Every now and then we got the hint that we, being a community of interest of autistics, don´t provide a clear definition of autism. Indeed such a definition never has been found on this site.

The pathologizing, deficit-orientated definitions not only are worthless owing to their utterly arbitrary cultural assessment, they often list as well alleged symptoms, which aren´t in fact especially autistic but rather an expression of commonly human psychological continuous stress. Due to still often adverse - if avoidable - circumstances of life of autistics we are exceptionally often in such conditions and as well show more often such behaviour. This certain overlap represents just a statistical effect. Then again we think, speaking of autistics, of quite a group of persons who are, owing to this term, in medical perception. But there is no valid definition known to us to be considered sufficiently fitting, therefore we are so honest to not stand up for any such definition.

Autism is a real existing archetypal being, which nevertheless despite it being a fact is hard to grip. Non-autistics don´t know how autistics feel. Autistics don´t know how non-autistics feel. That leads to a certain difficulty: who shall compare what seems to be so fundamental different?

We autistics every so often come to the conclusion, that peculiarities attributed to autistics on closer examination and, above all with growing insight, in actual facts fit again and again amazingly a lot better to common non-autistics themselves. How comes? A negativ projection of own, not achieved values to the unfamiliar?

Who´s got a definition to offer is welcome to discuss it with us, preferably at the
Ratgeberforum.