Thread by @Richard_Autism

@ekverstania You can add this response to the list of parallel's to PDA.

I am all for experiencing the validity of lived experience & empathising with other's perspectives.

@ekverstania From a literature perspective, we cannot successfully divide autism. Differences between subtypes break down under scrutiny.

Generally, autistic persons do not want autism to be subdivided too.

@ekverstania So if something is seen differently in any "subgroup" it is often due to something causing the difference. If autism itself, does not cause a behaviour or core feature of then this construct by definition cannot be autism.

@ekverstania Basic logic.
If something is not cause by autism.
Seen in non-autistic persons.
Comprised of features seen outside of autism.
It cannot be autism.
Which is a problem for PDA as it hits all three buttons.

@ekverstania The question, that go, well how many have you seen of x/y/z. Is equally applicable to autism experts.

Do you have the experience to say you have not seen such presentations in other persons (general population), when things present in a spectrum?

@ekverstania It is one of the reasons, why I have problems with autism experts claiming PDA to be an ASD, they often lack the experience to confidently say it is exclusive to autism. Phil Christie is a classic example of this.

@ekverstania Because it cuts both ways. Fair enough you have X experience and seen A number of such persons. Have you seen A,B, C,D spectrum of said persons in wider populations, which you should predict as mental disorders are spectrum in nature? Answer often no due to lack experience.

@ekverstania Just because they are use to seeing A presentation in one population, does not mean others views on a construct are more valid than others perspectives.

@ekverstania *Does not mean their views are any more valid than other perspectives*

@threadreaderapp Please could you do the honour of unroll - ing?