nerdygirl wrote:
I'm with Sweetleaf on this one.
Who's to decide what "adapting" is, anyways?
Let's make a hypothetical situation regarding a high-functioning male vs. a high-functioning female. Let's say they both have a special interest in video games. They both have jobs.
HF male is more "obviously" autistic to the outside world. He is a good worker, but is awkward and doesn't gel with other workers. However, outside of work, he has found a group of guys that also like to play video games. He struggles a bit with social interactions but can get past that when playing video games. He belongs to a gaming group and is generally happy.
HF female is not "obviously" autistic because she somehow learned to navigate social contexts better (or her symptoms are less physical/behavioral in nature.) She doesn't have any problems at work, and coworkers will talk to her regularly. But she knows no other females that share her interest in video games. She sees no one outside of work, has no friends despite wanting them, and feels very lonely.
Who's more adapted?
Does it matter? Who sticks out most is what matters when it comes to determining prevalence. To repeat: HF females are less likely to be diagnosed than HF males, hence there is a selection bias that makes it seem like there are less HF females than there actually are. The only way to (to an acceptable degree) accurately determine how many male and female autists there are would be to devise a gender neutral test and administer it to a large number of people drawn at random from the populace. Very large, because nearly all of them won't be autistic.
16 May 2015, 1:59 pm
