I do still have objections to the use of the phrase “Ambassador of that culture”. It comes way earlier in the document than the later qualification, and I am no

I do still have objections to the use of the phrase “Ambassador of that culture”. It comes way earlier in the document than the later qualification, and I am not of the view that the equivocation renders it moot. The entire piece is about taking care with how one communicates about autism, and who gets to represent it. It’s not surprising that the way it does so is under scrutiny. The word ambassador isn’t the only word in that phrase. The word ‘culture’ is also there. There is certainly an implication of two cultures in play. The later part talks about a diversity of autistic voices of which the author is only one, but that doesn’t eliminate the ‘two cultures’ idea that has already been introduced. The two cultures idea is definitely not universally held by autistic people. I suspect that this is at the root of a lot of the reactions.