> Can you give a definition of what autism means then? Wikipedia's definition is fine; it's describing the real diagnostic criteria, not a stereotype. The cruc

> Can you give a definition of what autism means then? Wikipedia's definition is fine; it's describing the real diagnostic criteria, not a stereotype. The crucial thing is that to a third party, those traits won't always be obvious. One of the axes upon which autistic people vary is their ability to mask those traits. The stereotype is a person with obvious symptoms who cannot (or at least does not) mask them socially. Presentations of autism frequently include some aspect of masking and some ability to "pass" as non-autistic, but with substantial cost and effort to the individual. > It's my impression that people now use the term autism is for pretty much any sort of neurodiversity (and even for traits within neuronormal, e.g. likes math). That may be so, but there are also plenty of people with actual diagnoses (and many others who meet the criteria) who don't fit the traditional image of an autistic person. That's why I object to the claim that the term "autistic" has "lost all meaning." What's been lost is the ability to tell at a glance who is autistic, because the diagnostic manual now applies the criteria consistently regardless of whether their impact is immediately obvious to a stranger. My personal experience, after getting diagnosed in my late 30s, has been observing the significant effort I spent masking — trying to pass as non-autistic — and choosing to use that energy differently. In that sense, I've probably become a little bit more obviously-autistic than before, but in a way which makes my life easier and more comfortable.