> I'd like to be clear on this: you're telling me that I am not, in fact, autistic? If you will point to where I said this, I will be very pleased. As to what

> I'd like to be clear on this: you're telling me that I am not, in fact, autistic? If you will point to where I said this, I will be very pleased. As to what I did say, as a result of DSM-5 people with Asperger's diagnoses were folded into the autism category, but Asperger's was itself dropped and clinicians are advised to stop using the term. How you were able to interpret that as my saying you aren't autistic is beyond me. But in point of fact, the Asperger's diagnosis rate has long been regarded as far ahead of reality, described as a "false epidemic" by Allen Frances, the editor of DSM-IV, so without a medical examination, no one can say whether or not you are autistic. Recent events prove that a psychological examination isn't good enough. Frances says: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/dsm-5-will-lower-autism-r_b_1240016.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/dsm-5-will-lower... Quote: "Only 45% of those who met any DSM IV diagnosis of autism (ie of Autistic Disorder; Asperger's; or Pervasive Developmental Disorder, not otherwise specified) met the more demanding standards of DSM 5." The above means that less than half of those with autism spectrum diagnoses under the old DSM will still have a diagnosis under the new rules. Which means, statistically speaking and without ever having met you, you have only a 45% chance of still having an autism-spectrum diagnosis under the new rules. There's your answer. Now imagine that you go to a doctor and he says, "Remember last week I said you had cancer? Since then some important doctors held a secret vote and the rules have changed -- now you only have 45% of last week's chance of having cancer." That's not how medicine works, but it is how psychology works.