We’re Women with Autism – Not Mystical Imps, Sprites or Fairies….. Get it right.

Artwork by Devushka

Artwork by Devushka

Sorry to disappoint all of those who wish to believe that Women with Autism are made out of some kind of unique fairy dust that endows all of us with “special talents” or “super powers”, because we are not magical beings.

We are Women Wired Differently…. not Women Wired Magically.

Please stop confusing our different skill sets, ie, our tendency to focus on the finer details of life that often make us more likely to pick up on the inconsistencies that are usually hidden within the bigger picture that people present to us, with being the equivalent of having a “super power”, “gift”, “unearned talent” or whatever else some would like to call it.

The truth is, that for us, our intense focus on fine details, whilst it may have started out as a fascination, has also become a survival mechanism.

Our intense focus is not magical. It’s practical. It’s what we do when we can’t “read” a person’s level of sincerity simply by looking into their eyes, listening for and recognizing the tonality in their voice or knowing automatically whether or not a smile is authentic at a glance.

Yes we may see the world in ways that others do not, but it’s still the same world and we’re still viewing it with eyes that are made up of all of the same biological matter as everyone else’s eyes are.

Yes at times it may seem as if we see more, but that’s not because we’re psychic beings floating about in fairy dust, it’s simply because we look harder and longer at the simplest of gestures, in order to decipher and makes sense of them for ourselves.

When we feel an emotion, we often feel it deeply but that’s not because we’re “super empaths” or somehow magically connected to the pain of another, it’s because we feel in fine detail too.

Yes we have a degree of empathy for others that may run deeper than most, but that’s not because we’re psychic, it’s because we’re focused.

Just as we focus visually and intellectually on the finer points that others may have missed, we can also focus our feelings on the finer points of emotions that others may have by passed.

We feel all of our emotions often simultaneously specifically because we live our lives without the benefit of having the filters that other people apply to their thoughts, their feelings, even their ways of seeing.

Which is why we can become so overwhelmed by our emotions that it makes it difficult for us to talk about or even explain them.

The depth of our feelings does not make us magical beings simply because we can feel that which we cannot explain.

It in no way means that we are magical beings. It simply means that we are unfiltered beings.

We’re not made up of different stuff or fairy dust at all. We just don’t have a way of filtering out the world around us the way that other people do.

I know that some would like to believe that this state of affairs somehow also makes us “purer beings”…. but does it?

Does it really?

And isn’t the idea of “purity” also linked to “innocence”, which is also linked to “children”…. as in the “innocence of a child”…….

Just think about it. We’re not magical, we’re not pure and we’re not children. We’re Women who take in and understand the world differently simply because we see it differently.

Do we really want the realities of our lives as Autistic Women being overlooked and marginalized simply because we’re being linked to the infantile ideals and imagery that being viewed as either ‘supernatural’ or ‘overtly innocent beings’, brings along with it?


Asperger’s Syndrome’s missing trait

best-life-quote_325404-4 There are many websites, blogs and books that provide lists of traits that are purportedly said to be the common signs of Asperger’s Syndrome in Females.

However, each and every one of these lists has a tendency to focus exclusively on the outward signs of Asperger’s Syndrome in women.

Signs like:

‘difficulties with social interaction’,

‘dislike of small talk’,

‘poor co-ordination’,

‘fixation on special interests’,

‘preference for spending time alone’

I‘m sure by now we are all nauseatingly familiar with the above list of symptoms.

Perhaps we’ve even become so familiar with these lists that we’ve stopped looking for the traits that have been missed.

Well here’s a trait that continues to remain unlisted, although I cannot for the life of me understand why this should be so, as it is a trait that has been mentioned over and over again, by every woman with Asperger’s Syndrome that I’ve ever communicated with.

In fact, it may even be the one trait that is common to every woman with Asperger’s Syndrome.

And that trait is:

The early personal recognition, awareness or sensation that they feel, think and perceive the world differently to those around them.

                “I can’t remember a time when I didn’t feel different to everyone else”.

                “I’m pretty sure I was born different. No two ways about that.”

                “Different is something I’ve always been.”

                “I must have been the oddest child on earth. I know I certainly felt that way.”

“Evan as a kid, I felt, I don’t know, just different to my sisters and brothers.”

Given that this sense of personal awareness occurs long before the outward signs of Asperger’s Syndrome appear, it is perfectly logical to hypothesize that the early onset of this awareness may indeed be the exact reason why the outward signs of Asperger’s first appear to others.

“I didn’t like doing the same things that kids my age did, so I used to just go off and do my own thing.”

“I could never understand why other girls wanted to play with dolls. Dolls were boring to me.”

I believe that  this early personal sense of ‘not fitting in’ or of ‘not belonging’ within one’s own family, peer group or circle of friends, needs to be considered as one of the fundamental indicators of Asperger’s Syndrome or High Functioning Autism in females.

It therefore strikes me as extremely odd that researchers, psychologists and other related professionals’ continue to ignore the one experience that, so far, appears to be common to all AS Women, and instead focus on ideas such as ‘masking’.

Imagine how many girls could be helped if all it took to recognize their potential for being on the spectrum entailed the asking of just one simple question.

Do you ever feel different?

Does this post ring true to you?

Have you always felt different?

Asperger Syndrome in Females: An Underdiagnosed Population


Asperger syndrome (AS) is an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) characterized by significant impairments in social interaction, and rigid, stereotypical, or repetitive behaviours that exist alongside normal language and cognitive skills (Fitzgerald & Corvin, 2001). Researchers often use the terms Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism interchangeably (Attwood, 2006), and so for the purposes of this paper, Asperger syndrome will encompass both diagnoses, and assume an IQ in the normal range, i.e., > 70. The ratio of males to females with AS is currently about 10:1, and on average, boys are referred ten times more often for diagnostic assessment (Wagner, 2006). Overall, the lack of knowledge about girls and women with AS is mirrored by a relatively small amount of empirical research dedicated to this population (Thompson, Caruso, & Ellerbeck, 2003). Much of the available literature includes clinical observations, case studies, and anecdotal evidence.

Some feel that the uneven gender ratio is a natural reflection of biological sex differences. Jones, Skinner, Friez, Schwartz, and Stevenson (2008) propose a sex-linked genetic cause, and argue that the single X chromosome in males is inherently vulnerable, creating a lower threshold of susceptibility to AS. Alternatively, Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2004) hypothesize that gender differences in brain specialization may explain the male-dominated ratio, and contend that while females are naturally better at empathizing, males tend to think in a systemizing way. They conceptualize Asperger syndrome as an extreme systemizing form of the normal male brain that may develop due to high levels of testosterone exposure in utero. The question arises, however, as to what extent sex differences are biological, or influenced by sociocultural factors.

In contrast to the researchers that find support for the current gender ratio, many believe it is inaccurate (e.g., Attwood, 2006; Rastam, 2008). Thompson et al. (2003) claim that a long-standing sex bias in AS research has resulted in diagnostic criteria too dependent on a male prototype, and point out that 80% of all ASD study samples have been male, on average. They suggest further that our present knowledge about ASD is actually knowledge about males with ASD. Nyden, Hjelmquist, and Gillberg (2000) highlight comparable issues in the diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), while Rastam (2008) parallels the development of criteria for clinical eating disorders, based largely on the signs and symptoms prevalent in females. Hully and Lamar (2006) suggest that overdependence on a male prototype means that traits in females must appear exaggerated for diagnosis. Ironically, researchers are finding it difficult to obtain samples on females that are large enough to allow for comparison by sex (Hartley & Sikora, 2009). This paper will explore how psychiatric disorders may mask AS in females, gender differences in phenotypic expression that can cause diagnostic confusion, and the attitudes and behaviour of others toward females with AS that can contribute to a missed diagnosis.

Several disorders have the potential to overshadow Asperger syndrome in females including depression, ADHD and Anorexia Nervosa (AN) (Hartley & Sikora, 2009; Rastam, 2008; Ryden & Bejolet, 2008). Researchers feel that the risk of misinterpreting signs and symptoms is strong, and could lead to misdiagnosis, or failure to recognize AS as the primary disorder (Cooper & Hanstock, 2009; Ryden & Bejolet, 2008). Hully and Lamar (2006) observed that as girls grow older, the presenting problem is less often associated with a developmental disorder, and stress that clinicians must take a detailed patient history to rule out AS in females. Accordingly, Ryden and Bejolet (2008) found that adult women with AS comprised a large portion of the psychiatric outpatients that they studied (39 females and 44 males), and speculate that many females do not receive an accurate diagnosis until they seek treatment for a comorbid disorder.

Although the gender ratio for childhood depression is 1:1 in the general population, by adolescence, females are three times more likely to receive a diagnosis of depression (Cooper & Hanstock, 2009). In fact, Ryden and Bejolet (2008) found a history of depression most often in patients that had not received a diagnosis of AS until adulthood. This could underscore a lack of awareness of how Asperger syndrome looks at different ages, and in females. Symptoms that often cause diagnostic confusion include a flat affect, minimal facial expressions, flat intonation in speech, irritability, and social isolation (Cooper & Hanstock, 2009). Hartley and Sikora (2009) found that girls with ASD, as young as 1.5 years of age, displayed an anxious or depressed affect more often, which lends support to this idea. In addition, Cooper and Hanstock (2009) discovered that Jane, initially referred for confirmation of a mood disorder, had a stable baseline mood over a long period. They concluded that failure to recognize significant social impairments, along with a flat affect and monotone voice, a number of school changes, and normal IQ and language skills, resulted in a misdiagnosis of depression.

Holtmann et al. (2007) found that females, across the entire sample that they studied, had significantly more attention difficulties than males, and similarly, Nyden et al. (2000) established that girls, aged 8 to 12 years, had greater impairment on the Freedom from Distractibility subscale than boys in the same age range. Greater attention difficulties in girls and women suggest that a misdiagnosis of ADHD may occur more often in this population. In accordance with this, Ryden and Bejolet (2008) assert that the lack of common sense and social disinhibition inherent in AS could be mistaken for impulsiveness, further increasing the likelihood of an incorrect ADHD diagnosis.

Ryden and Bejolet (2008) also discovered that adult female patients with Asperger syndrome scored higher on scales measuring borderline and passive aggressive traits, and mood instability, despite presenting with the same core AS features as males. Holtmann et al. (2007) uncovered a similar trend in their analysis of a matched subgroup of males and females.

Although core impairments were also equal in both genders, girls scored higher on scales measuring peer relationship impairments, social immaturity and dependency, as well as compulsive and bizarre behaviour, with older females scoring the highest. Similarly, Cooper and Hanstock (2009) found that Jane’s social impairments and deviance from her peers were more obvious as she grew older.

These findings suggest that if a clinician fails to notice a girl’s severe social difficulties in childhood, the result could be an incorrect diagnosis of BPD later on. Likewise, Ryden and Bejolet (2008) state that undetected AS might exist in a subgroup of older females diagnosed with BPD, which further emphasizes the importance of taking a detailed patient history when considering diagnosis. In addition, they stress that concepts of personality disorder and abnormal personality traits are difficult to separate in Asperger syndrome, and propose that a different model is needed to explain “odd personality” in this population.
Written by A. MacMillan

Yes – Asperger’s may present differently in women – but…


I’m still not sure what to make of this notion (now being presented to us as an absolute fact), that women with Autism/Asperger’s Syndrome are being diagnosed less frequently, due to their apparently inherent ability to ‘mask’ their symptoms by ‘mimicking’ those around them.

There are just too many assumptions hidden within this concept that have not been deeply analyzed enough for my liking.

It almost seems like once again, we as women, are being told to turn a blind eye to any and all personal experiences that do not match up succinctly to the now, almost biblical accounts being written by psychologists, as to how women with Autism should present.

Accounts that not only seek to define our presentation, but come complete with a rationale as to why our supposedly ‘hard to spot’ tendencies have, for so long been so tricky, that it’s entirely understandable, and therefore forgivable, that we’ve been over-looked by the very profession that has at last finally deemed us worthy of recognition.

Call me a cynic, but I can’t help but feel that there’s something a little too psychologically tidy and self-serving lurking somewhere beneath the surface of all this.

Yes, Asperger’s may present differently in women, but just how differently and why those differences occur, are issues that I believe should still be up for debate.

As it stands at the moment, there are women in their 60’s who are now finally being diagnosed with Autism after living through decades of feeling disconnected and different, rejected and misunderstood by their families and enduring years of being misdiagnosed by professionals.

So how can it be that the same professionals, who have clearly recognized the level of difference, disconnect and/or difficulties with sociability that these women experienced, at least enough to have diagnosed them with depression, bipolar or personality disorders, now suddenly see fit to turn around and make the bold claim that Women with Autism ‘mask’ their symptoms?

If these women were ‘masking’ their difficulties/symptoms so well, then how come they were misdiagnosed with any psychological conditions at all?

The only evidence of ‘masking’ to found within these revelations, comes not from the women, but from the psychologists who were unable to accurately diagnose them due to their own erroneous belief, that women could not experience Autism.

Which of course is how psychologists, via their own actions in refusing to view such women’s behaviors as evidence of Autism, turned the notion that women do not experience Autism, into a very neat and tidy self-validating and self-sustaining psychological fact in the first place.

Only of course, it wasn’t a fact at all. It was nothing more than one profession dictating and reinforcing the terms and conditions under which it would see fit to operate.

By so doing they also set out the definitions and the frames of reference upon which the foundations our understandings of Autism were formed.

Which means that for decades, thanks to psychology, women with Autism were often left out in the cold, alone and confused, and more often than not, grossly misdiagnosed and subjected to harmful treatments.

It’s an incredibly sad but true piece of history and I can well understand why those within the world of psychology would like to pretend it hadn’t happen.

But ignorance, whilst it may be bliss for some, can prove to be incredibly dangerous for others.

I for one, have absolutely no desire to ever see this kind of history repeating itself again.

And yet..

Once again, our understanding of the way in which Autism presents in women is now being crafted in much the same manner.

Psychologists are telling us that women ‘mask’ their Autistic symptoms, hence the majority of the population will believe that this is true.

Yet history has already shown us that this notion of women ‘masking symptoms’ is not a particularly true one.

If, (as has been the experience of many older Autistic women), there has been a propensity within the psychology profession toward misinterpreting and therefore misdiagnosing Autistic women’s symptoms, then they should already have in their grasp, the many well documented cases of older Autistic women who’ve been misdiagnosed with other mental health conditions in an attempt to explain their ‘different’ behaviors.

This in itself, should be enough to indicate that the notion of women ‘masking’ their symptoms may not be entirely true.

After all, one cannot be misdiagnosed with a mental health condition if one is not showing any indications or awareness of having behaviors that would mark one out as being ‘different’ or in need of a diagnosis.

So are we to believe that these older women were just a rare bunch who were exquisitely bad at ‘masking’ their symptoms, because let’s face it, if they were actually trying to hide their differences and their difficulties, yet still ended up being diagnosed with a mental health condition, they must have been exceptionally bad at?

Or are we to listen to their eyewitness accounts and give ourselves permission to explore these hidden implications?

I for one, am in favor of taking the time to listen to the real life experiences of our older Autistic women, the ones who are only just now, after years of struggling to find answers, being acknowledged and diagnosed with Autism.

If we do, we may just find ourselves questioning the validity of the idea that women with Autism have a history of ‘masking’ their symptoms.


The problem with the Mask Analogy for Women with Autism

Digital art by Rik Oostenbroek

A mask is a false external covering.

It can be worn to conceal a person’s true identity for better or for worse.

The idea that Women with High Functioning Autism are not being adequately diagnosed, simply because they wear masks, also carries within it the ideation that all women with Autism intentionally try to conceal their true selves in order to ‘pass as normal’.

This in turn implies that all women with Autism willingly engage in the act of perpetrating some form of female deception which, in turn, somehow creates the inability of professionals to recognize them for who they are.

The idea that women are fiendish creatures, capable of deceiving men, is not a new one.

In fact, that particular idea is as old as humanity and has been used successfully over the course of history to deny women the same basic human rights and considerations as men.

Which is why I’m not convinced that the increasingly accepted notion that women with Autism are being misdiagnosed because they “mask” their symptoms, is an entirely valid or correct one.

So let’s look at this concept of ‘masking’ a little more closely.

Women with Autism will often express the feeling that they’ve ‘never fit in’ with those around them and that they’ve always, including childhood, felt somehow ‘different’ to others.

As far as I can see, such expressions are not consistent with the idea of ‘masking one’s true self’ from others.

If anything, most women diagnosed later in life often express a sense of both exasperation and sadness over the fact that no one close to them either noticed or addressed their difficulties as a child.

So what are we to make of these facts?

Are we to say that the inability of those around them to acknowledge their differences and their needs, as children (girls), somehow created in them a desire to ‘pretend’ or ‘mask’ who they were?

To me such rhetorical connections make no sense at all, as it would be more accurate to say that women with Autism experienced having their needs ignored as children, rather than saying that they ‘masked’ their needs under such circumstances.

Whilst, it may be fair to say that as we grow older we learn how to try to ‘fit in’ better, I don’t think it is equally fair to say that we learn how to ‘mask’ ourselves better.

We don’t ‘mask’ ourselves but we do try our best to ‘fit in’.

As far as I know, the desire to ‘fit in,’ to not stand out and therefore become the object of ridicule, is a trait that is common to all humanity and not just those of us who are female and have Autism.

And this is the problem with the mask analogy.

Everyone tries to ‘fit in’.

Not everyone, however, practices deceit in order to do so.

We women with Autism are a profoundly honest lot.

Our honesty, along with our lack of awareness of social cues, forms one of our key features.

We are so honest with other people that our honesty often see’s us labelled as ‘blunt’ or ‘rude’.

Given these facts, perhaps someone can tell me just how it is, that we ‘mask’ our true selves again?

Oh yes, that’s right, we ‘pretend’ to be ‘normal’.

Well obviously we’re not doing a very good job of it, are we, if we’re constantly being accused of being too ‘blunt’ or ‘rude’.

We also apparently make ‘easy targets’ of ourselves because in reality, we are more often than not, the people who are lied too and taken advantage of  by others.

Given all of this, one could ask; just whose perception of ‘normal’ are we applying here and whose definition of ‘pretending’ or ‘masking’ are we using?

A mask is usually used to denote a form of visual perception, a false front, a concealment.

So are we being accused of ‘masking’ our true selves simply because we look so normal?

If that’s the case, may I just point out one simple fact, of course we are going to look like human beings because we are human beings.

Women with Autism are not some kind of exotic sub-species, (demarcated by purple spots or pink hair), any more than men with Autism are.

We can’t change who we are and in all honesty, most of us don’t try to ‘mask’ who we are either.

What we do is try to ‘fit in’ so that we can avoid being ‘easy targets’ for disreputable people to hit.

And what makes us easy targets?

Our trust, our propensity for taking people at face value and our inability to discern when someone is deceiving or lying to us.

Clearly the only things we need to get better at ‘masking’  are our vulnerabilities. Oh but wait, isn’t that exactly the very thing we’re already meant to be so blindingly good at?

‘Masking’ our true selves so well that we confuse professionals?

Think about it.

Is the mask analogy, truly one that  fits, women with Autism?


Stop Expecting Me To Apologize For Being Who I Am

Artwork by Jasmin Junger

Artwork by Jasmin Junger

“I am not “lazy” because I can’t function emotionally or mentally in the general work force.

I am not “weak” because I have a hard time processing emotions and am easily overwhelmed by the emotions of others.

“I am not a “recluse” because I prefer to stay at home where I feel most in control and safe.

I am not “anti-social” because I cannot handle large public gatherings and can only handle one or two friends at a time.”

I am not “stupid” because I cannot understand some math concepts and have a hard time with my handwriting and communicating verbally at times.

I am not what you want or need me to be

I am Autistic and I don’t have to apologize for that to anyone.”

These powerful words  by http://lennemi.wordpress.com represent  the way many with Autism feel about the overwhelming expectations placed on them by a society that refuses to accept them for who they are and instead replaces understanding with often cruel and ignorant  judgements.

lennemi’s words have been reproduced on this blog with the full permission of the author.

They are part of a brilliant post which I urge you to find here   http://lennemi.wordpress.com/2014/07/02/autistic-what-i-am-not/ 

Why Capitalism and Care – Like oil and water should never mix.

digital 4

The idea of turning ‘care’ into a commodity that can be bought and sold instead of acknowledged as a virtue of the human spirit that can be given willingly, is not a new one.

We’ve long paid doctors, nurses, psychologists, social workers, support workers and a whole host of others who belong to the so-called ‘Caring Professions’ for years.

But what’s changed in the last few decades are the amount of people now being employed in what has come to be known as the ‘Care Industry’.

And by this I mean workers who are not required to undergo years and years of study on how to ‘care’ for others, but instead workers who are simply doing a job with the label ‘Care’ stacked in front of it.

Such as those you’d find working in homes for the elderly or providing in home ‘care’ or assistance for those who are frail, ill or disabled within their own homes.

Once upon a time these workers may simply have been called ‘Domestic Help’, ‘Home Helpers’, ‘In Home Support Workers’ or Aides.

Today these same workers are called ‘Carers’.

Yet the thing is, despite the title they’ve been given, these workers are not carers because in reality, they do not truly care either for or about the people they are assisting once their allotted work period is over.

In other words, they are just like any other worker within a capitalist society in which every action that can possibly be bought and sold as labor is bought and sold, no matter the job description placed in front of it.

So once they are off the clock, just like any other worker, their job is done.

This means, in this case, that their allotted time for ‘caring’ is also done.

So employed ‘Carers’, in this sense, can be seen as merely workers who are performing a job and being paid for their time. Just like everyone else in the working world.

But people tend to forget this fact as soon as the term ‘carer’ is included within the job title.

Employed ‘Carers’ are often treated by others as if they are some kind of Florence Nightingale and the reason for this is quite simply to be found in the use of the term ‘carer’.

The word ‘Carer’ conjures up images of nurturing and self-sacrifice for the benefit of others.

Its use implies therefore that these workers not only do the practical things that are required but that they also actually care about the people they are working for in a way that means they are putting themselves out and going above and beyond the call of duty to help others.

Yet the truth is, if they weren’t being paid, they wouldn’t attend their work.

In other words, if they weren’t being paid to ‘care’ (i.e. do their jobs), then they wouldn’t ‘care’ (do their jobs).

So, in this instance the word ‘care’ is being used as euphemism for paid work assisting others.

Now where is the genuine care in that?

In fact where is the ‘care’ to be found within any of the so-called ‘care industries’?

Where’s the honest and genuine dedication toward making another’s life better or easier gone too?

These days, if you can’t pay for ‘care’, then you don’t get any ‘care’.

Unless of course that ‘care’ is being provided free of charge by a loving family member who genuinely wants the best for the relative they are caring for.

To my mind families are the real ‘carers’.

They don’t get paid and they never clock off.

They are the ones who share smiles and shed tears with their loved ones.

They live each and every trial of their loved ones life right alongside them.

They are never off call.

And yet, family members who willingly and lovingly assume the role of carers are routinely treated as if the time and energy they spend in ‘caring’ for a loved one is, in capitalist terms, worthless, for it has no immediate monetary value attached to it.

Familial carers do not get paid, not in the way that ‘employed carers’ do. If they are lucky they may receive some small stipend from the government, which is more often than not viewed by others as an unearned welfare payment, and yet these familial carers are the only ones who are ‘carers’ in the true sense of the word.

These true Carers find themselves caught up within a capitalistic system that devalues any work performed without monetary payment, whilst at the same time sets about promoting and deriving profits from the pseudo ‘care industry’ they’ve created.

One that has nothing what so ever to do with actually, genuinely caring for the wellbeing of others, and everything to do with caring only about their profit margins bottom line.

This isn’t ‘care’, it’s a capitalist industry that’s been artfully created by misappropriating a once genuine concept and turning it into yet another commodity to be bought and sold.