Thank you for reading — and for your thoughtful response.
I really appreciate the nuance you bring: communication differences, structural disablement, the role of capitalism… there’s depth in how you hold it all.
Glad the “allistic flaws” made you laugh — I had to laugh too, before the irony hit.

Framing autism through genetic subtypes based on behavioral checklists risks reinforcing deficit models. The study offers structure, but not necessarily understanding. I explored this tension here:
Maybe That’s the Real Breakthrough
bit.ly/46aoHCF

I really respect your care for young people. That’s why I worry about how “subtypes” can shape expectations — especially when based on deficit-focused criteria. I wrote a reflection from personal experience if you're curious:
Maybe That’s the Real Breakthrough
bit.ly/46aoHCF

Appreciate the intent, but I'm cautious. Subtyping based on behavior can reflect existing biases rather than biological reality. When categories are shaped by deficit frameworks, they risk distorting rather than clarifying. I explored that here:
Maybe That’s the Real Breakthrough
bit.ly/46aoHCF

Framing autism through genetic subtypes based on behavioral checklists risks reinforcing deficit models. The study offers structure, but not necessarily understanding. I explored this tension here:
Maybe That’s the Real Breakthrough
bit.ly/46aoHCF

Framing autism through genetic subtypes based on behavioral checklists risks reinforcing deficit models. The study offers structure, but not necessarily understanding. I explored this tension here:
Maybe That’s the Real Breakthrough
bit.ly/46aoHCF

I had a very different reaction — more wary than relieved. Wrote a reflection on how language and framing shape what we see (or don’t see). If you're curious:
Maybe That’s the Real Breakthrough: bit.ly/46aoHCF