Self-diagnosis

Post Reply New Topic

From the both of you: this is discrimination.

No it doesn't mean the same thing.

And even if it did, there's still the potential for misinterpretation to those who visit sites such as this.

Which is also the danger of not declaring oneself as suspecting they are autistic online or otherwise, yet continuing to post on threads regarding experiences of autistics.



-EDIT- what would be very interesting would be a survey to see how many active posters on WP are officially diagnosed.

Such a survey may well reveal the majority of posters here are not, in fact, diagnosed as autistic (or it could reveal the opposite).

The majority opinion on this site may be non-autistic.

Last edited by sonicallysensitive on 06 Jun 2016, 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

I amn't so certain. I mean, if they named you as one of described individuals, then, yes. Meanwhile, aren't you simply self identifying without external proof of confirmation?

I didn't say it was discrimination against me.

I said it was discrimination.

Plus, I don't fit the description.

Ah, so it was self-identification by proxy?

Earlier I mentioned "haters" in general, and he responded that he's not a hater.

"the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex"

Here's the definition of "discrimination" for anyone who may be confused.

I define self diagnosed as a person bieng confident enough that they are autistic to make decisions based on this belief. It has nothing to do with telling anybody.

If a clinicion competent in Autism for your demographic is not available for any reason(s) a thorougly reasearched self diagnosis is a good workaround.

The idea that you are not autistic unless you get an official diagnosis is ridiculously wrong. You are autistic or you are not. If you break your leg in the woods and can not get to a doctor for a month your leg does not suddenly become broken when the doctor confirms your suspicion.

Should one say one is autistic without an official diagnosis is a matter of opinion. I personally prefer "suspect" but damm if I am going to tell anybody how to self identify, too many language police as there is.

The harm caused by the perception of masses of people fooling themselves and others into thinking they are Autistic special snowflakes is much greater then the harm caused by the actual people doing that.

Instead of fighting each other over this topic it would be better use this mental energy to fight for much greater avalibility of competent diagnoses and treatment for everybody.

Indeed. I haven't ever met an individual who exaggerated his or her possible autism. Never.

Last edited by AspieUtah on 06 Jun 2016, 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

There's really no use/purpose in exaggerating one's autism.

No. Read below.



Yes. I agree completely.

But you can't call yourself autistic until diagnosis.

Therefore, you can only, at best, suspect.



As of my first post in this thread i.e. a leg doesn't have a mind.

However, the above isn't as clear-cut as you'd imagine (a suspected break can often be something else. This is the case for many medical issues).



Agreed. And in my opinion, it is wrong (for the reasons I've already mentioned: reasons which are potentially damaging).


There's nothing wrong with what you refer to as 'language police' (if there's anything wrong in your sentence, it's using such a term) - seeking a clearer definition of an issue is not a negative.

However, it is often perceived as a negative when/if it reveals flaws in logic.


I disagree. I also see this not as a fight, but as a debate.

This topic is at the very centre of 'Autism' - as it deals with what it means to be/not be autistic.

Hence it is potentially divisive.


But I don't think it should be avoided as a product of this.


If someone asks a question RE self-diagnosis on this forum, we are all entitled to state/defend our position.

...Unless the site blocks all discussion on the issue? Which would be hypocritical.

I'm autistic.
I guess you're not the boss of me.

ZombieBrideXD quote (again having CAPTCHA issues!):

A lot of the harm comes from abusing the diagnoses of autism.

Let's say a person thinks their autistic but in reality they just have social phobia with OCD tendencies. This person self diagnoses them selfs. This person COULD receive treatment for social phobia and actually OVERCOME social anxiety with proper treatment. That's part of the harm.

And let's say a person IS autistic, is truly suffering and is self diagnosed, this person goes without treatment and therapy and continues to suffer.

Catching up after time away earlier today. So, I may be bringing the conversation back to an earlier point, but to address this...

I think perhaps the issue is that you're assuming that every official diagnosis is about getting 'treatment'?

One of the factors in self-diagnosis is that you're not looking for treatment. However, the support and understanding can be of huge benefit on its own. Equally, some of the coping mechanisms of autistic people ARE valuable for people that aren't on the spectrum - there's absolutely nothing wrong with learning from people that aren't like you, as well as those that are. It seems odd that it's said 'if you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism', yet if someone has a different view and is self-diagnosed then suddenly they 'don't represent the autistic population', as though the autistic population comprises identical cookie cutter people?

Obviously if you did want someone to offer you a 'treatment' for whatever, then you would need to go and get diagnosed.

As it is, I'm going through the diagnosis currently and I still don't see a need for 'treatment' by a professional. Therapy is included in the process I'm going through, but I still don't know what I'm going to do with those sessions. That's not my priority. I'm getting much of what I need to help me from my self-diagnosis, and seeking diagnosis for other reasons.

I guess that might be the perspective difference, right there. If you're diagnosed young maybe you've gone through a life of being 'treated' for your autism, as though you're looking for a fix. If you're seeking diagnosis (or self-diagnosing) at a later date, you've learned that there's a lot you can do to help yourself if you know where to look and what to look for. Some people have never had a professional trying to fix their issues - they do it on their own. Self-diagnosis leads to self-treatment.

Later in this thread someone also asked...if you'd not seen the diagnostic criteria, would you be seeking a diagnosis?

No, I wouldn't. Because I've gone through my whole life not knowing that I may be autistic. How would that situation have changed? I had to have an in-depth understanding of what autism really was, in order to believe that I have it. And without believing that, I would not be wasting the time of the professionals.

They don't represent the autistic population.

They aren't diagnosed as autistic.

But all autistic people are different, are they not? I'm not saying that people that aren't diagnosed should be counted as being representative - I'm saying that some on this thread seem to think it's a huge deal that anyone that's speaking is 'not speaking for them', when surely they will also be individuals with their own minds, opinions and feelings? Does an diagnosed autistic person automatically speak 'for you'? That seems odd, in itself.

Does it not make sense to approach forums like this as 'everyone is giving their own experiences, I'll give mine' rather than 'hey, there are some other autistic people, they'll share my view!'.

If you don't require therapy, treatment or support then you don't need a diagnoses, that's actually stated in the DSM 5. This comes back to what I've been saying for months.

It's it's not maladaptive, unjustifiable, disturbing and/or atypical, it's not a symptom.