Invisible Aspies?
whirlingmind
Veteran
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
13 Apr 2013, 6:53 am
Mirror21 wrote:
Read on another thread that invisible aspies tend to always be female? I can sure be an invisible aspie (I am female), but I can't be an invisible weirdo. People always think I am weird and different, but mostly people think I am shy and eccentric, the fact that I am into art just makes them think I am one of those "Eccentric types" which i think can be more a blessing than a curse.
But the point of this thread is, are females "invisible" because we adapt so well or because female and male gender roles are socially perceived so differently?
But the point of this thread is, are females "invisible" because we adapt so well or because female and male gender roles are socially perceived so differently?
It's not true that the invisible Aspie are all female:
http://www.aspiestrategy.com/2012/05/hi ... dults.html
...and here is a clinician's response on that page (and what a shame all clinicians aren't as aware and enlightened as this one):
Quote:
Unknown said...
Your patient struggles socially in an important area, i.e., relationships with his closest person. He is willing to change, and is working in therapy, but it is hard for him. He is able to maintain social relationships, but at the expense of extreme mobilization of his social skills, which drives him to intense anxiety. All of it puts him in the category of Aspergers. Regardless of lacking other diagnostic criteria. His wife's story is convincing enough, and he knows that he is different, although he is able to successfully hide it from the world.
I think that we, doctors, as well as our patients, fall prey to extremely rigid and sometimes cruel criteria of DSM-IV. Words like "does not seek out friendship" or "shows little empathy" do not apply to my patients. In fact, many of them are warm, hilariously funny and quite social, especially one-on-one. They may lose it in big groups, but function well among people who they know well. I could go on and on and on because DSM IV is simply misleading for many of my patients.
Sorry for my dry post, I shall make another one, more personal, but later. Today I am frustrated by the lack of knowledge about Asperger's in our medical community. Our books are so obsolete.
Women with Asperger's seem to fly under the radar more often, and I think the book "Asperger's syndrome in girls" explains the reasons for it pretty well.
Your patient struggles socially in an important area, i.e., relationships with his closest person. He is willing to change, and is working in therapy, but it is hard for him. He is able to maintain social relationships, but at the expense of extreme mobilization of his social skills, which drives him to intense anxiety. All of it puts him in the category of Aspergers. Regardless of lacking other diagnostic criteria. His wife's story is convincing enough, and he knows that he is different, although he is able to successfully hide it from the world.
I think that we, doctors, as well as our patients, fall prey to extremely rigid and sometimes cruel criteria of DSM-IV. Words like "does not seek out friendship" or "shows little empathy" do not apply to my patients. In fact, many of them are warm, hilariously funny and quite social, especially one-on-one. They may lose it in big groups, but function well among people who they know well. I could go on and on and on because DSM IV is simply misleading for many of my patients.
Sorry for my dry post, I shall make another one, more personal, but later. Today I am frustrated by the lack of knowledge about Asperger's in our medical community. Our books are so obsolete.
Women with Asperger's seem to fly under the radar more often, and I think the book "Asperger's syndrome in girls" explains the reasons for it pretty well.
_________________
*Truth fears no trial*
DX AS & both daughters on the autistic spectrum
13 Apr 2013, 7:29 pm
ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
qwan wrote:
If people think my friendly behaviour is an invitation for sex and I'm surprised when they force themselves onto me for me not being fast acting enough, it was OBVIOUSLY me who led them on, and CLEARLY my fault for playing them along. And there's no question that I understood what was going on, I mean I'm a FEMALE, of course I know all of these unwritten rules.
If a guy does it it's more acceptable, he's just not used to girls, a bit sheltered, maybe he's just awkward.
If a guy does it it's more acceptable, he's just not used to girls, a bit sheltered, maybe he's just awkward.
What are you talking about?
I've had a lot of women I've interacted with instantly assume I was trying to make a move on them when I was only trying to be friendly. I'm talking about women I had zero interest in. Yet they seem to go on the defense and assume I have an ulterior motive, which in their minds justifies their hostility.
I've also had people assume the only reason I was being friendly with a woman was to "get in her pants."
So I don't think male aspies are immune to presumptions by NTs of the opposite sex about understanding "Sex Laws." Almost seems like in the NT world, men and women are only friendly with each other if they're sexually/romantically interested with one another.
I'm talking about presumptions I get that seem to be linked to me being female.
If my behaviour is viewed as sexy, it's normally because the one percieving it kinda wants to see it that way imo. They then turn it around and make out it's my fault, and girls are so aware of sexy behaviour that theres no way I'm not doing it on purpose.
You understood that perfectly.
You asked that like I'd made no sense just to point out it happens to males too.
That doesn't invalidate my experiences.
I'm just explaining how people try to make me feel like I'm NOT aspergers BECAUSE they think they see flirty behaviour. And to flirt they think you must be fully aware of whats going on and doing it to get a means to an ends.
Of course it happens to males too. I'm not a f*****g idiot.
EDIT: Just to add, I also have a good amount of people who genuinely know I'm unaware of what signs I'm giving off and that I might come across as incredibly sexual to some while just being normal and interested in something. Even some strangers comment on this fact that I'm genuinely clearly unaware.
Pointing this out to state there is no way anywhere in any of the posts here or in mine are we saying 'ALL FEMALE ASPIES HAVE IT HARD!' or 'No one understands us, and they all understand guys!'
We are saying instead 'these might be some reasons people don't see us as aspie' and big surprise; they're gonna be the same ones as with males, only difference is possibly the statistics of each reason for invisibility among genders. And as we haven't got extensive research on the matter, we're not going to have some huge ass meta-analysis on this, so it's going to be experiences.
Not sure why conversations ALWAYS have to turn into some kind of battle of who is right and wrong. There is no right and wrong. Hope to God there's no dumb ass arguement on this now. >__<
_________________
AQ: 34
AS: 136/200
NT: 55/200
Alexthymia: 126/185
Suspected 'Pure O' OCD. (OCI: 64 or 11.6)
And wonderfully facially blind. XD
13 Apr 2013, 8:16 pm
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/ wrote:
FAQ: What’s wrong with saying that things happen to men, too?
Short answer: Nothing in and of itself. The problem occurs when conversations about women can’t happen on unmoderated blogs without someone showing up and saying, “but [x] happens to men, too!” (also known as a “Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too” or PHMT argument, or a “What About The Mens?” or WATM argument). When this happens, it becomes disruptive of the discussion that’s trying to happen, and has the effect (intended or otherwise) of silencing women’s voices on important issues such as rape and reproductive rights.
When and why PHMT arguments become inappropriate
No one is saying that discussions on men and masculinities shouldn’t go on. It is absolutely important to have dialogue on men’s issues, including discussions on violence done towards men. The thing is, a feminist space — unless the topic is specifically men’s issues — is not the place to have that discussion and neither are spaces (feminist or otherwise) in which the topic is specifically focused on women’s issues.
What it boils down to is this: Men, not women, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss men’s issues. There are a lot of feminist allies who do this, in fact, and there also a lot of non-feminist (or anti-feminist, if you really want to go there) spaces that are welcoming to this kind of discussion. Thus, the appropriate response to a thread about women is not to post a comment on it about men, but rather to find (or make) a discussion about men.
Why PHMT arguments are so frustrating
For those new to feminist discussion the angry reaction to PHMT arguments is most likely shocking and more than a little off-putting. Especially if, to all appearances, the question was innocuous. While it would probably best if all bloggers/commenters could stick to the 3-comment rule, having to deal with the same disruptive comments — even when they are made with the best of intentions — is enough to try the patience of even the most patient of educators (which most feminist bloggers and commenters are not).
Consider this comment:
I can easily see why a newbie reading that, especially if said newbie is a man who got into feminism by examining masculinities, could see JacylnF as hostile towards men. I can definitely see how a man reading that might feel unwelcome and that feminism might not be the movement for him.
But let’s look at it from my perspective. I have been an active participant in the feminist blogsphere since 2005, but have been a reader since the early 2000s. I have seen multiple threads on women’s issues — especially ones that are trying to talk about the impact of rape and other sexual violence against women — devolve into nothing more than justifying to MRA’s, trolls, and other (generally male) posters why the conversation should be allowed to remain about women’s experiences. It was to the point that on my (heavily moderated) blog, I still had to write a disclaimer on the top of my post on women and equality that the post wasn’t about men because practically every other comment I was getting was saying how unfair it was that I didn’t talk about men. The phenomenon is so common that I co-authored a jurisimprudence law called "The “What About the Mens?” Phallusy * because I felt like you couldn’t even mention the word “rape” without attracting people demanding that you talk about men getting raped.
So I completely understand why JacylnF and other feminists have no patience for even the well intentioned WATM comments because, frankly, I don’t have patience for them either. One thing I always try to impress upon the curious non-feminists who find my blog is that it isn’t about just one comment, but rather about a long and continuing history of WATM comments preventing meaningful discussion on women’s issues. It’s also worth mentioning that, because of how many concern trolls feminist sites get, it’s really hard to tell who’s trying to argue in good faith and who isn’t.
How to avoid getting zinged for a PHMT argument
So the question remains: what can be done to prevent arguments over PHMT issues?
The first, and easiest, step is to be mindful of the venue. In order to help facilitate this, it is useful to consider questions such as the following: What conversation is happening? Will discussing a male perspective/experience add something, or will it be seen as disruptive? Is there a more appropriate place to discuss my issues?
If you feel that the present discussion topic is broad enough so as to welcome discussions from a male-based perspective, then please consider the following advice [emphasis mine]:
Lastly, I would highly recommend reading up on male privilege, with special attention paid to what the role is for a privileged person entering the space of a non-privileged group (I recommend starting with these two posts:A Deeper Look at “Minority Spaces” and “Check my what?” On privilege and what we can do about it). Oh, and don’t forget to check out the Related Reading section below.
Ultimately it is possible for men to both participate in feminist discussion and have meaningful conversations with feminists about men’s issues. It just takes some understanding of the issues in order to be able to find the right times and places for those conversations to happen.
Short answer: Nothing in and of itself. The problem occurs when conversations about women can’t happen on unmoderated blogs without someone showing up and saying, “but [x] happens to men, too!” (also known as a “Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too” or PHMT argument, or a “What About The Mens?” or WATM argument). When this happens, it becomes disruptive of the discussion that’s trying to happen, and has the effect (intended or otherwise) of silencing women’s voices on important issues such as rape and reproductive rights.
When and why PHMT arguments become inappropriate
No one is saying that discussions on men and masculinities shouldn’t go on. It is absolutely important to have dialogue on men’s issues, including discussions on violence done towards men. The thing is, a feminist space — unless the topic is specifically men’s issues — is not the place to have that discussion and neither are spaces (feminist or otherwise) in which the topic is specifically focused on women’s issues.
What it boils down to is this: Men, not women, need to be the ones creating the spaces to discuss men’s issues. There are a lot of feminist allies who do this, in fact, and there also a lot of non-feminist (or anti-feminist, if you really want to go there) spaces that are welcoming to this kind of discussion. Thus, the appropriate response to a thread about women is not to post a comment on it about men, but rather to find (or make) a discussion about men.
Why PHMT arguments are so frustrating
For those new to feminist discussion the angry reaction to PHMT arguments is most likely shocking and more than a little off-putting. Especially if, to all appearances, the question was innocuous. While it would probably best if all bloggers/commenters could stick to the 3-comment rule, having to deal with the same disruptive comments — even when they are made with the best of intentions — is enough to try the patience of even the most patient of educators (which most feminist bloggers and commenters are not).
Consider this comment:
Quote:
Why is it we cannot have even one single public conversation about rape without someone taking the whole thread over with cries of oh the poor mens! what about the mens?
[Jessica (Australian court: If you suck, you must f-ck): comment by JaclynF]
[Jessica (Australian court: If you suck, you must f-ck): comment by JaclynF]
I can easily see why a newbie reading that, especially if said newbie is a man who got into feminism by examining masculinities, could see JacylnF as hostile towards men. I can definitely see how a man reading that might feel unwelcome and that feminism might not be the movement for him.
But let’s look at it from my perspective. I have been an active participant in the feminist blogsphere since 2005, but have been a reader since the early 2000s. I have seen multiple threads on women’s issues — especially ones that are trying to talk about the impact of rape and other sexual violence against women — devolve into nothing more than justifying to MRA’s, trolls, and other (generally male) posters why the conversation should be allowed to remain about women’s experiences. It was to the point that on my (heavily moderated) blog, I still had to write a disclaimer on the top of my post on women and equality that the post wasn’t about men because practically every other comment I was getting was saying how unfair it was that I didn’t talk about men. The phenomenon is so common that I co-authored a jurisimprudence law called "The “What About the Mens?” Phallusy * because I felt like you couldn’t even mention the word “rape” without attracting people demanding that you talk about men getting raped.
So I completely understand why JacylnF and other feminists have no patience for even the well intentioned WATM comments because, frankly, I don’t have patience for them either. One thing I always try to impress upon the curious non-feminists who find my blog is that it isn’t about just one comment, but rather about a long and continuing history of WATM comments preventing meaningful discussion on women’s issues. It’s also worth mentioning that, because of how many concern trolls feminist sites get, it’s really hard to tell who’s trying to argue in good faith and who isn’t.
How to avoid getting zinged for a PHMT argument
So the question remains: what can be done to prevent arguments over PHMT issues?
The first, and easiest, step is to be mindful of the venue. In order to help facilitate this, it is useful to consider questions such as the following: What conversation is happening? Will discussing a male perspective/experience add something, or will it be seen as disruptive? Is there a more appropriate place to discuss my issues?
If you feel that the present discussion topic is broad enough so as to welcome discussions from a male-based perspective, then please consider the following advice [emphasis mine]:
Quote:
1) Understand that if lots of women say something is important, it is. Your opinion, as a man, about the extent and nature of the problem is not valuable when the specific problem pertains to women’s experience. [...]
2) Always consider the distinction between a class and individual members of a class. If you don’t care about this, and when conversations about class-based oppression you come up with examples of weaker members of the dominant class and more powerful members of the subordinate class, you look an awful lot like someone who doesn’t care about justice. Michael Jordan is better off than me. This indicates precisely nothing about the importance of racism in our society. [...]
3) When you tell us about the male perspective on the issue (“Men don’t intend it this way!” “Men feel weak in relation to women!”) consider that we already understand. And then consider that the reason it looks to you like the male perspective is being excluded or misunderstood is that we’re actually talking about ourselves, and the effect your actions have on us. Further, you function as part of a larger system, and your introspection about your intent doesn’t tell you much about how.
4) Try to pay attention to what’s actually being said. Before you respond to something, think hard about what their actual point is and whether you understand it. If you don’t understand it, ask questions. [...]
5) Do not draw up a bunch of hierarchies about which form of oppression is worse than which other. When you do this, you’re not responding to a claim that what we experience is the worst thing ever; you just show up and start talking about why what the women say they experience is not as big of a deal as X, Y, or Z. [...] Being a woman, no matter what demographic you come from, is an overwhelmingly structuring and determining aspect of your life. In some ways it functions differently depending on your demographic, and in other ways there are striking commonalities, but in no sense is it dominated by other inequalities. Being a woman magnifies the effects of all those inequalities.
[Tia (Unfogged): An Uncongenial Post]
2) Always consider the distinction between a class and individual members of a class. If you don’t care about this, and when conversations about class-based oppression you come up with examples of weaker members of the dominant class and more powerful members of the subordinate class, you look an awful lot like someone who doesn’t care about justice. Michael Jordan is better off than me. This indicates precisely nothing about the importance of racism in our society. [...]
3) When you tell us about the male perspective on the issue (“Men don’t intend it this way!” “Men feel weak in relation to women!”) consider that we already understand. And then consider that the reason it looks to you like the male perspective is being excluded or misunderstood is that we’re actually talking about ourselves, and the effect your actions have on us. Further, you function as part of a larger system, and your introspection about your intent doesn’t tell you much about how.
4) Try to pay attention to what’s actually being said. Before you respond to something, think hard about what their actual point is and whether you understand it. If you don’t understand it, ask questions. [...]
5) Do not draw up a bunch of hierarchies about which form of oppression is worse than which other. When you do this, you’re not responding to a claim that what we experience is the worst thing ever; you just show up and start talking about why what the women say they experience is not as big of a deal as X, Y, or Z. [...] Being a woman, no matter what demographic you come from, is an overwhelmingly structuring and determining aspect of your life. In some ways it functions differently depending on your demographic, and in other ways there are striking commonalities, but in no sense is it dominated by other inequalities. Being a woman magnifies the effects of all those inequalities.
[Tia (Unfogged): An Uncongenial Post]
Lastly, I would highly recommend reading up on male privilege, with special attention paid to what the role is for a privileged person entering the space of a non-privileged group (I recommend starting with these two posts:A Deeper Look at “Minority Spaces” and “Check my what?” On privilege and what we can do about it). Oh, and don’t forget to check out the Related Reading section below.
Ultimately it is possible for men to both participate in feminist discussion and have meaningful conversations with feminists about men’s issues. It just takes some understanding of the issues in order to be able to find the right times and places for those conversations to happen.
14 Apr 2013, 12:18 am
i think invisibility is entirely dependent on what people choose to see and acknowledge. people really aren't conditioned to consider traits in women - anymore than they were conditioned to consider traits in milder cases 30 years ago. the invisibility probably has less to do with women themselves than societal oversight and the dissemination of media tropes that disfavor - not only autistic women - but people who don't readily conform to the standard "box"... it kind of reminds me of scientific discovery.... so many realities have always been there but weren't really substantive, with respect to our world, until we took the time to view them more closely.
in short: don't think these people have an invisibility problem.
i think the world is probably overdue for another eye exam.
good question.
14 Apr 2013, 7:37 am
I am a female, and I am not an "hidden aspie".
When I tell people I have AS, in fact, their response is usually "I had alredy understood it", or something like that.
I am not "invisible" because I can't copy what other people do in a social contest, I've never tried to do so. I'm not able to do it. I just act according to my instinct.
I don't fear social failure, I just do whatever comes to my mind (I don't have social anxiety disorder).
14 Apr 2013, 8:38 am
shortcircuit3 wrote:
in short: don't think these people have an invisibility problem.
i think the world is probably overdue for another eye exam.
good question.
i think the world is probably overdue for another eye exam.
good question.
<3
_________________
AQ: 34
AS: 136/200
NT: 55/200
Alexthymia: 126/185
Suspected 'Pure O' OCD. (OCI: 64 or 11.6)
And wonderfully facially blind. XD
15 Apr 2013, 5:24 am
qwan wrote:
You understood that perfectly.
You asked that like I'd made no sense just to point out it happens to males too.
You asked that like I'd made no sense just to point out it happens to males too.
No. That's not what I was doing. I can understand a misunderstanding, but I'm offended at your matter-of-fact misinterpretation and spin.
I was responding to your second one-sentence paragraph:
qwan wrote:
If a guy does it it's more acceptable, he's just not used to girls, a bit sheltered, maybe he's just awkward.
This is BS. Pure and simple. At least in this boy's experience. And you'll find other men here who would agree.
15 Apr 2013, 6:09 am
ezbzbfcg2 wrote:
qwan wrote:
You understood that perfectly.
You asked that like I'd made no sense just to point out it happens to males too.
You asked that like I'd made no sense just to point out it happens to males too.
No. That's not what I was doing. I can understand a misunderstanding, but I'm offended at your matter-of-fact misinterpretation and spin.
I was responding to your second one-sentence paragraph:
qwan wrote:
If a guy does it it's more acceptable, he's just not used to girls, a bit sheltered, maybe he's just awkward.
This is BS. Pure and simple. At least in this boy's experience. And you'll find other men here who would agree.
It certainly seems the case when you bring up half my post then point out guys get it too.
What exactly were you asking me then? Because the question was far too open ended to make much sense besides me having to compare it to your further response which seemed to just outline 'males have it too!'
I know males have it, males are also seen as sexual beings and often seen as aggressively seeking out sex, so any friendly behaviour can be misconstrued as such. I know with females on the spectrum as well as males, not knowing social boundaries can be a big cause of this with us.
I wasn't saying it was limited to females at all.
My latter sentence was a sentence of excuses people will give as to why it might be shrugged off in a male, they were not one big reason, just a collection of ones I've heard that I found worthy of note because they'd be used on a similar male friend for example, but wouldn't seem to 'fit' as well for a female.
I'm justifiably offended your response seemed to invalidate my input as stupid and nonsensical. This isn't a battle of sexes, it's a question of what may make females invisible.
If you're only going to say men have it too, then it's not adding to the discussion much, sorry if that sounds dismissive of your input.
I wholly enjoy input from different groups, like an intersex/androgynous persons input might be good to see also, but maybe that's going off topic.
If males were to point out more male dominated invisibility then compare it to female dominated invisibility that'd be interesting. Or if you were to point out some gender stereotype that might explain the difference that would be good input. But just saying 'hey, not every guy is a clearly raging aspie' is preaching to the converted I'm afraid.
_________________
AQ: 34
AS: 136/200
NT: 55/200
Alexthymia: 126/185
Suspected 'Pure O' OCD. (OCI: 64 or 11.6)
And wonderfully facially blind. XD
15 Apr 2013, 6:41 am
Anomiel wrote:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/ wrote:
FAQ: What’s wrong with saying that things happen to men, too?
*snip*
*snip*
I just wanted to say thank you for posting this. I'm extremely miffed that it needs to be said at all.
That was one of the best explanations that I think are available on the web.
15 Apr 2013, 7:38 am
I was diagnosed when I was 5 and I didn't really understand that, however my mother showed me how to navigate the world in my younger years.
Often at times my teachers growing up didn't believe my mother when she told them to be mindful of me, to give me some leniency and time when it came to social activity, the worst times were when I was in grade three and teachers forced me to play with the other children by forcing them to let me play every recess and constantly checked on me to make sure I was playing, when all I wanted to do read my book in the corner. It would confuse me and make me extremely sad when each lunchtime I was paired with a different child cause I was boring or annoying for asking questions.
Now however, as I am older I'm more aware of my way of thought and how it was different to NT people.
Everyday in every social situation I'm constantly focusing on my actions and speech, thinking about whether it's appropriate or rude and I'm constantly aware of the reactions of those around me. I've become so good at hiding my social awkwardness that I am doing constantly I actually fell into depression through stress and social anxiety. I'm better now thankfully.
When I told my friends that I'm an Aspie they thought I was lying and when I explained myself to them how I'm different they started to notice my ways and after several months they said to me to not act anymore.
I've never felt so alive more than when I'm with my friends cause they finally understood me and they accept me the way I am.
And they forgive me when I say something wrong and explain to me why it is.
15 Apr 2013, 7:53 am
qwan wrote:
It certainly seems the case when you bring up half my post then point out guys get it too.
Yes, certainly, of course.......that's sarcasm, so there's no confusion.
qwan wrote:
What exactly were you asking me then? Because the question was far too open ended to make much sense besides me having to compare it to your further response which seemed to just outline 'males have it too!'
I never said you were limiting it to females. I never said your input was nonsensical.
I included the first paragraph because it pertained to the "it" of the second paragraph.
I don't know what it's like to be female, but at the same time you don't know what it's like to be male. Presumably, we both know what it's like to be AS. The alleged generalization you made about men has never pertained to me. I've had no such luxury of being seen as innocuous, regardless of excuses NTs may have fed you. Gender differences aside, if you haven't learned already, NTs are highly unreliable. What they say in one scenario is the opposite of what they'll say or how they'll behave in another.
So when I saw that blanket statement (without any clarification that it was a line NTs have fed you, as you're claiming now) I felt the need to respond and ask what the hell you meant by it. You did not clarify it was an excuse you've been told. You presented it as if it were your own observation. Go back and reread it.
No one is "invalidating" your post. I find your claim disrespectful and indignant toward my response. As the old saying goes, when you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME.
15 Apr 2013, 9:56 am
Ok next time I'll remember to put them in quotation marks. Calm down and let the post continue it's course. it's going to end up us two ruining the thread with an argument that isn't important and you, or other guys feeling unwanted in here.
Sorry if it came across that way, I think we both understand enough other at this point, so I'm not going to say any more.
_________________
AQ: 34
AS: 136/200
NT: 55/200
Alexthymia: 126/185
Suspected 'Pure O' OCD. (OCI: 64 or 11.6)
And wonderfully facially blind. XD
15 Apr 2013, 11:40 am
Girls seem to be better at hiding it, but that doesn't mean that it can't happen with guys, too.
I think sometimes circumstances and specific symptoms can make it harder to spot, as well. (And of course, not knowing what to look out for.) For example, I was homeschooled for much of my life because public school wasn't working for me. Between this and not socializing much even in church activities, I think I wasn't put in many situations where I would seem 'odd.' (At least not until I spent more time on an Internet forum.) Also, one of the symptoms I don't have is the inability to recognize facial expressions - my parents tested me on that themselves when I was younger. (I don't always notice the expressions, though.) My parents have also been pretty good at teaching me things, like how to act in certain situations, but between not knowing about much else and occurrences generally being occasional and gradual, they never saw much reason to get me diagnosed. (My dad did offer to take me to the psychiatrist once when I broke down over a substitute dance teacher using different music than normal. I didn't take up the offer at the time, though.)
And this is why I'm currently self-diagnosed, trying to find someone who could give me an official diagnosis.
