I’ve been internet-diagnosed with autism plenty of times, but the one time I went to get evaluated, they said I didn’t have “it.”
But if it’s a spectrum with different combinations of different traits at different levels of intensity, maybe a diagnosis is irrelevant and what matters is what your constellation of traits actually is, regardless of an official diagnosis (which, let’s face it, is probably highly subjective outside of some constellations–that is to say, with a long enough list of psychologits, I could probably get a dx).
Personally, for me, what this means is I can look to autistic literature to see what resonates with me without worrying about the fact that I don’t share many of the hard markers for autism. For instance, my investment in the truth often conflicts with social niceties even though I can read people’s emotions. I can see myself as an unofficially atypical person in a lot of ways.
I’ll leave my resonsances in the comments below. Feel free to share yours.
I do question the value of a diagnosis as “useful intel” because if you go in with a bunch of traits, but don’t get a diagnosis, you still have those traits. Likewise, if you do get a diagnosis, you still have those traits. The precise boundaries that the individual evaluator uses to determine autism is really the only thing you learn by getting evaluated.
I might steal “neurospicy” because it has no definition and people aren’t going to gatekeep it as much.
Thank you for your kindness.
The precise bounderies the particular evaluator uses to determine ASD can at the minimum contain info about the local autism landscape created by that person who works your area. For better or worse. It’s useful to know what definitions that are being applied to people by a professional in your local area. People with medical authority and considered well qualified to diagnose ASD are not large in number at times within a local area, so very much influence the local definitions.
Establishing definitions is so important when communicating with people, local or otherwise. The concepts circle back to the Oxford method again.