Or it could be the strict formalization of psychiatric studies, combined with the more broad based diagnosis and categorization of the school aged working class.
Is autism diagnosis really that formalized?
I was tutoring psych the other day, and the book the student had still claimed that women were much less likely to be autistic. It’s fascinating how many women don’t get diagnosed well into their thirties. It makes me really wonder what is being used to diagnosis autism, and how much of it might be affected by the tester’s bias and beliefs.
(Personally, I’ve always wanted to be tested but the 12 month plus waiting list and the $5k not covered by insurance means that I’ll probably continue going through the rest of my life without any form of work accommodation…)
(Personally, I’ve always wanted to be tested but the 12 month plus waiting list and the $5k not covered by insurance means that I’ll probably continue going through the rest of my life without any form of work accommodation…)
Not unusual for kids to be picked out in grade school and referred for further diagnosis. But yeah, I can definitely get not wanting to bother going out of pocket on something like that as an adult. Not unless there’s a pressing need.
True facts. Unlike things like Fragile X Syndrome that have clear sex-based biological mechanisms behind prevalence rate differences (see below for example), I think the gender discrepancies don’t actually exist for most Disabilities. Raise all kiddos without racialized and gendered societal expectations, and prevalence rates will mostly come out in the wash (this is a broad sweeping statement that completely lacks nuance, but work with me).
(Example: people with 1 X chromosome present Fragile X Syndrome more frequently because there is only 1 X chromosome to carry the genetic load of the X chromosome, typically people with 2+ X Chromosomes present less (unless multiple copies carry it) because the non-affected X chromosomes can pick up the slack).
Is autism diagnosis really that formalized?
I was tutoring psych the other day, and the book the student had still claimed that women were much less likely to be autistic. It’s fascinating how many women don’t get diagnosed well into their thirties. It makes me really wonder what is being used to diagnosis autism, and how much of it might be affected by the tester’s bias and beliefs.
(Personally, I’ve always wanted to be tested but the 12 month plus waiting list and the $5k not covered by insurance means that I’ll probably continue going through the rest of my life without any form of work accommodation…)
Certainly moreso than a generation ago.
Not unusual for kids to be picked out in grade school and referred for further diagnosis. But yeah, I can definitely get not wanting to bother going out of pocket on something like that as an adult. Not unless there’s a pressing need.
Primarily children of one gender presentation, to this day. Which again, makes me very curious as to the validity of the “autism” construct.
True facts. Unlike things like Fragile X Syndrome that have clear sex-based biological mechanisms behind prevalence rate differences (see below for example), I think the gender discrepancies don’t actually exist for most Disabilities. Raise all kiddos without racialized and gendered societal expectations, and prevalence rates will mostly come out in the wash (this is a broad sweeping statement that completely lacks nuance, but work with me).
(Example: people with 1 X chromosome present Fragile X Syndrome more frequently because there is only 1 X chromosome to carry the genetic load of the X chromosome, typically people with 2+ X Chromosomes present less (unless multiple copies carry it) because the non-affected X chromosomes can pick up the slack).