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?

I think this is the confusion. Nobody is saying that anyone with an autism diagnosis isn’t significantly impacted by their disability, what they are saying is some autistic people are more disabled by their condition than others. It’s a bit like being female, sometimes it’s a mild disadvantage and you experience sexism in the form of lower pay, worse healthcare and sexual aggression, as we do in the UK. That’s dreadful but it’s mild in comparison to what being female brings if you live under the Taliban. The impact in both instances IS significant but one is severe and one mild or moderate or whatever descriptors you want to use.

A number of people in this thread have said exactly that - which is the primary problem. The secondary problem is what usually follows, which is "if you're not heavily disabled 100% of the time, you're not even autistic" as though anything other than a complete, pervasive inability to live without 24/7 support is just some kind of mild inconvenience.

Autism can be caused by genetic conditions e.g fragile x where the number of repeats on the x chromosome expands between generations increasing the severity of the autism (a carrier with less than 200 repeats may have some autism symptoms whereas someone with the full mutation of over 200 repeats is likely to display severe autism symptoms (especially if male).

It is estimated that around 5% of autism is linked to fragile x and it is possible there are other genetic mutations we do not yet know about which work in the same way in causing autism.

An autistics persons inability to mask at all in my example is only part of it.
if they have more symptoms than I do overall, to more of a severity than I have over all, and are functioning less than I can over all, then they are more autistic. I can mask sometimes. There are people who can’t mask at all.
I’m not necessarily referring to co-morbidities.

Yes that’s what I’m saying

I don’t think they have said that or if someone has it’s not most people. What I think is there’s an inability to recognise that personal experience however difficult may not be even a fraction of what less able autistics experience. Sometimes it is true that you are NOT the most vulnerable person in the room and that your experience while excruciating may not even touch the sides of other less fortunate people experience. It’s not really about Top Trumps though it more about reality.

Yet autistic women without a co-morbid learning disability (i.e. the subsection of the autistic population stereotypically considered able to mask the best) is the subsection of the autistic population most likely to die by suicide.

Sorry, the quote didn’t work, but my post was in response to @catphone’s post.

That’s a ridiculous analogy and autism is completely different. You can’t categorise it. If everybody’s autism significantly impacts life nobody has mild autism for a start. You could say those who need tier 4 hospitals or supportive living are “severe” but the need for both can change during life. Somebody who doesn’t need either could be described as mild in comparison but that isn’t necessarily the case as they may be unable to work or on hoards of meds just to cope with life doing very little.Learning disabilities can be separate to autism, sometimes not…Also the way it impacts may differ but that in itself doesn’t mean need is less or more.

I don’t agree that they are “more autistic” any more than an afghani woman is “more female” than I am. I think they are more impacted by their disability.

I disagree I think you CAN categorise it (and they do). It is utterly ridiculous to me that anyone thinks it’s a unilateral experience.

Masking is hugely destructive and damaging. My dd masks massively and it has caused far more issues and use of services than with other members of the family who present more in the stereotypical way.

You aren’t given a category on a uk diagnosis. DSm5 introduced support needs which didn’t appear on any of our nhs diagnosis but that’s very different and it is highlighted that “different levels can exist within the same person, who may have low support needs in one sphere and high in another.” You can also change in need severity during life. My dd has been 1,2 and 3 as regards support needs.

And yet...you're the one comparing levels of disability as though it's a card game. The only effect of that is to minimise someone's struggles. It's no different to the nonsensical "People in Africa have it worse than you, so suck it up" rubbish that parents foist on their kids - it helps precisely nobody, and is used specifically to silence them.

Just as a point of order...the NHS isn't the only diagnostic service, and the lack of level assignment is perhaps because (as far as I'm aware) they only use the ICD definitions. I had a level reference in my (private) diagnosis, because it was done with reference to both the ICD and DSM.

With that said, they're pretty much irrelevant here - as I mentioned earlier, the levels set in the DSM are only there because they specifically relate to the US health insurance system, so they don't mean a whole lot in any other context.

@Ohthatsabitshit

I disagree I think you CAN categorise it (and they do).

When should it be categorised?

DD was diagnosed in primary school, at the time she would have been categorised as having low support needs. Fast forward to her mid teens I have a child who hasn't spoken to a single person outside of parents/siblings for 3 years. She needs a very high level of support, an adult with her at all times. If she were categorised at the point of diagnosis it would not match the person she is now.

its possible for someone to be more impacted by their autism than you in a given situation but its also possible for someone to be more autistic than you. There are so many symptoms and severities associated with autism and there are people who will have more symptoms associated with autism that are more severe. In this imaginary scenario, their areas of the brain might be more impacted by autism than in yours.

But now you're basing autism on a linear spectrum of just a tiny little bit autistic all the way to extremely autistic.

The autism spectrum is not linear. It's a spider graph of need and symptoms and yes some people's needs in some areas will consistently be considerably higher and they may or may not have comorbid conditions like learning disabilities, speech apraxia, extreme sensory sensitivities, etc. but that doesn't make them more autistic it means that in those areas their need is greater and they are more disabled in these areas.

Actually, most of the NHS ones I get via work do comment on the level of impairment.

None of ours have a category, some description but category no.

And quite rightly so as all have different severities in different areas and there has been movement in need. Interestingly the ones who didn’t get the early diagnosi( mostly women)have been the ones to increase hugely in level of need- significantly. I’m talking tier 4, supportive living, multiple services etc. Communication altered dramatically too.

I have a mix of low functioning and high functioning symptoms that fluctuate depending on stress/no stress or circumstances. I’m already aware that an autistic person can have higher functioning and lower functioning areas. I’m aware that autism can become more severe and autistic people can regress, and that it can improve depending on the circumstances. I’m also aware that you can go from high to low support needs or low to high support needs across a life time.
But there are still autistic people with more autistic symptoms than I have overall who can function less than I can over all in comparably the same circumstances. There are autistic people who can function more than I can over all in comparably the same circumstances.

My dd has been 1,2 and 3 as regards support needs.
So you can categorise but you can move from one category to another throughout your life. This is probably a very familiar idea to those who’ve watched an autistic person grow up. I certainly know many autistics who were non verbal and very impinged under 5 who are now much more in line with nt peers.

All autistics will be more impacted by their autism than me because I am not autistic and they are. They may be more impacted by their autism than another autistic but they aren’t “more autistic” as I understand the term.

Who also fluctuate and whose symptoms can become severe. All you can really compare is a snapshot in any given moment. Which doesn't seem to really help your argument?

Children develop anyway. There is a difference between an ASD child who is late to milestones like talking and walking, to an adult who is non verbal for life.
With adults, movement is usually far more slight.
But this is not an unusual situation with any disability. Maybe as an adult you get a better mobility aid that improves your functioning? Or your pain reduces spontaneously. Very few disabilities stay exactly the same from birth to death.