or in professional workplace settings. I think the American Disabilities Act covers reasonable accommodations for people with autism spectrum disorders, though I am not sure if it requires legal disabled status.

Lastly: I met a Native (Navajo) family with a child that seems to me, have some developmental disabilities — but I think they take a very different approach. For one, they don’t seem to have the usual social stigma associated with this, and are baffled why I would suggest getting state support for early childhood intervention. If anything, I would not be surprised if they thought I was, yet again, someone unthinkingly pushing a colonialist worldview.

▲

Pet_Ant 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Number (3) has better explanatory powers than (1). However, for the purpose of assessing social and family impact, it is rendered to (1).

My first thought was is (1) more of a projection of (3) from multiple dimensions to one, or more like the magnitude.

Also, it is known thing or are "trains" a euphemism now like "friend of Dorothy"?

	▲	munificent 7 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Also, it is known thing or are "trains" a euphemism now like "friend of Dorothy"? I meant it only as a reference that one of the common characteristic symptoms of autism is a deep focus on some topic of special interest. In boys with autism, trains, cars, or other machines are a common one.
	▲	dfxm12 an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It's the punchline to a meme. This is one example: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgeiEh... I don't think it's quite the same as calling yourself or someone else a "friend of Dorothy". People who say they are into trains usually precisely mean they are into trains.
	▲	tbrownaw 37 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		While that word does get used to refer to people sometimes, it's afaik always hostile (slur rather than euphemism).