New Hypothesis of mine on why girls are diagnosed less

Post Reply New Topic

I think the sweet little girl who smiles, but doesn't say much is much less likely to get a diagnosis than the tomboy, who is in your face and full of energy. I think the latter is less common for girls with Aspergers, but it makes it easier for the girl to be identified. My daughter is the latter and was diagnosed early, at 6 1/2 yrs, just 2 weeks ago. Had she been the former, I don't think many people would have noticed her behaviour at all. I might have thought she was just shy, as there would have been little 'bad' behaviour to speak of. In some ways, it's seen as 'good' behaviour and well mannered to only speak in short sentences and only when spoken to, to sit on your own in your room, reading/drawing/playing with dolls, etc. I know a few girls like that and the older generation will say, 'They are such lovely polite girls', when all the while I'm thinking, 'They don't say anything at all, never engage in any sort of conversation, there's more than just shyness going on there'. But, those girls, whether they have an ASD or not, will remain unassessed/undiagnosed (until they have a mental breakdown when the go off to uni or start work). I was just like one of those girls too. Girls like my daughter are so much more obviously different. The only other girl I know for certain has Aspergers is just like her and I could see it before I was told about it. There must be many more, but the active tomboys are the ones more likely to be spotted, I'm sure of it. The difference with boys is the the boy who presents as shy will have everyone worried, as will the active in your face boy. Ironically, my daughter and similar girls are less stereotypically autistic than the 'shy' variety and people, who only know a little about autism, don't understand how she can be so outgoing and get a diagnosis of autism.

Hi;

I am a child of the late 60's/70's. The women's movement was fresh, and so was the moon walk. I was obsessed with outer space and wanted to be an astronaut. It freaked my Mom out because we had a school records book and it had a place to choose from the 'girls' professions or the 'boys' professions. Guess where 'astronaut' fit? She was mortified. She always pushed me to be a nurse or mother and she checked those boxes on my behalf. She never would have told anyone I wanted to be anything other than a mother(wife) and a nurse - denial to fit her own reality. We were also lower middle class rural remote people and people were not to aspire to academics. I think it is important to take into account the historical, socio-cultural,l and socio-economic realities. We will all have a different experience on this account, I am sure. If I was from a family that valued, and had the means, for a higher education - if I was born in 1990 in urban North America - would anyone have blinked about my obsession?

Now I didn't think in terms of 'boy'/'girl' - I just new what interested me. Later, when a police officer and his dog visited our school, I wanted to be a police man. If women were recruited then, there weren't many. I didn't think of gender, I said I wanted to be a police man - for the only reason that for me it was a simple denotation of something that caught my interest. I just knew that was the job description and I really pictured myself in uniform and working with a dog. I wasn't caught up in the in-congruency of gender assignation. I didn't care. But, oh, those around me sure did. If, in the event my mom actually questioned a doctor about me (and my brother) to begin with, she would have flatly denied any 'interests' outside of her own little story - she spoke for me. In recent years she said she used to worry my brother and I would 'turn out gay'. Another weird archaic fear. I wonder how many parents have tried to hide what they fear is 'deviant' behavior'? Just a thought.

I also read somewhere that girls on the higher end of the spectrum have invisible traits when they are babies and toddlers. I'm living proof of that. I'm a girl on the higher end of the spectrum and I was like a typical baby, right up until the age of 4. My mum knew a lot of other people (friends and relatives) with babies of the same age as me and she said I never stood out from them and I even interacted OK with them, which was why she never expected me to come into difficulty when I started school at the age of 4. Maybe if I had waited until I was 5 to start school, nobody might've suspected AS until my early teens, being so 4 is a little young to be starting a full day at school and so it is harder for a 4-year-old to tell adults that they're in distress and why, Aspie or not.

I think for a girls it is easier to fit into a gender role. A few decades back it was the other way round, but back then, nobody knew about ASD. Today (where I live) it tends to be a bit like that:

- A boy is calm and silent: Oh no, that's not typical for boys, there must be something wrong!
- A boy is loud and bothersome: Oh no, that behaviour must be ill!
- A boy is nice and social: Could he be gay?!
- A boy is interested in science stuff only: Get out and socialize, you'll need soft skills in every job!

- A girl is calm and silent: That's normal for girls, she just needs more self-confidence!
- A girl is loud and bothersome: Look how self-confident and strong the little lady is!
- A girl is nice and social: That's exactly what we expect!
- A girl is interested in science stuff only: Look, what a smart girl!

That means, a little boy needs less "strange" treats to get dragged to a psychiatrist by teachers or parents.
A girls must have/make really bad problems to attract attention.

I'm a big believer in testosterone's correlation with left-handedness and neuropsychiatric disorders, as well as females with ASDs often going undiagnosed due to less frequent externalizing behaviors in the classroom.

Maybe with girls it's more likely that the symptoms will be attributed to something psychological or "moral", like:

-being a drama queen
-being manipulative
-being depressed
-lacking self-esteem
-being "flaky"

etc.

I certainly don't find that AS traits are acceptable among women in my culture at all (East coast US, middle class), but they are usually seen as a moral failing. Good women are organized, outgoing, socially savvy and "together". Women who are not are seen as lacking character, not disabled.

I think an important aspect is that people see women as far less intimidating than men. So if a man is suspected to be mentally "ill", some might be subconsciously afraid that he'll go nuts and hurt someone. And so there's a stronger urge to do something about it.