>>37046052The fact that it's such a wide range and so granular of a scale makes me believe that autism is not a specific condition at all, or even an abnormal disorder. At some level you make the scale and definition so broad that it encompasses all of humanity, then what? Now you're just describing everybody. So what's the utility of it? Maybe every human has the capacity in them to be autistic, but the autism's expression is related to whether or not that human is having their basic needs met. Starve a child of human affection for a few days and they get sad. Starve a child of human affection for 18 years, and what psychological horrors will be constructed in their brain merely to cope and survive? Maybe autism is just what naturally happens when a person is deprived of some thing for too long. Then we have the audacity to say
>but they must have been broken this way since before they were born, nobody could have done anything different about it, it's just in their DNAI think that's wrong.
