The diagnosis is a red herring and it's both letting him off the hook and making you think that he might have been the partner you needed without his ND.
A little look around this forum will show you that disengaged, disinterested and lazy men are ten a penny on here, both NT and ND.
Your ex isn't special in this regard because he's ND. He's one of a countless stream of these crap men who put the bare minimum in and expect far more out.
I take issue with all of this.
I have a relative who obsessively lines objects in a straight line and steps over cracks in pavements. Are you going to tell me this has nothing at all to do with her diagnosed OCD and that some people just like rituals?
We all understand that diagnosed conditions manifest in patterns of behaviour. Naming that isn’t stigma, it’s accuracy.
So why does that logic suddenly collapse when ASD is involved?
A woman comes into a forum seeking support for the impacts of living with someone who cannot meet her emotional needs and cannot communicate with her about his inability to meet those needs. She feels alone. She experiences him as unusually cold and selfish and marvels at his inability to empathise with her even when she’s facing extreme hardship.
This man also has ASD - a social and communication disability. Yet suggesting that his disability may be central to these relational difficulties is treated as taboo, while describing him as abusive, shit, nasty, or a “bad egg” is somehow considered more acceptable.
That is incoherent.
Ignoring a diagnosed social and communication disability and instead framing the person as morally defective is not anti-ableist - it is the definition of ableism. You would not say to his face, “you’re an abusive bastard,” while deliberately disregarding his diagnosis. That framing only survives in anonymous spaces like Mumsnet and it serves to deflect hard to hear uncomfortable truths.
On my father’s side of the family I have nine - yes, nine - neurodivergent relatives. None of them are intentionally abusive. They are all decent people and all very different. That is a fact.
It is ALSO a fact that they all, in different ways, have challenges that some have managed to address better than others.
One them used to pound his head on his cot as a baby; he takes apart electrical appliances and puts them back together; his thumb and first finger are constantly twitching, and he constantly chews the inside of his cheek; he has an incredible memory for facts. This is ASD, right?
In addition, his personal hygiene is poor. He has zero awareness that he stinks and people find that gross. He routinely violates social and sexual boundaries by touching women inappropriately, standing too close, leering. And when triggered, he loses control spectacularly. The day I told him to fuck off I was violently assaulted.
Those behaviours are also ASD-related. Saying so is not ableist. It is describing reality.
The thesis of this thread is simple: when ASD-related behaviours cause harm to others, those harmed do not have to endure it in silence and they do not have to tolerate it.
Safeguarding is about impact, not intent. I know my relative doesn’t intend to violate personal spaces and that he attacked me because he struggles with emotional regulation. I know he has never had support to address these issues because ASD wasn’t recognised when he was a child. This is all irrelevant to ME as a human. I do not have to live with harm, tolerate harm, even if it’s unintentional.
Acknowledging harm is not the same as accusing someone of malice.
What is ableist is the idea that anyone with an ASD diagnosis whose behaviours harm others must automatically be framed as a bad person - rather than as someone whose disability is manifesting in ways that require firm boundaries, intervention, and protection for others.
Disability explains behaviour.
It does not neutralise its impact.
And it does not obligate victims to tolerate harm.