Responding to all the "This is untrue and unsupported by evidence" statements. In the context of this thread, which is addressing a scientific article.
> Autism is a socioculturally bound diagnosis
I'm making a normative claim here, so your criticism is correct, as this is not a scientifically testable claim at all. I'm loosely an adherent of the social model of disability[1].
> It's a label for those perceived by others in a certain light
First, you later agreed with this statement later when you said "You diagnose all disorders based on observable phenomena" so this criticism is incoherent and I'm not convinced you even disagree with me so much as misunderstand me. Scientifically I'd point out the DSM-V-TR defines autism observationally[2] and the CDC's research on autism uses said definitions[9]. That is evidence supporting what I say.
> defined in such a way that two with the same label can have remarkably little overlap in terms of observed behaviour
I'll again point to the DSM-V-TR[1] where two individuals can satisfy section B of the criteria with no overlap whatsoever. The only necessary behavioural commonality are various social deficits. I'll also point out there are three categories of autistics depending on support needs.
More blithely and common-sense like, I'll just point out most people do not see all that much common in the behaviour of Elon Musk and some autistic in a full time care home who cannot dress or bathe themselves. The Autistic Spectrum also literally used to be split into 3 separate diagnosis's diagnosed based partially on behaviour, and how was that ever even possible or contemplated if people never believed there was a significant difference in autistic's behaviours?
---
>Any biological markers for autism are politically suspect - What is this lysenkoism
I have not scientifically researched this specific point, but some historical background: Autism genetics research projects have been cancelled by patient backlash [3] where autism genetics projects were scuttled upon popular backlash. "Autistic psychopaths" in the past were subject to Euthanasia, forced sterilisation, and encouraged to voluntarily sterilised themselves by the Nazi regime[4] which raises obvious questions as to the utility of biological testing to enable a future eugenics regime which may also include new technologies like pre-natal testing. While not biological testing, we can see that there is political backlash against cognitive testing[5] to determine social supports for autism. We have also seen the rise of self-diagnosis[6] with it defended as being more accessible than physician diagnosis and based on the lack of evidence that it's LESS accurate than physician diagnosis which historically has been subjected to multiple definitional changes[7] and bias in terms of access to diagnosis itself[8]. Ergo, unless this serves as a method of diagnosis more accurate than physician diagnosis, it will be subject to the same criticism.
> as it would imply those without those markers are invalid - Are you saying that in your view biology has some ability to mark people as valid or invalid?
I'm making a claim about others belief if biology should be used to establish the validity or invalidity of autism. It's my belief that the recognition of biological markers of autism would be vigorously protested by patients and advocacy groups because of what I just brought up.
> Autism is a socioculturally bound diagnosis
I'm making a normative claim here, so your criticism is correct, as this is not a scientifically testable claim at all. I'm loosely an adherent of the social model of disability[1].
> It's a label for those perceived by others in a certain light
First, you later agreed with this statement later when you said "You diagnose all disorders based on observable phenomena" so this criticism is incoherent and I'm not convinced you even disagree with me so much as misunderstand me. Scientifically I'd point out the DSM-V-TR defines autism observationally[2] and the CDC's research on autism uses said definitions[9]. That is evidence supporting what I say.
> defined in such a way that two with the same label can have remarkably little overlap in terms of observed behaviour
I'll again point to the DSM-V-TR[1] where two individuals can satisfy section B of the criteria with no overlap whatsoever. The only necessary behavioural commonality are various social deficits. I'll also point out there are three categories of autistics depending on support needs.
More blithely and common-sense like, I'll just point out most people do not see all that much common in the behaviour of Elon Musk and some autistic in a full time care home who cannot dress or bathe themselves. The Autistic Spectrum also literally used to be split into 3 separate diagnosis's diagnosed based partially on behaviour, and how was that ever even possible or contemplated if people never believed there was a significant difference in autistic's behaviours?
---
>Any biological markers for autism are politically suspect - What is this lysenkoism
I have not scientifically researched this specific point, but some historical background: Autism genetics research projects have been cancelled by patient backlash [3] where autism genetics projects were scuttled upon popular backlash. "Autistic psychopaths" in the past were subject to Euthanasia, forced sterilisation, and encouraged to voluntarily sterilised themselves by the Nazi regime[4] which raises obvious questions as to the utility of biological testing to enable a future eugenics regime which may also include new technologies like pre-natal testing. While not biological testing, we can see that there is political backlash against cognitive testing[5] to determine social supports for autism. We have also seen the rise of self-diagnosis[6] with it defended as being more accessible than physician diagnosis and based on the lack of evidence that it's LESS accurate than physician diagnosis which historically has been subjected to multiple definitional changes[7] and bias in terms of access to diagnosis itself[8]. Ergo, unless this serves as a method of diagnosis more accurate than physician diagnosis, it will be subject to the same criticism.
> as it would imply those without those markers are invalid - Are you saying that in your view biology has some ability to mark people as valid or invalid?
I'm making a claim about others belief if biology should be used to establish the validity or invalidity of autism. It's my belief that the recognition of biological markers of autism would be vigorously protested by patients and advocacy groups because of what I just brought up.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability [2] (please forgive the source - DSM-V-TR is under copyright) https://www.reddit.com/r/aspergirls/comments/th9hku/dsm5tr_n... [3] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-profile-auti... [4] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36236157-asperger-s-chil... [5] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/direct-family-sup... [6] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/neurodiverse-age/201... [7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9365987/ [8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8924013/ [9] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html