Autism is genetic

[jonesonscam]

The National Autistic Society has just said something pretty significant: Autism is genetic. Not “possibly genetic”. Not “we’re not really sure what causes it”.

After reviewing 83 research papers, the NAS is now stating definitively that autism is genetic. You’re born autistic and you’re autistic for life. Most autistic people are autistic because of genes they inherited from their parents.

I think this matters enormously because for decades, autism has been surrounded by nonsense about vaccines, parenting, mothers doing something wrong, pregnancy, diet and a million other things.

It has left parents blaming themselves, and autistic people being told that something caused them to be autistic that could somehow have been prevented.

There isn't an “autism gene”. Thousands of genes are involved, and genetics is complicated. But the basic message is now remarkably clear: autism isn't something that happened to someone. It's something they were born with.

That matters because when we stop looking for something to blame, we can start looking at what actually matters: understanding autistic people, supporting them properly, and making a society that works for them.

This all feels like a pretty important shift.

So you agree we are all one the different spectrums that make up the criteria for diagnosis and that there is no defined cut-off point for ‘impact their functionality’? But rather that these barriers are subjective measures?

Also what do you mean by NT? There is no such thing as ‘neurotypical’ any more than ‘age typical’ - at best it is a theoretical average. Indeed age is the biggest cause of neurodiversity. NT is itself an ableist concept as it is generally used to mean ‘not autistic’ and therefore not disable by neurodevelopmental of acquired differences in thinking which ignores and dismisses the vast majority of disabled ‘ND’ people who are not autistic.

Neurotypical just means someone who isn't neurodivergent.

We don't all fit on a spectrum of dyslexia, we don't all fit on a spectrum of dyscalculia, we don't all fit on a spectrum of dyspraxia, we don't all fit on a spectrum of epilepsy. It's the same for ADHD and autism.

I understand what you are saying when you say we must all be on a spectrum somewhere, but we're not. Some people may have a condition, and their needs would fall somewhere on a spectrum, but for the people who do not have any neurodivergent conditions they are neurotypical. Their brains have developed typically and they process information and stimulus typically.

You can be neurodivergent and not autistic, but you can't be neurotypical and on a spectrum of neurodivergence, however neurotypical or neurodivergent collectively make neurodiversity.

Edited because I speed typed and completely fumbled my sentence.

No one is ‘neurotypical’ as there is no ‘typical’ type of thinking.

You have not shown how we do not fit on the spectrum for any of these? Certainly the cut off points for dyslexia vary so much that estimates for prevalence vary from about 7% to 20%.

If there were clear cutoff points then diagnostic criteria would shift. It is a bit like eyesight - we all sit on a spectrum of visual ability but some people are short sighted and some are registered blind.

The fact that a trait is continuously distributed doesn't mean everyone has the condition associated with one part of that distribution. Height is continuous; that doesn't mean everyone has dwarfism to some degree. Reading ability can be continuously distributed while dyslexia remains a term applied to a particular pattern of difficulty.

Variation in diagnostic thresholds also doesn't demonstrate that everyone is dyslexic. It demonstrates that different definitions identify somewhat different populations.

And neurotypical doesn't mean “a person with an entirely average brain who thinks exactly like everyone else”. It simply distinguishes people who are not neurodivergent. Neurotypical people still contribute to neurodiversity because neurodiversity describes variation across all human brains.

Great post! ❤️

Well obviously they've studied families. They couldn't have come to this conclusion otherwise.

My question was specifically regarding whether research had been carried out on fraternal twins, which another pp has now kindly answered.

I have never said we are all autistic. I have said, as you have now, that we are all in a spectrum (or spectrums) that include autism and that there is no specific defined cut-off point for autism on those spectrums. The variations in prevalence in the same population shows that there is no agreed cut off point at which you are deemed ‘dyslexic’

I haven't said we're all on a spectrum that includes autism. I've said autistic-associated traits can be continuously distributed in the general population. Those aren't the same claim.

Variation in diagnostic thresholds doesn't change that either. A boundary can be imperfect or fuzzy without everyone outside it being "on the spectrum" of that condition.

There you go again agreeing with me - traits can be continuously distributed in the general population. ‘Continuously distributed’ is a spectrum.

As for ‘neurotypical’: young children are neurodivergent from the whole population as are teenagers -and older people. Lefthanders are neurodivergent. Dyslexic people are neurodivergent as are those with FASD, dyscalculia, language processing disorder, sensory processing disorders, sensory impairments, stroke, depression, alcoholism, drug addiction, that with toxoplasmosis infection, dementia, dyspraxia, high iq, low iq, differences in executive function, brain injury, epilepsy, genetic syndromes, schizophrenia, EUD, psychopathy…. By the time you rule out everyone who is neurodivergent for one reason or another the few that are left are then also neurodivergent.

Given that lots of us have come to a realisation after our own kids were diagnosed and then cast the side eye at our own parents...

No, most de novo mutations are actually harmless and everyone has some. Depending on where they occur they can cause significant disability, but occasionally too they can be beneficial and are selected for. Most are neutral or near-neutral in their effect on an individual though.

Right. Ok. You are being deliberately obtuse.

Google would have answered you very kindly too.

Then what's the point in having a discussion forum at all?

To discuss things.

Instead of sniping at people who answered your question in good faith with the knowledge they had to hand instead of just ignoring you.

This was pretty obvious in my husband’s family. His niece from one sibling has AuDHD and 2 nephews from his other sibling have autism.
Since being around my husband’s niece and nephews, I believe Mum has autistic traits and so does her Mum.

Ok, we all typically have hands, right? Except some people might have lost their hand/s, some might have hand deformities. We're not all on a spectrum of hand deformities or absence just because the trait of hands is distributed across a population. The spectrum excludes those who have the typical development of hands.

You are arguing that spectrum should start with typically developing hands.

You're even arguing there is a spectrum of typically developing hands, which is true in the sense that there is normal human variation in size, width, skin colour, which yes I agree, it is true, but those are still typically developed hands.

You're mixing the divergent in with the typical.

That doesn't mean there isn't a typical and a divergent. We're not on a spectrum of limb deformities or developmental divergence if you have 2 hands, 2 thumbs and 8 fingers all in their right place and working functionally. I suspect the part you're struggling with is the fact a limb difference is tangible and you can see it whereas neurodivergence isn't.

That is why we have a diagnostic threshold. Just because the threshold can be a bit fuzzy sometimes doesn't mean those who don't meet the criteria at all are still on the spectrum.

That is the best and most informative description I have read about autism. Thank you.

Yes, I remember an autistic person explaining it like this: when their friend went to the supermarket and found things had been moved around, the friend found that somewhat annoying and frustrating, but carried on shopping while grumbling a bit.

The autistic person, on the other hand, was overwhelmed to such a degree that they had to leave the shop and do breathing exercises to calm down for half an hour before very briefly returning.

The same things can impact NT and ND people but to very different degrees.

Genetics isn't as advanced as many think. DD1 has a de novo genetic syndrome. We don't know what it is, despite her having been in the DDD study from age 4 and the 100,000 genomes study. The Bayler Institute contacted her geneticist a couple of years ago to ask for her data file because they had identified about 12 people across the world with the same variation, but they then have to compare the profiles and see if there's a correlation between features. DD1 last saw a geneticist when she was 13, I think, and she has changed a lot since then, so they'll be working with incomplete data. She wasn't diagnosed with ASD until 15 and ADHD at 20, because her LD dx was seen as sufficient to get her into special school. It was only when special school went wrong that it was agreed that she needed formal assessment and diagnosis.

We all have ASD and ADHD in our family (2 parents, 3 children). The profiles are wildly different between us all. So it isn't clear cut that if one person has ASD, they'll have a 'mini-me' as a result.

I don't know if anyone has linked to this article as I haven't ready every single post, but it came through on my Facebook feed.

She has researched ADHD and autism for 10 years: one particular factor may have made the number of diagnoses skyrocket | scienceillustrated.com

I'm not sniping at anyone. Being autistic myself, I have an interest in discussing this sort of thing.

Autistic children and indeed random non Autistic people try to erase those with certain behaviours by saying "that's learning disabilities not Autism", about behaviours very rare indeed among populations who genuinely "just" have intellectual disabilities).

What are the rare behaviours @Wechsel?
I’m curious as I’ve often seen the above happen on MN but don’t know enough to argue the point as I’d like to.

Not rare behaviour amongst the population with autism and learning disabilities, rare among those with "just" learning disabilities -

more a profile than a behaviour but not understanding the point of communicating other than wants and needs despite relatively strong abilities in other areas. Profiles with social communication and social interaction at practically newborn levels but some other skills ranging between 6-12 year old levels (no identifiable hearing issues)...

becoming incredibly distressed by even tiny changes in routine or environment, to the point of severe self injury or extremely aggressive behaviour

becoming extremely over stimulated and disregulated by certain types of weather

being unable to tolerate peers (especially autistic peers with vocal or movement stims) in group settings, whether school or day placement or supported living, to the point of lashing out, screaming, crying and self injury

socially inappropriate behaviour disproportionate to the level of intellectual disability (many people with intellectual disabilities learn social skills as a survival strategy - they shouldn't "have to" perhaps, but it's often a strength, not just among people with Trisomy 21 although that's a well known stereotype. One of the challenges for people with both intellectual disabilities and autism is often not doing this instinctively but also not being able to intellectualise social rules and expectations why it's useful sometimes to work with them to avoid trouble either).

Quite literally walking through people as though they are not there if they're on your usual route from A to B and having no recognition of this being a problem ...

Editing to add eloping - a main one! Eloping meaning fleeing towards danger in order to escape an overwhelming but objectively not dangerous situation (NOT a strategy of choosing to leave a situation safely, but an instinctive flight response highly likely to lead to serious risk taking - running into traffic, jumping outvof third floor window, to get away from a bottle placed incorrectly or an unexpected unstructured break...