Explain to me why you offence is caused by saying things like 'mildly autistic' etc.

[Purpleturtle45]

If ASD is a spectrum why do people commonly disagree that you can be mildly autistic or severely autistic etc.

My daughter is diagnosed with ASD, however you wouldn't really know unless you knew her well. She goes to mainstream school and copes well with everyday life most of the time so to me I would say she is mildly autistic but I often see people getting ripped to shreds on here for using that term.

Genuinely wondering how 'spectrum' can literally be in the title of the condition but people disagree there can be different severities.

Yes, my Asperger’s young adult will most likely never live independently either. At the moment we would never leave him in the house alone for any period of time. He cannot leave the house unaccompanied. He needs help with every aspect of daily life. I am a full time carer.

I do think people forget about this group sometimes.

Some autistic people without an intellectual disability/speech issue will go to school and college and can work, marry and have children. They will have issues but can cope in the right environment.

Others simply cannot.

I don't think the colour wheel is as much a gotcha as people think, they are still plotting the points in each zone on a continuum from unaffected to severely so. It's like it's posted to end the conversation with nobody actually thinking about it.

My DD has an ASD diagnosis and it has very little impact as long as everything else is going well. She was diagnosed alongside a physical medical issue and was confusing the diagnosis by developing stims, for example. She often just needs a slightly different approach/parenting and is thriving compared to even her NT peers (just now).

I have a friend whose autistic DS doesn't sleep, doesn't speak, smears on the walls and is incredibly violent. I would consider it more dismissive or offensive to imply our struggles are the same than to say DD is milder. Me thinking how to re-word a question so she understands is nothing like deciding which parent stays up all night or tries to restrain a strong and violent child.

However, I know which child is more likely to contribute to advocacy or conversation, who will decide the language used centres them - it's the one able to do so. In fact at her school it's almost entirely those self identifying as ND who decide how it's handled.

I would use "mild" because I wouldn't want resources allocated to my child when those less able to ask need them more. I have also used similar terms in reassuring my DD she isn't going to have a life as hard as my friends son.

I have a chronic health condition, I'm lucky it's well controlled just now. I don't need validation that I really have it or things like a blue badge. Other people with the condition will. It takes nothing from me to recognise I'm currently less affected but it does take from them if I demand everyone with the same condition has to be treated the same.

If people don't want to agree with this, it's a choice they want to make. Like self-harm, this choice might initially make them feel better. But it's not only irrational but dangerous. All therapy for autism related - we can even call it autism caused - morbidities presupposes a willingness to get better, and a mentality that for autistic people without intellectual and physical disability, changes in environment, behaviour and thought are possible and lead to changes in feeling, wellbeing and function. A mindset that starts and ends with 'everything will always be worse than you could ever imagine, and worse than any one else' is just a doom sentence.

I don't think the colour wheel is as much a gotcha as people think, they are still plotting the points in each zone on a continuum from unaffected to severely so. It's like it's posted to end the conversation with nobody actually thinking about it.

This. “Autism is not a single sprectrum like a line that everyone sits on; here is a picture that shows it is a number of sprectrums like lines that everyone sits on”

Ignorant. You gave no idea of the severity of some.

No one is saying it's a 'gotcha' it's just a better explanation, and also shows that there is so much variety in the needs of autistic people that it's not as simple as mild to severe, you could have severe difficulties in one area and very mild in another for example.
so would someone with relatively mild social communication difficulties but extremely high sensory struggles have mild or severe autism, for example?

Yes I get that. But it is presented as if it shows a spectrum that only autistic people sit on, when it shows a series of spectrums that everyone sits on. It doesn’t debunk the ‘no autism’ to ‘extreme autism’ spectrum idea, it just adds extra dimensions to it. Everyone can still be ‘a little bit autistic’ by it.

To be autistic, you really need to have most of the traits on the colour wheel. Whether each one is mild or severe or somewhere in between, is up to the individual and how they experience these traits.

So 'everyone is not a little bit autistic' because having only one or two out of these traits doesn't make you autistic.
For a diagnosis, you generally need to see "pigment" in almost every section of that wheel, even if some areas are more intense than others.

For example, if a person only relates to the "sensory" part of the wheel but doesn't have the social communication or repetitive behavior traits, they may have Sensory Processing Disorder (SPD) or another condition, but they aren't autistic. It just makes them someone who deals with these issues.

You need to meet most of it (at least meet the criteria for all the major ones) and be significantly impacting your daily life with or without support/scaffolding to be considered autistic.

The fact it is a presented as a wheel is irrelevant as is the colour or pigment - it is a series of linear ranges from none to lots. They are not binary measures and there is no agreed cut off point. Everyone, autistic or not, sits somewhere along each of the measures for each trait. So in that sense the model has everyone as ‘a bit autistic’ in that everyone has some level of every trait. The difference between autistic or not is arbitary - the use of ‘significantly impacted’ is a subjective measure liable to change. As a model it upholds what it seeks to disprove.

Do you know offensive that is, it’s like saying everybody is a bit physically disabled. You need to reach a threshold to get an autism diagnosis and the bar is high.

• The "Spectrum" Misunderstanding: The autism spectrum describes a range of specific neurological differences, not a linear scale from "not autistic" to "very autistic" that
• Autism is a Clinical Diagnosis: Autism involves specific, lifelong differences in communication, social interaction, sensory processing, and behavior. While everyone may experience social anxiety or sensory sensitivities sometimes, for autistic people, these are consistent, profound, and often disabling traits.

Saying "everyone is a little bit autistic" can minimize the significant challenges and unique, intense experiences faced by autistic individuals.

It is deeply upsetting how you are disregarding the level of severe difficulties my children suffer.It’s pretty appalling actually and so so ignorant.

The neurological traits are each measured on linear spectrums - none are binary measures of autistic or not. That you find this offensive does not change reality. The diagnostic criteria are subjective around moveable cut-off points on a selection of linear measures.

It is deeply upsetting how you dismiss the difference for those with profound autism and so so ignorant.

I certainly don’t dismiss the difficulties for those with a learning disability in addition to autism.

Nobody would walk in my shoes and dismiss the difficulties we walk either.

It’s not a competition.

Take it up with The National Autistic Society , it’s their view too.

The NAS think men can become women on their say so. And have proven themselves incapable of understanding basic stats (or bending to those with the loudest voices to ignore them). So I am not going to base my opinions on what they say.

See you can’t help yourself. You dismiss the difference as learning disabilities not differences in autism. Not all those with profound autism have learning disabilities.

I have Autism and ADHD. I have described myself as mildly Autistic.

I own my own home, have been happily married for 15 years, have a WFH job I enjoy, I'm very academic, have creative hobbies and have a few lovely friendships. If you met me, you'd never realise how much I mask.

I can't easily go to new places alone, I don't intuatively understand people and their intentions, I've always felt like I'm on the outside of the world looking in, I need routine to feel safe. I often shutdown when overwhelmed, and am constantly fighting burnout.

I'd say I was 'mildly' Autistic because I can lead a 95% independent life.

My cousin is Autistic, she is 35 and cannot live alone, she has never had a job or a partner, she has the mental capacity of a 12 year old, so of course she is much more affected than I am.

This is touching on a philosophical debate that is well-recognised in psychology: Categorical vs. Dimensional models.

It's true that individual traits on the wheel exist on a spectrum in the general population but having one or two traits does not make you "a bit" of a condition that requires the presence of a specific cluster.

If you have 1% of "sensory issues," you are not 1% autistic. If you have sensory issues but zero social communication deficits and zero repetitive behaviors, you have zero autism. You simply have a sensory trait.

To be autistic, the "pigment" must be present across the entire specific cluster of domains. The wheel model shows you can be "high" in sensory needs but "low" in support needs for speech, but you must still meet the criteria for the major domains.

The cutoff is not arbitrary. In medicine, cutoffs are based on functional impairment. In psychology, a cutoff isn't arbitrary if it marks the point where a person can no longer function in society without support.

Everyone has blood pressure; it exists on a linear range. But we don't say "everyone is a little bit hypertensive." There is a specific threshold where blood pressure starts to damage your organs. At that point, it becomes a clinical condition called Hypertension.

Everyone gets sad (a trait), but "Clinical Depression" is only diagnosed when that sadness reaches a specific intensity and duration that stops you from functioning daily like eating, sleeping, or working.

Autism is the same. Having a "level" of a trait only becomes "autistic" when those traits cluster together and reach a threshold that changes how the brain processes information entirely.

While diagnostic criteria can evolve, "significantly impacted" in a clinical sense isn't about a mood - it’s about functionality. In a clinical setting, "impact" means inability to maintain employment or education without specific accommodations, inability to navigate social nuances without intense "masking" that leads to burnout, physical distress or "shutdowns" caused by environmental stimuli.

This is a measurable struggle to survive in this world, not a subjective mood. The fact that the traits are presented on a wheel or a range is irrelevant to the fact that a diagnosis identifies a specific neurological configuration that differs from the general population.

www.theguardian.com/society/2026/feb/15/profound-autism-meaning-what-is-parents-need-to-know

But like it or not, that's not what the "spectrum" bit in the name refers to?

Also some people may by NT standards could seem very impaired - for example be non verbal - but the individual who is non verbal might not actually feel particularly negatively impacted by that. So then where on the "tiny bit autistic" to "very autistic" scale do you put them? Who gets to decide?

I would add that people often take the headline/summary of the icd-11 but dont read all the descriptors.

I think there is an element of subjectivity and there would be people who may or may not have got a diagnosis with a different team, but there its more detail than the 'headline'. Theres stuff about persistence, onset, lifelong, excessive, 'outside typical range', how language or intellect might differ, interactions with different disorders. So it not quite a free for all.

How can you tell if someone non verbal doesn't feel impacted by being non verbal? Because it's an objective fact that they are significantly impacted

Everyone has blood pressure; it exists on a linear range. But we don't say "everyone is a little bit hypertensive." There is a specific threshold where blood pressure starts to damage your organs. At that point, it becomes a clinical condition called Hypertension

There isn’t a specific point where blood pressure starts to damage you organs. It is not the case that if you are just below a certain figure you are fine but just above you are suddenly getting your organs damaged. There is practically no difference in your clinical situation if you sit just under the line or just above it. There is a range over which blood pressure becomes increasingly damaging and a figure has been chosen in that range as a cut-off point. That figure might well change as understanding of the impact of blood pressure increases - indeed the definition of hypertension changed just last year to a lower figure. A whole bunch of people whose blood pressure was below the old figure but is now above the new figure didn’t suddenly change their clinical presentation because the diagnosis changed.

So you are saying severity depends on how happy a person is?