To think autism gets worse with each generation

[eastereggg]

Genuine question.

Why does it seem that autism gets worse with each generation?

Example: a mother is a late diagnosed autistic but her child is very clearly autistic and displays much more severe characteristics than she did. The grandmother would probably be diagnosed autistic today as well.

There seems to be a recurring pattern that I'm seeing where autism is getting more severe with each generation. Is there an explanation for this?

Yes but if autism is genetic that does increase the autism genes that the child Carries. Someone earlier on in the thread presented how it works

My aunt used to work in a mainstream school with mostly undiagnosed but very likely autistic/ADHD pupils - they were on the verge of being expelled. Some of them had been through several schools already. What often used to happen with those children was that they were shunted from school to school, until eventually the parents gave up and homeschooled them, or they were given a place at a special school (which were then mostly closed down) or they were of secondary age which meant they moved to secondary schools where they could much more easily bunk off and nobody bothered chasing them very hard, probably because they didn't want disruptive children in class anyway.

Schools don't have the budget to hire people like my aunt now, and they are discouraged from expelling pupils plus there aren't any special schools for the majority of "disruptive" children so they just stay in the classes they aren't coping in. But they have always existed even if you didn't see them in schools 30 years ago.

They were not sent away. They lived with families or in group homes if they could not live independently

Historically autistic children have been institutionalised where they have faced horrific abuses such as starvation, beatings, being medicated in experimental and not medically appropriate ways, tied up, isolated, neglected and have ended up in the system all of their life.

The children that remained at home weren't always better off.

I've told the story of the girl who lived opposite my mum as a child on another thread a long time ago but my mum used to play with a boy over the road, he wasn't allowed to talk about his sister and she was never seen. It was only as they grew up together that the boy said his sister wasn't allowed out of the house and it was shameful for the neighbours to know they had an abomination child. She died, and even the coroner waited until the small hours to collect her, and the next day the family carried on as though nothing happened.

So whether they were kept inside or lived elsewhere they were hidden.

It would be disingenuous to act like that abuse never happened in history.

I worked with autistic children in the eighties who would never be independent. They were not being abused unlike the tragic child you knew. If they became violent as young adults and were unmanageable by parents, then yes they were sent to group homes. The others were looked after by families.
These autistic people would not be having children today either as they could not live independently. Those who could live independently were very unlikely to be diagnosed with autism. They may have been seen as different or quirky, some got married and had childrem just like today.

There is a book called The Pattern Finders by Simin Baron Cohen which basically says we are selectively breeding autistic traits through social mobility. Whereas 100 years ago there may have been an autistic lad in the village, he would grow up, stay in the same village, in the family business, marry the local miller's daughter because she was the right age and the family was respectable and there would be a 50% chance of passing on autistic traits. Nowadays, the same autistic lad would not be bound to the family business in the same way, so would probably move to a university city to study his special interest topic at university level where he would meet someone from the other side of the country who had also moved there to study the same special interests as him. They would marry based on interest and attraction rather than family obligations and if they marry and have kids, those kids would have twice the chance of inheriting autistic traits as they would be potentially inheriting these traits from both parents.
I'm probably butchering the explanation a bit, but that is the general gist of it.

I'm really very sorry but I think you might have a limited view based on your own experience.

I've done some searching about institutions nand the kinds of abuse suffered by these children ranges from emotional to physical to sexual from the 80s to the 90s, and I know it will have been more prevalent earlier in the 20th century too but 2 children's homes in Nottinghamshire have popped up. Amberdale and Beechwood.

In the 50s-60s there was a significant amount of abuse coming from Kendricks Hall in reading.

In north Wales, Bryn Estyn as an example, many kids there had no family advocates whatsoever and received a significant amount of abuse from staff.

I am sure if I looked further I could find a whole library of information on abuse scandals for children in homes who have been placed there through disability or poverty.

I could definitely find articles about correctional facilities, many of which will have had many autistic children as young as 10 directed there as their unmet needs and behaviours would either lead to crime or they'd be incorrectly institutionalised as a form of correction for their behaviours and painted as criminals. Borstal for one. Overcrowded, underfunded, abuse from staff, etc.

Children have died in these institutions because of the abuse they have faced.

It sounds like your experience with autistic children wasn't in these institutions. I'm happy that the abuse wasn't universal. But it is undeniable that it did happen.

@Jimmyneutronsforehead based on what I have seen, read and the more I read, I believe your reflection of experiences for many is accurate. The reality for so many is hideous to the extent that one would never believe it, or want to contemplate it as reality.

Children's homes were often abusive places to ND and neurodiverse children

You're right, they were.

But children that were labelled mentally defective or maladjusted were institutionalised throughout the 20th century, granted the latter part of the 20th century saw many institutions closed thanks to changes in the law.

Mentally defective or maladjusted covered what would be learning disabilities, autism, poor mental health or behaviours that weren't conforming with societal norms.

The Education Act 1944 categorises children with these behaviours as educationally subnormal and maladjusted.

This only ended in 1970 with the Education Handicapped Children act that meant all children should have a right to Education but changes weren't implemented overnight and didn't help children that were in group homes or institutions for a considerable amount of time afterwards.

By the 80s when you worked with children with autism the groundwork for change had already been laid and thankfully institutionalised abuse of autistic children, and children in general was on the decline as they were better protected in law.

Thankfully families are much better supported now though having experience with adults in assisted living facilities and knowing children who have been in the foster system, these establishments just take a different form, as does the abuse and often it comes from the government and local government bodies in the way of underfunding and budget cuts which has a knock on effect to the standard of care that can be delivered.

Sorry for the long reply, it was simply in response to you saying that autistic children weren't sent away.

It seems pretty simple to me. Autistic folk - like myself - were, in days gone by, hidden away because their differences from the norm outweighed their usefulness to society, apart from the real exceptional individuals who advanced the sciences. That made it much less likely that they'd find a partner with whom to continue participating in the gene pool, because they had much lower social value.

However, since the world has become more and more office- and information-based, those of us who can sorta-kinda function in the real world are suddenly vastly more useful to society, and because we can often hide our shutdowns outside the normal 9-5 routine we pass for "normal". That means we can earn more than our predecessors, which gives us more social value - which makes it a lot more likely that we're going to have the opportunity to reproduce.

We also tend to flock together - even if we're undiagnosed, we'll unintentionally tend towards those who are more similar to ourselves (not always, obviously, but often enough that it's notable). When that happens, given the mostly-genetic basis for autism, it increases both the likelihood that our offspring will be autistic and the likelihood that they'll have a combination of traits that's more pervasive and disabling relative to society.

Of course, I'm not a geneticist and have little interest in such things, so all of the above is just a reasonable explanation that lives in my head as mostly logical. It may or may not be accurate, so take it with a pinch of salt.

I think this makes a lot of sense. My husband and I definitely see traits of both of us in our son.

I'd say true to a degree looking at my DH. He was diagnosed at 4, but is very much what people would call high functioning. I strongly suspect his father has it, undiagnosed. Our son though, he's 3 and showing no signs whatsoever. My DH was speech delayed. Our son is sociable, talkative from a young age etc, no other red flags. I was surprised because I was quite sure we'd probably have a child with ASD.

Not so long ago, the more disabled in society were placed in institutions. Awful. The people more disabled by autism who need 24 hour care are still unlikely to have children. The care home for adults with disabilities near me, mainly autism, none will have children.

People less affected by their autism and more able will have, or might have children.

The benefits that come with very disabled adult children with autism support the entire household

If someone could signpost me to these very lucrative benefits that will support my whole household I'd be very grateful, I'm clearly missing a trick

This is true, but there are many autistic children and adults where the condition is utterly disabling. My son goes to a special school for those with severe autism and some of the kids need 3:1 full-time support and care. Many have very severely self-injurious behaviour, are incontinent and nearly all are non-verbal. They will never be able to be left alone, let alone get a job, get married or have children.

Sadly even now this is the side of autism that people often prefer not to hear about, with the focus being on the higher functioning ‘neurodiverse’. My son and his cohort aren’t neurodiverse. They are severely disabled. And still overlooked by society, still essentially hidden from view and from the conversation. Same as they ever were.

to everyone parenting who is struggling, or who struggled themselves as a child, and of course to your kids

I work in a creative field where announcing you are autistic definitely can bring benefits and people definitely do exploit it IMO - you can just self-diagnose and no one will ask awkward questions. This then means you are eligible for countless grants, competitions, jobs, deals and contracts that are only open to “under-represented” groups, the disabled or the ND. Some people also make it the subject of their work and are hugely celebrated for it. Yes I’m an old cynic but I often can’t fail to notice these people frequently have brilliant schmoozing and self-marketing skills and no problem with constant networking, public speaking etc.

Of course some really will have ASD and some will be diagnosed, and everyone with autism is different and it shouldn’t be stereotyped - but I’ll still stick my neck out and say in an industry where it can be hard to make a living and get a foothold, some people just exploit this obvious opportunity.

Of course that doesn’t help struggling families with children who need a lot of support - they are unlikely to benefit financially overall. And the above glossy, celebrated, “it’s my superpower” image of autism just does more to skew the public understanding of it away from the forms that cause severe disability.

(Much the same thing happens with being “non-binary” as well. If you can identify into it with no questions asked and it furthers your career, then some people will.)

Perhaps rethink your life choices and career if it has left you so bitter that you can scroll through a thread containing heart rending accounts of how hard lives are and still cheerfully smear autistic people as opportunists who are cashing in?

Sorry haven't RTFT but there's a data collection bias in your example.

In the same example, the mother with only mild presentation who goes on to have a child without ASD is much less likely to pursue a diagnosis for herself.

There is a genuine phenomena known as "genetic anticipation" whereby the presentation of a disorder is worse in each subsequent generation.

It's nature's way of trying to remove disease from the population as eventually an offspring will be affected too severely to go on to have children and the gene line will end.

Not sure if it's true that autism shows this phenomena though

That’s a good point. It’s only since having my second child (eldest doesn’t have ASD, youngest does) that I’ve been considering seeking assessment.

That's the thing though. The way people monetise and make autism "fashionable" does make it harder for those who have more significant struggles with it and who are then sidelined by the media and the popular image of it. When I say this, I'm joining in the discussion about why anyone would "want" autism or how anyone could possibly benefit from it, as well as the discussion about its apparent prevalence. I'm not thereby dissing or disbelieving everyone who has it - far from it. But like it or not, it is fashionable and seen as a plus point in many arty/creative circles and this is exploited. Others on the thread have also mentioned parents who exploit it for social media.

There is already a huge and acrimonious debate within autism circles/organisations about the way the most vocal, and what some might call "functioning", and often the self-diagnosed, dominate the conversation, and claim autism as only a positive thing when for some people with it and their parents it's anything but.

To be cynical (or "bitter") about this – I agree I'm cynical, I don't feel bitter – is reasonable IMO, and I feel that way because I do think those more severely affected or who struggle the most should get the majority of the attention and resources.

I do speak as someone with ASD in my immediate family. I think it's OK to criticise exploitation of it. This doesn't equate to criticising everyone who has it or being unsympathetic - can you see that?

I haven't read the whole thread, but there are a lot of issues here. Firstly, before the criteria changed, the vast majority of women with autism were misdiagnosed with BPD. Also, before care in the community, a lot of them would have been institutionalised.
Then add in various different parenting styles, ranging from strict for boomers, permissive verging on neglect (by todays standards) for gen X, helicopter parents for millennials and gentle parenting for Gen Z. Given that these wildly varying styles will surely impact how autism presents itself it is hard to make any generalisations at all.