Things I wish people would stop saying to those of us with Asperger’s Syndrome

Art work by Aegis Mario S. Nevado
Art work by Aegis Mario S. Nevado

“You can’t possibly have any understanding of yourself and be Autistic at the same time. That just doesn’t happen’.

Well actually, yes it can and it does happen.

Individuals with Asperger’s are hyper aware of their feelings, their environment and those around them.

So hyper aware in fact that we experience sensory over load.

Yet every time we, as people, try to share our understandings of ourselves with others and  attempt to have our own personal views and needs both met and respected, we run into a brick wall of prejudice.

One that ensures that instead of being listened too, we’ll constantly have to  deal with having our personal truths questioned simply because of the mistaken belief that we are a particularly insular and self-absorbed type of person.

Due to this, instead of  being listened too when we try to talk about our feelings, we usually end up  being told things like:

-‘Why do you always look so sad? You should smile more”.

Well here’s a tip.

Why not try believing us when we tell you that we’re not sad we’re just so completely and utterly lost in thought that our faces automatically relax.

This process of relaxation means that our mouths and lips relax too.

And just in case you’re not up to speed with anatomy, it actually takes muscle contractions to create a smile.

So if a person’s face is completely  and I do mean completely relaxed, there will be no muscle contraction, hence no smile.

Besides, we are aware of the fact that we’re always having our facial expressions read by those around us, as if they were some kind of social barometer that might, potentially, give the reader some kind of insight as to what we’re feeling.

We’re also equally used to being blamed for an observers inability to read us due to our perceived lack of facial expression, whenever such exercises in futility fail to succeed.

Which is, once again, why you should believe us when we tell you that we’re not sad, just lost in thought.

Perhaps a far kinder thing to do would be to try asking us what we’re actually thinking about.

By approaching us in this way you’ll give us an opportunity to bring you a little closer to our world rather than pushing us away with false observations that only serve to make us feel even more self-conscious than we already do.

-‘You should get out of the house more. You’ll feel better for it.’

For those of us who are feeling overwhelmed due to sensory overload, the last thing we need to be told is to “get out of the house’, or to ‘go out and be around people’.

What  we really need when we’re feeling overwhelmed is to be left in the peace and quiet of our own surroundings and to be allowed to withdraw into our own safe space, without any ensuing argument or being accused of being anti-social.

So please, please, please try to understand that when we insist on the need to have our own space and to take things at our own pace, we’re not trying to be willfully stubborn  or malignantly anti-social.

We’re simply trying to do whats best for us by being mindful and respectful of our own needs so that we don’t end up in a full on ‘meltdown’.

Usually it takes years for us to learn how and when to walk away from situations before they escalate into a ‘meltdown’ so please understand that doing so is a sign of our maturity, and not our immaturity.

Please spend a little more time trying to love us and a little less time trying to  judge us.

Thank you.

 

Advertisements

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?

Born This Way – Longitudinal Study Finds Evidence that Introverts Are Born – Not Made.

Artwork by Alina Kim
Artwork by Alina Kim

A series of ground-breaking longitudinal studies conducted by developmental psychologist Dr Jerome Kagan, suggests that introverts are born, not made.

An ongoing study, begun in 1989 by Dr Kagan, documenting the temperamental and physiological characteristics of a group of children from infancy right through to adolescents has provided clear physiological evidence that a subset of infants as young as 4 months old, are capable of displaying stronger responses and therefore stronger levels of awareness,  known as ‘hypersensitivity’, toward external stimuli, than other infants of the same age.

After observing and measuring the emotional and physiological responses (heart rate, blood pressure and other physiological indicators related to the amygdala), of 500, 4 moth old infants to new and unexpected sights, sounds and aromatic stimuli, Dr Kagan predicted that the 20% of infants within his study who responded to the stimuli by showing signs of ‘hypersensitivity’ or ‘hyper awareness’, would, most likely, become introverts.

Dr Kagan’s hypothesis centered on his theory that introverts are people who are keenly aware of, and therefore more profoundly impacted on, by external stimuli.

The higher the degree of ‘hypersensitivity’ an individual experiences towards sights, sounds, smells, and the closeness of other people, the more likely it is that those same individuals will seek to avoid them.

Hypersensitivity both creates and explains why introverts hold such a strong preference for seeking out quiet, serene and unpopulated spaces in which to live and work.

Accordingly, Dr Kagan surmised, the more awareness and responsiveness towards external stimuli an infant demonstrates, the more likely it is that the infant is showing signs of ‘hyper-awareness’ and ‘hypersensitivity’ toward their environment.

Hence those infants who respond the most robustly when introduced to new stimuli, were according to Dr Kagan’s initial hypothesis, also the most likely to become introverts. But was he right?

Over the course of the following years, Dr Kagan met with and studied the responses of the same initial infants as they grew. At the ages of 2, 4, 7 and 11 years, the children returned to Dr Kagan where they were once again exposed to new and unexpected stimuli in the form of events and people.

As Dr Kagan had predicted, those who displayed the highest degrees of physiological and emotional hypersensitivity towards external stimuli as infants, had indeed grown into quite, reserved and thoughtful individuals whilst those who responded the least to the same external stimuli, had grown into relaxed, outgoing and gregarious individuals.

But what made Dr Kagan think that there may be a connection between hypersensitivity and introversion in the first place?

His scientific background provides the explanation behind both his initial hypothesis and his decision to measure the key sets of physiological responses that he and his team recorded, which all link directly back to an area inside the brain called the amygdala.

One of the key areas of scientific interest surrounding the amygdala is its connection to our ‘fight or flight’ responses. It is the amygdala’s job to send out the messages to our nervous system that trigger our ‘fight or flight’ responses.

The amygdala quite literally controls whether or not we will feel safe and secure or scared and threatened, when exposed to new or unexpected stimuli.

The more highly reactive our amygdala becomes, the more likely we are to feel threatened and become hyper vigilant, when confronted with new situations. This means that those with hyper sensitive or highly reactive amygdala’s are more likely to exhibit other symptoms of discomfort when confronted with new situations including increased heart rate, tightening of the vocal chords and having their bodies flooded with the stress hormone cortisol.

This combination creates an overwhelming sense of nervousness, anxiety, discomfort and fear in those individuals who experience it.

These are exactly the same physiological and emotional markers measured and observed by Dr Kagan within his longitudinal study of infants.

Dr Kagan therefore successfully linked hyper activity within the amygdala to the responses of hyper sensitivity observed within a subset of infants, during exposure to external stimuli. Given that his initial hypothesis was that he could predict, via their responses, which infants were more likely to become introverts, he also linked the key features of introversion to both hyper activity within the amygdala and hypersensitivity toward external stimuli.

In doing so, Dr Kagan found a direct correlation between biological response and social response which indicates that the origin of introversion is biological and not, as had been previously suggested, social, cultural or psychological.

Introversion is therefore the result of nature not nurture. Not a taught response but a biologically driven, natural one.

Dr Kagan’s study not only significantly highlights the need for our society to extend its understanding of the biological mechanisms of introversion, but also the need to be aware that an individual’s predispositions towards introversion should no longer be being viewed through the lens of wither wilful ‘choice’ or ‘personality type’.

His study clearly indicates that introverts are not people who simply ‘choose’ to live ‘far from the maddening crowd’, but rather are a legitimate subset of the population who experience a very real, biologically driven aversion toward our over crowded, over-stimulated, 24/7, modern-day society.

As such, introversion needs to be understood as a hardwired, physiological and naturally occurring set of neurodivergent responses toward external stimuli, as experienced within a subset of the population.

Introversion should be seen as a legitimate way of being and introverts viewed as people who, like everyone else, are striving in their own ways to flourish and succeed within a world that constantly offers up additional challenges, due specifically, to their unique way of being.

Therefore, introversion should be viewed as being yet another variation within the vast array of neurodivergent conditions, right alongside  Autism, which serve to make up the spectrum that is,   the human condition.

Asperger Syndrome in Females: An Underdiagnosed Population

10665837_10204220210439257_3537477637207707140_n

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…

10388211_527318574072149_3686326974774947314_n

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?