“Because of the loosening of the diagnostic categories, the categories become so incredibly wide that there are people in this [autism] spectrum who probably shouldn’t be there.
That’s a rather controversial thing to say.
How can you deny someone a diagnosis when they’ve been perhaps looking for an answer to their problems for all the lives?
I think it’s all to do with the dearth of other categories.
We don’t know anything about personality variants that are perfectly normal and part of our human nature.
We can have people who we’d say are “a bit on the spectrum”, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with them.
For me it’s still a difficult thing to include them in the autism spectrum, because they don’t actually belong there — I look at it from a clinical point of view.
That’s a problem we’re having at the moment. What should we do about this enormous neurodiversity?
Is it really the case that everything shades into everything else? Is it all the same thing, and neurotypical is under the same umbrella, just slightly less?
Or do we have a need to see some subgroups and categories? I suppose I’m tending towards that, but it’s an ongoing discussion. (…)
We always knew there were people who might be called ‘little professors’, or being somewhat distracted, not being very sociable.
They’d be often admired and not considered anything other than rather eccentric.
Many families have such a member amongst their relations. ‘My uncle never married, he was very bookish.’
I think most of these cases have nothing to do with autism other than a kind of reminiscence of the features.
So they have these features, but for different reasons.”
Source: Research Comms: Professor Uta Frith