Female Autism

Post Reply New Topic

I am curious about the differences between males and females who are on the autism spectrum. I found a few articles about this subject. Females need to be aware of the differences because males dominate social media coverage. Other than one famous female with autism, there really isn't much else. I think there is a misconception that females are better at masking their autism (ones who are high functioning). The perception of them is they are just weird, strange, ugly, awkward, not raised properly (think of that 'Leagues of their Own' character who was raised as a boy), or just a bookworm. Recognition isn't even thought about because all those other labels are convenient and fit, so why look farther for pathology -- why waste finances, time, and energy? This is the perception I have. Read the articles below and educate yourselves on recognizing AS in females, because it isn't a waste. It can be a help.

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-23613816

http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/773721 You will need to paste this link into a browser search engine and access it from the serch results.
The title is: 'Different Autism Characteristics Between Men and Women'
News Author: Emma Hitt, PhD, CME Author: Charles P. Vega, MD

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ssiegel/papers/baron-cohen.html

http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2011_Lai_PLoSONE_Behavioural%20comparison%20male%20female%20adult%20ASC.pdf

I serched on WrongPlanet for similar posts before I sumitted this, but the search stalled. I only saw previous discussions linked under my post after I submitted. Here are 3 links to previous posts talking about this issue.

2011 http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=155190

2012 http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=197427

2014 http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=273298

Last edited by IgA on 11 Oct 2015, 3:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I imagine many here will be familiar with the differences.

Tony Attwood, of course, wrote Asperger's and Girls, and his research on female autism is well-established.

(PS to say 'educate yourself' could easily be read wrong).

You could be cherry-picking the data to confirm your own bias - there is much research in the field of female autism.

Sorry for not being clear --- I was refering to the everyday parent, teacher, peer viewing a female who is on the autism spectrum (unknowlingly) and just explaining away their differences by superficial exterior explanations as I listed in my OP, rather than considering a social pathology like they instantly do in males. This is because females can suffer in silence longer than males. However, the build up of the emotional turmoil comes out as "tantrum", "pms", "diva behavior", or other such passed over explanations rather than finding the real cause.

Last edited by IgA on 11 Oct 2015, 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

But you said 'you' were curious, then told us to 'educate ourselves'.

???! !

I get what you're trying to say - but it's not what you said.

To your topic - I don't think it's just a misconception that females are better at masking their autism - I'm sure there's direct evidence that they are. Tony mentions this is his book. So - it isn't a misconception, but a reality. Lorna Wing also discusses this.

Plus - the present ratio of male/female is something in the region of 4:1 (according to the NAS (UK)) - males will therefore garner more media coverage. I don't think this is some kind of conspiring against females, but rather,a measure of prevalence.

Wow, you are really interested in being negative about my post. I was being positive with sharing information. I said nothing about conspiracy, nor believe anything like that. I was curious, so believed others could be also --- hence the post. Geez, find another puppy to kick.

Hardly - you told us to educate ourselves.

I'd hardly call it kicking - I'm actually trying to work out what you were saying with your post - it is vague, and there are multiple possible interpretations:

1) Site users need to educate themselves on female autism
2) You (i.e. OP) are curious about female autism
3) Females being better at masking autism is a misconception (which it isn't)
4) Females on the spectrum lack recognition

You also said there really isn't much else aside from one famous female (I'm assuming you're referring to Temple here?) - again, this says more of your own awareness/lack of than it does of what's actually out there - as there's lots out there on females on the spectrum.

I - like many others here - will read posts literally. I'm trying to fill out all the 'between the lines' bits of the post so as to understand what you're saying.

If this offends you - say what you mean and don't be vague on an autistic forum. I'm not going to apologise for asking you to explain what you mean when there are inconsistencies in what's being said.

You are correct, in that I didn't type out every thought and belief I've had connected to this topic. You were wrong in your negative interpretations about my motives and beliefs. You were also approaching your reply incorrectly from my perspective. Attacking someone isn't how to conduct a discussion. If you wish to question those 'between the lines' issues, please be more respectful in the future. It is okay to question someone, but not okay to attack them. A few phrases to use would be --

Please elaborate on X.
What do you mean by Y & Z?
I have a few things I can tell you regarding Z, but I need to know a few other things first before I proceed.

It seems as if you were personally offended by the phrase I used "educate yourselves". I am sorry you were offended, but it wasn't meant to be offensive. If you are educated about female autism, great. Tell me about it or ignore the post altogether. However, there are some who are not educated about the topic. I am female with autism, but there are various differences among individuals, along side the gender factor. My experiences have led me down a pretty terrible path. I almost ended up like those mass shooters out there because of the harsh treatment and misunderstanding. I do not communicate well, this is true. I don't know what everyone else knows, but neither does others. They (other people ... if you want me to elaborate I can try to figure out another way to say 'they', but I don't know how right now. I guess people I have encountered often)... just guess correctly more often than not. I am not "on the same page" or "same wavelength" as everyone else. Those are common phrases people say to refer to not being able to infer correctly. Assumptions are a big part of being normal -- and I can't assume correctly very often. Others rarely assume correctly about me either. This is one of the toughest things, next to sensory sensitivity, that make my life very difficult.

Ask rather than attack is what I need people to do. Assuming the worst about me is not helpful or productive.

There was no attack on my behalf. There was, however, direct replies.

To the points of your original post - which I'll address individually to avoid any confusion:

Try the following:

Tony Attwood - Asperger's and Girls
Sarah Hendrickx - Women and Girls with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Shana Nichols - Girls Growing up on the Autism Spectrum

Plus a number of articles by Baron-Cohen.

'Need' to be? Again, males possibly dominate as the ratio of males-females is higher: as of my previous post, roughtly 4:1 in the UK, according to the NAS.


Yes there is. See the above - and the above is only relating to articles/sections discussing the differences between males/females (and is non-exhaustive). There are, of course, far more first-hand accounts of females on the spectrum living with autism. A simple amazon search of 'aspergers girls' will find a number of books.

It isn't a misconception - they are better at masking.

According to whom? Who is promoting such an image - I mean specifically where have you seen this image of female autism in such light?

Recognition by whom? And as above - there is much literature on the subject of female autism - and it is growing in volume.

Baron-Cohen/Attwood are looking further - plus many more. Your lack of awareness of funding on research into females with ASD's doesn't mean there isn't any research taking place.

Your perception doesn't make it correct - it simply makes it your perception. Again, your perception says more of you than of the issue per se (I mean 'you' in the universal sense here).

I agree, it can be a help. What can also be a help is furthering our own insight before telling others what to do.

You have twisted every word I posted so badly that any reply won't fix your incorrect perceptions. Your mind is made up and nothing I say will change it. My original intention was to post information others may not have. End of story. This whole thread is ruined by your negative attitude. It can't be repaired. Your approach ruined what could have been a nice discussion.

Females are better at masking in the sense that male focused researchers might miss us. I'm not sure I would agree we are better at masking in the sense that we aren't masked if average people see we are different and researchers miss it. Maybe they have ToM issues!

I think a missing piece is that Wrong Planet has quite a few female members IgA. You might get to like it but people are quite blunt. Maybe wait and see if your thread takes off, I don't think she did anything that has to spoil your thread.

What I said is incorrect and correct at the same time. It is incorrect because it is not correct in all cases (from every angle). For example, there is a statistic that says 4:1 male/female ratio -- this is because females that have autism are not diagnosed. The statistic is correct from one perspective (diagnosed numbers), but not correct as it relates to reality.

There is a female type of autism and a male type of autism. However, the diagnostic process doesn't take this into account. I was diagnosed by accident through a personality test they did when I was hospitalized in 1998. They were curious about how introverted I scored, so they did a few more tests. I didn't know what they were doing. I was so freaked about being hospitalized (again) because they never leave me alone. That is a huge problem that made me much worse than what landed me there in the first place. They were not helping, they were hurting me -- unintentionally. They did finally figure out the problem, and did things that were helpful.

I fear there are many females out there being unintentionally mistreated due to unrecognized sensory sensitivity, and misunderstanding why someone would lash out from too much attention. I was in such a bad place, it took years to find a calm lifestyle (a solitary one). I am a problem solver, but don't always find a correct solution. I find things that may 'work', but not necessarily the best path.

Yes, there is a lot of current research being done now, but the findings will not be helpful until the common person knows about it. The common teacher, parent, and peer will not consider "autism" when faced with difficult interactions with females. The coping and presentation is different. Since they are not considering "autism", they will not seek those studies about female autists. See the catch-22? I type from experience, not from statistics or studies. Professionals know a more because it is their job.

A regular person working in a school in Atlanta, GA, with a small amount of time to keep up with important tasks to be completed everyday, may not know the female student they criticized for not joining the class song (because she had her hands over her hears) has autism. She is labeled a difficult diva who is acting out for attention. Studies are not going to help her if no one ever considers she has a problem other than a personalty flaw.

The common experience isn't the same as statistics and studies.

This is a topic quite dear to the hearts of many women members on WP, IgA, because of the harms have arisen from the presumption by some clinicians and academics that male and female presentations of ASDs are the same. Personally I think idea is so false as to be laughable, so naive as to be questionable, and so entrenched as to be alarming.

Just because you didn't express the ideas in the opening post as clearly as you might have, I understood immediately what you really meant, and I agree with Waterfalls' post.

If you haven't had time yet (I get that you are currently in a state of upset just now, take heart) to catch up with Tony Attwood, he did a great interview on this with the Autistic Women's Network which should be fairly easy to find on Google.

You can't say with authority what it is because of - without statistics we are only surmising.

You could say 'this may be the cause of' or some such sentiment - but to say it is because of is to make it a definite - and in turn, if you're making it a definite, data should be available to back up the assertion.

Agreed - one affects males and the other females.

Are you sure?

This anecdote - whilst of personal significance to you - does not in any way reflect on the efficacy of the diagnostic process in relation to gender differences.

And as you said - the result of the testing was helpful to you - despite the process, at the time, proving difficult.

As is said - childbirth is a painful process.

Possibly - but this is a speculative stance, and not a statement of fact.

Again - I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm simply stating without any data, the claim is speculative.

Again, this is anecdotal, and each instance could be attributed to a number of issues i.e. trying to find a calm lifestyle could be related to (for example) a number of environmental factors with no relation to an ASD diagnosis.

Hence referred to as 'current'research

Yes they will - the findings will be helpful within the research/medical community. There are many types of usefulness.

'May not' consider autism is possibly preferable to 'will not'. Again, to say they 'will' not is to assume.

Which we are only aware of thanks to the accumulation of data through empirical study (and other methods) via the medical community

As above RE the assumption with the 'will not'

No

Which could be seen as a problem rather than a solution i.e. lack of large-scale data and lack of objectivity

Thankfully so

This is true

'Could be labelled'

Are you talking here about yourself or about the issue you are aiming to address?

Quite - but they must - by definition - share ground.

When we relate our direct experiences, I find it much more informative than outside clinical views.

I agree with Waterfalls in that females are overlooked. Either by nature or nurture, I think girls are less disruptive as a group. It made it more likely to slip through the cracks. The screening process for young children has greatly improved, so perhaps it is less likely in the present.

In terms of discussion on WP I hope we never see the day when every poster has to produce ironclad evidence for every sentence or idea they want to discuss... forums like this one are for an exchange of views, companionship in common cause and support, and WP is particularly about support, so maybe you could back off a bit SonicallySensitive and give this OP some space, rather than hound her to justify every little thing. Chill?

There's a difference between having a discussion and making statements purported to be 'fact'.

Let me quote you from Simon Baron-Cohen's book 'Autism and Asperger Syndrome' - page 47 if you're looking for the details.

I give you just two points from his list of commonalities in those with ASD's to illustrate a point:

1) Prefer to error-check, to be sure a fact is a fact

2) Prefer to see all of the logical steps or evidence for each statement, rather than accepting assertions in the absence of explanations

Are you asking me to be 'less autistic'?


I'm supporting by giving an alternative viewpoint.

It could be argued that the very worst support is to simply agree with someone.


B19 you've had an issue with my posts since way back RE the 'self-diagnosed' thread last year - as can be seen with every reply since then, and secondary comments in relation to my own comments.

I intentionally avoid your threads as I know you'll potentially interpret any reply/questioning of reasoning as an attack.

But I will not stand for you acting like some sort of forum mod, or grand designator of justice. I will reply to someone's post where I see fit - and yourself and others can choose to gang up if you wish - but my views - and right to speak - are equally as valid as everyone else's here.

If you choose to make this personal, I'll simply defend every and all point I've made.

Back to the main point RE detail - again, for the benefit of everyone reading this - are you asking me to be less autistic?