AIBU to ask why ADHD and autism are dismissed as disabilities?

Because, as mentioned, either diagnosis does not automatically mean disability. If you disagree, google Tony Attwood and his diagnosis of autism.

Yes you better had as you’re continuously contradicting yourself and nitpicking unnecessarily.

The fact that the autism diagnostic criteria require “clinically significant impairment” for diagnosis does not mean the same thing as the Equality Act criteria. They are related concepts, but they are not the same. The Equality Act looks specifically at whether the condition has a substantial and long term adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities in their actual circumstances.Outside of a small number of conditions, which do not include autism, no condition automatically qualifies someone as disabled under the Equality Act. The burden is still on the individual to show how their condition affects their day to day life and whether that impact reaches the legal threshold. That is why an autism diagnosis alone is not automatic proof of disability. Equally, someone can still be considered disabled under the Equality Act without having a formal diagnosis of any specific condition at all.The autism diagnostic criteria themselves also recognise that autistic people vary greatly in presentation and support needs. Many autistic people are able to mask traits, develop coping strategies, and structure their lives around their strengths. Many people, particularly those with lower support needs, may function very successfully in careers and lifestyles well suited to their strengths and live fully independently without experiencing substantial impairment in the legal sense. In those circumstances they may not meet the Equality Act definition of disability, and many would not personally consider themselves disabled either. This is also why many people end up having to go through employment tribunals and other legal processes specifically to establish that, in their particular case, their autism amounts to a disability under the Equality Act. The diagnosis itself is not enough. I'm not sure how many other ways I can try to explain it, so I'm going to leave it here.

Then hardly anybody would have children.

Yes those that struggle with 1 children shouldnt have a 2nd child, of course. Is that a serious question?

@StartingFreshFor2026 exactly. Mine fell in a pond on holiday just wouldnt listen or hold hands and ran off. I was sooo thin from all the running.
At 1yo or so eldest put stones in mouth including on the sandy beach, where did it even come from!?
We tried a nursery at 14m and the supervision wasnt close enough. So had to quit work. So at school age 5 put something up nose and had GA.But she knew not to do that as had been through a few month spate at age 3..
The joy of adhd doing things they know are dangerous or told off for before

As for 5 children. I think that big families were all well and good in the times when you could just send kids out to play by themselves. Now with all the parental input required it's not a good idea unless you've got some outside support. The only people I see coping with that many kids are people who are not only in good health but have much less need for sleep and down time than average. I think that we need to be more honest about this.

We cannot afford to do this though!

Nope

Under the UK Equality Act 2010, an autism diagnosis qualifies as a disability, provided the condition has a long-term (lasting 12 months or more) and substantial (more than minor or trivial) adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

Autism is for life and under formal diagnostic frameworks like the DSM-5 and ICD-11, symptoms must cause"clinically significant impairment" in important areas of life (such as social, occupational, or educational functioning) to receive an autism diagnosis. That’s way more than minor or trivial and substantial.

No, the clinical threshold for diagnosis is lower than the threshold for disability under the equality act. The threshold for diagnosis just requires clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning, which can be limited to specific situations. To qualify as disabled under the equality act, the condition must have a substantial and long term adverse effect on the person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities (such as eating, washing, dressing, shopping, or talking). As a result, some diagnosed autistic people meet the legal definition of disability and some do not. You'd be perfectly entitled to think it should be different, but that reflects how the law currently stands.

She has the kids and that wasn’t what some of the posts were saying. All sorts of people have children and struggle, even some that just have 1 or 2. Shoild those that struggle with 1 not have a second? Funny that wasn’t said. Some of those posts very much pin pointed that the disabled shouldn’t have children.

Five kids is far more than most people have. And just the school run severely impacts her. Telling people to have as many kids as they'd like without thinking through the practicalities isn't having their best interests at heart.

“Many autistic people do not experience a substantial negative impact on their daily lives that meets the legal threshold, though many autistic people do.” That is incorrect.

Under formal diagnostic frameworks like the DSM-5 and ICD-11, symptoms must cause
"clinically significant impairment" in important areas of life (such as social, occupational, or educational functioning) to receive an autism diagnosis.

You seem to be confusing the clinical threshold for a diagnosis with the legal threshold for a disability. Just because someone has an autism diagnosis does not mean they are automatically considered disabled under the Equality Act.
The law does not grant automatic disability status to an autism diagnosis, or to the vast majority of other conditions. It applies a functional test, someone has to show that in their specific case their impairment has a substantial and long term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day to day activities.
Because autism is a spectrum, it affects people in vastly different ways and with varying levels of severity. Many autistic people do not experience a substantial negative impact on their daily lives that meets the legal threshold, though many autistic people do.
Similarly, someone with cerebral palsy who is mildly affected likely would not meet the criteria of being disabled under the Equality Act, whereas someone with more severe cerebral palsy would. Someone with mild cerebral palsy still meets the criteria for having cerebral palsy, just not for having a disability. The same applies to conditions like migraines, or arthritis, or depression, or a hearing impairment. That is exactly why the law requires a case by case assessment rather than treating every diagnosis as an automatic disability.

There is a perception that ADHD = disability when in fact some people can function very well with it whereas others are significantly impacted. For some people the condition is disabling, others don’t feel disabled by it and dislike being labelled as such. This is true of a lot of medical conditions but for some reason neurodivergence seems to get treated in this all or nothing way which is unhelpful and probably where a lot of the stigma comes from.

If we can afford to remove the 2 child cap we can afford disability benefits

That wasn’t why Keir Starmer resigned. I doubt very much that AB will resign and your ludicrous posts were about who should get PIP. Saying anybody intelligent or eloquent shouldn’t get PIP is beyond ridiculous.

I think you have a very naive idea about what’s affordable and what isn’t. Some people actually think we can afford to spend to meet an endlessness booming disability and pensions bill. We can’t, which is why Keir Starmer ended up resigning. He couldn’t fund defence without cutting welfare and backbenchers wouldn’t let him cut welfare. And it’s why Andy Burnham will end up resigning too.

You are seeing one tiny snapshot of their lives.

😂😂😂😂 no all intelligent eloquent people can’t get a job. You’re just sounding silly now.

You do realise there are many,many severely mentally disabled people in hospitals or under services and with very high support needs who are highly intelligent and eloquent.

If you’re intelligent and eloquent you can get a job. You might be ‘disabled’ but not disabled enough for the government to need to fund you. You’re not severely mentally disabled. You’ve not got a few months to live with MND or cancer? You can get a job or resort to friends / family / charity.

My opinion. But I’d put good money on that that’s where we’ll be with PIP in 5 years time because through my work I know enough about the state of the nations finances to know just how unaffordable the UK’s current situation is.

Wow so if you’re intelligent or eloquent you don’t get PIP. WTAF ,how clueless can you be?

Disability cuts across all levels of intelligence.

I don’t think PIP should be for wide ranging things. What absolutely STAGGERS me is the people that appear in documentaries about PIP who have depression or ADHD, and who are eloquent, intelligent, make great points to the camera and yet are too ill to work. These people who’ve been clearly told that their claims are justified when they don’t seem to be whatsoever. We’re institutionalising these people by not making them work. We’re making them benefit dependent. We’re certainly not helping them.

I taught in the 90s. Children with SEND were being moved out of a rigid segregated special school system into a more integrated system. We have also become better informed re autism. Women and girls were shut out before, now they’re not.

Autistic kids don’t manage school or just find it a bit harder than the average Jo. That is the whole point. Your ignorance is palpable.

Incorrect. Going through clothes and having sensory issues is not going to get you PIP. My autistic child is verbal and continent. She gets and is very much entitled to full PIP.