Self-diagnosis

Post Reply New Topic

I was diagnosed with autism when I was three years old.

I am not an activist, by the way.

That is not the point. You specifically said that I was not Autistic until I was diagnosed. That is not true. I have been Autistic all my life. Being something is different from referring to something as. If I lived in some remote area where a diagnosis for Autism had never been heard of, I would still be Autistic. The lack of diagnosis would not change that. Now I understand what you are trying to say. People should not claim something that they are not 100% certain of and you believe that the only way to be 100% certain is to have an official diagnosis. I can understand and respect that.

It is fine to say, "I believe I am Autistic but I don't have a diagnosis." That person is speaking the truth and is not claiming anything that should cause trouble to anyone. That statement leaves plenty of open space if that person happens to have been wrong in his assessment. And people who are self diagnosed are usually very honest about that fact.

But it is absolutely wrong for you to say that someone is not Autistic until told by a diagnostician. That is not only wrong and untrue and not logical, it is stupid. It is one thing to say, you can't 100% claim it until diagnosed, it is a very different thing to say, you were not Autistic until you were told.

If that were the case, we have just found the cure for Autism. Alert Autism Speaks, we got it! As long as nobody is diagnosed, no one will have Autism. We have just eradicated it. Hooray!

Last edited by skibum on 05 Jun 2016, 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

My opinions are my opinions. I speak for no one else.

Autism is a word used to describe a set of characteristics that produce functional defecits.

By definition she can't, as she didn't follow the diagnostic process.

Even Frith can only declare she highly suspects Blair may have been autistic.

Sonic, you make some good points, but you continually change your wording to avoid criticism. Seems an odd strategy for someone intent on being factual and who is acting like an "activist" for the medical industry (which is not run purely on helping others or truth, by the way).

You aren't autistic until you are diagnosed as such. At which point you have always been autistic.

Someone with AIDS can't say they have AIDS until they are diagnosed with AIDS.


As above.

No you wouldn't.

Autism is the diagnosis.


I have a problem when undiagnosed refer to themselves as 'autistic'.

It happens on this site.



Ironically, this is completely true.

But you haven't eradicated 'autism' - only the label.

No-one would have autism if the label didn't exist, as no-one would be diagnosed as such.

That's my point: autism is the label.

I don't really like the term "self-diagnosis" for reasons similar to AspieUtah. Many self-diagnosed people are fully aware that they don't know for sure and only suspect, but the term "self-diagnosed" doesn't make that clear.

The idea that someone isn't autistic until they receive a diagnosis, or that autism didn't exist until there was a word for it, is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm diagnosed with several visual impairments. I didn't not have them until I was diagnosed with them. That's quite silly.

Last edited by Grahzmann on 05 Jun 2016, 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Give me some examples and I'll address them individually.

Yeah, that is like saying that someone is not deaf until they are told they are deaf.

Autism is not the diagnosis. Autism is the condition. The diagnosis is used to identify the condition.

Last edited by skibum on 05 Jun 2016, 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not going back through your posts, but you'll probably find one in each of them. Your main example--you seem to be confusing the condition with the diagnosis. If someone is autistic, they are always autistic, the same way that humans always had arms before we created the word "arm." Yes, there was a time before we had a systematized picture of autism and the word to go along with it. Yes, someone may not factually say they are autistic prior to a diagnosis, but that doesn't mean they aren't autistic. You are literally saying that someone is not autistic until diagnosed. What you (apparently) mean to say is that they have not been confirmed as autistic. More specifically, they have not been confirmed by a professional. Lack of diagnosis is not the same as not being something. It's just lack of confirmation or a label. One could also argue that having the diagnosis or concept of autism may not necessarily be better for some individuals. Have you considered that? If you could find an autistic person from the past, they may be puzzled at your fixation on being labeled.

Also, not everyone with suspicions is making a declaration beyond that. You seem to not realize this. I have suspicions, but stating so does not mean I am trying to represent autistic people either publicly or privately. It only means that so far this is the best explanation I have in understanding myself, and I will pursue it until a either a diagnosis or a better explanation comes along. You can suspect yourself and be open to being corrected. About a year ago I thought I had testicular cancer, so I went to a doctor. I was glad to be corrected. Should I have not gone because I hadn't been diagnosed, therefor I was 100% cancer-free?

Last edited by HighLlama on 05 Jun 2016, 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That is just not true. And it makes no sense. But I have actually met other people who believe in this kind of thought pattern so I know that thought pattern exists. Doesn't make it true though.

Last edited by skibum on 05 Jun 2016, 5:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How are we to expect people to seek diagnosis if we have something against self-diagnosis?

Are people only able to get a diagnosis if their parents realise at an early age and put them through the process?

I want to say "touche" even though by definition I really can't. But that is a very excellent point.

I have everything against 'self-diagnosis' (or any variation thereof).

I have nothing against suspecting.



As above.

I was never self diagnosed, I was actually completely unaware of my own behaviour and unaware of how different I was until people pointed it out to me or I thought I was just crazy. I don't really think a self diagnoses is a good idea unless you know your psychology. Psychologists know what to look for and they know what IS a symptom and what isn't. It's a delicate process. If you aren't diagnosed then you aren't diagnosed, I do understand and do agree with self speculation,( which is basically saying "I might have [insert disorder here" but I'm not sure. but a person tends to be biased over dramatic and a self diagnoses may not be reliable.

You can still get a diagnoses without self diagnosing.