But going by the strict notion of DSM-V criteria of providing a hindrance, we hit the somewhat problematic definition whereby a person can have autism at one point in their life (when it hinders them in a context), moves into another point or context in their life (where it does not) and therefore they do not or would not meet the criteria for having autism if they sought a diagnosis at that point in time, and then move back into another point or context in their life where it hinders them and so now they meet the criteria and presumably have autism again.

Now, needless to say, this is not how anyone actually thinks about psychiatric or psychological issues in practice, especially with conditions such as autism, and just highlights the relative absurdity of some of the diagnostic metrics, practices and definitions.

What we tend to do is tie the diagnosis of autism to the individual identity and assume that it is a consistent category and applicative diagnosis that stays with a person over time because it is biological. We know, of course, that this is despite not having any working biological test for it, and diagnosing it via environmental and behavioural contexts. And don't even get me started on tying in diagnosis of aspergers/autistic individuals with broadly differing abilities and performance metrics on a range of metrics under the one condition such that the non-verbals and low-functioning side of neurotypicals get lumped in with the high iq and hyper-verbal high-functioning aspergers as having the same related condition even though neurotypicals are closer to the non-verbals and low-iqs on the same metrics and scores.

The entire field and classification system, along with the popular way of thinking about the condition is, if i might editorialise, an absolute mess.

▲

RobotToaster 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

A person without legs does not stop being disabled because they have no need or desire to walk. The fact remains that should they need or desire to walk in the future the hinderance will still very much exist.

A similar example could be made of someone with gluten intolerance. If they do not eat foods that contain gluten they are still gluten intolerant. They are however still disabled by needing to stay in that situation.

	▲	ACow_Adonis an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Ah yes, but that results in two problems. Firstly a fish without legs objectively does not have legs, but we do not necessarily call it disabled, even though it clearly lacks a facility. Secondly, the autism spectrum disorders are, as I previously mentioned, not obviously just about deficits of behaviours or functions but also can take in extended and exceptional abilities in some areas and greater sensitivities rather than deficits or lack of an ability, so it is not clear that the entire diagnosis can be defined by deficits or lacking things. The high functioning and Asperger's type diagnosis is not about a universal deficit diagnosis and we do not generally call neuro-typical humans disabled because they lack prodigious activity or interest in math, language, or other subjects, even though that can also objectively be measured and called a deficit.

▲

roywiggins 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Being reliant on a particular life situation does strike me as a hindrance in and of itself. Maybe more of a macro limitation than a day-to-day one, but a reasonable definition could encompass that, too.