askanautistic

[askanautistic]

I was thinking about my last few asks, and I realize I'm more concerned with what some hypothetical average person needs or doesn't need rather than what I need. I'm not sure how to stop doing that, and I always think that sort of thing keeps me motivated to improve.

Does it, though?

It still comes down to the issue of whether your needs are being met, surely? Does having this imaginary average person to consider all the time actually help you to overcome your difficulties? Or does it just put you off feeling like you should have support? Because, sure, to an extent someone might learn to cope with an aspect of their disability. Someone might be able to push through some things, or sometimes. Someone might be able to find ways to mitigate a difficulty to avoid asking for external support. And some people can mask various difficulties enough that they can at least seem to be coping.

But the fact you seem to want/need to stop trying to live up to an imagined 'average' suggests it isn't working.

(Striving to be neurotypical won't make an autistic person neurotypical. And although resilience and challenging yourself can be positive things... unmet needs when it's things that really do require support/accommodating can cause burnout, which can cause damage and make difficulties worse.)

If you are recognising that you need to be able to access support (because you aren't this hypothetical 'average' person), and your struggling to challenge this enough to overcome it yourself, then it might even be worthwhile looking into options for therapy to have some professional support in dealing with your internalised ableism?

If that's not an option, you might need to try actively correcting yourself when you start to think like this or try to guess what someone should be able to cope with. Maybe even try asking for some support despite your discomfort, and remind yourself that your thought processes are based on internalised ableism and not on your actual worth as a person or how deserving you are of support.

And/or try to imagine (or use real life examples, if you have any) a range of individuals with different needs. Or a range of disabilities to see whether you apply the same thinking to their needs as your own. Should they all try to match your hypothetical average person? Keep practising challenging your thinking in this way.

If your hypothetical average person had an accident and became temporarily or permanently disabled, should they have the same level of support you currently imagine them to need, or would it be okay for them to have more? What if they developed your difficulties? Or other difficulties associated with autism? If they received some kind of ear injury and became sensitive to sound, would it be okay for them to ask for reasonable adjustments to cope with noisy environments? If they had a brain injury and struggled to communicate as they previously had, should they go without communication support in hopes they'll be motivated to improve?

I expect that if you imagine this imaginary person experiencing some injury or illness, you'd probably be quite kind towards them, and recognise that they now have different needs to before and that they deserve to have support.

And you already have different needs to your original NT, non-disabled hypothetical person, as well. So why don't you deserve the same kindness from yourself? Keep questioning yourself and challenging yourself.

[askanautistic]

Indoctrination: avoiding the undue influence of high control groups.

Anyone can be indoctrinated into a high control group. No one is immune to propaganda or manipulation, and in the right circumstances, targeted by the right person/people, and fed the right info, anyone can be indoctrinated. Being intelligent or strong minded doesn't prevent this manipulation from taking hold. Lots of highly intelligent and very strong-minded people become very enthusiastic cult members, possibly even bolstered by their own self-perception.

Intelligent people are prime targets - cults need people who are useful to them: people with qualifications, job roles and titles, people who are knowledgeable in their field. They make good spokespeople, they inspire trust from outsiders, prospective recruits, and current members. Sometimes they can also be useful in very practical ways (scientists backing your claims, or having lawyers advising on or fighting legal battles). People who have been indoctrinated are victims, even if they then go on to victimise people themselves.

So it’s important to be aware of what high control groups are, how they control people, and what to look out for.

What is a high control group? Most groups will exert some kind of influence over members. There are rules, hierarchies, and a popular viewpoint in most organisations. High control groups tend to have a range of behaviours that mean their control over members is fairly extreme (even if it’s not always obvious to the members or to outsiders that that’s the case – after all, part of the point of mind control is that the victims are unaware just how much they’re being manipulated and controlled).

We usually think of high control groups as being the more stereotypical religious cults and extremist groups (like the Moonies, or ISIS), but it’s also possible for this manipulation and control to happen on less extreme or obvious levels and in less rigidly controlled ways. The internet makes it easier to get a wider reach and maintain control over long distances and without having to meet in person. There are cultish groups that operate almost exclusively via long distance, using extremely long video chats and phone calls to keep members exhausted, busy, and under the influence of the group. There are others that gain followers via vlogging, and then gradually move towards in person meetings, and setting up living spaces for members where they can exert more control over them. There are spaces on the internet where people are radicalised and propaganda spreads rapidly, with ease – nowadays the internet means that high control groups can bypass a lot of the physical aspects of control commonly employed by cult groups. For example, incel culture often spreads online.

Again, not all of this necessarily means that a high control group is obviously involved or people are being recruited into a cult. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a long debunked antisemitic hoax) was being spread around fairly recently on Tiktok as if it’s a genuine thing, and that didn’t involve viewers of those videos joining a group or doing anything other than viewing, believing and sharing. But it’s very easy for high control groups to use the internet, and to update how they recruit or how they spread their doctrine. So it’s important to be able to recognise these issues, and protect yourself (and people you know).

What might be the added risk factors for an autistic person? There are various traits associated with autism/neurodivergence that would make it seem that we’d be less likely to be unduly influenced. We often perceive ourselves as being strong-willed/stubborn, not following the crowd, having a strong sense of justice, being 'sensitive', or being hyper-empathetic. Whether or not these self-perceptions are accurate, they create a false sense of security and also allows people to excuse their behaviour based on how they perceive themselves.

'This mistreatment of someone we consider 'the other' must be justice, because I am big on justice.' 'I cannot possibly be doing or saying anything that's prejudiced or cruel because I am hyper-empathetic and that's just not something someone as empathetic as me would do!'

So self-perception might make it harder to accept that someone is being/has been indoctrinated.

There are also lots of neurodivergent traits that would make someone vulnerable to indoctrination. Lots of neurodivergent people are very friendly and agreeable, might lack confidence and not be very assertive so might be more likely to follow than lead, might want to fit in and so might be just as likely to follow trends/be influenced.

Some might have a poor sense of self due to masking and so a group might be able to impose an identity on those people. Hyper-empathy/being sensitive might make it easier for someone to manipulate your emotions. A strong sense of justice might also be manipulated by the right dis- or mis-information. Taking things literally and possibly being more likely to believe what you're told can play a part. Being loyal is a good thing, usually; loyalty to or trust in friends or to groups you're affiliated with might make it more likely you'll agree with them/follow them. Developing a social strategy that involves mimicking peers (so following their script) might lend itself to mimicking recruiters/other members of a high control group, and their more rigid and definite way of communicating and behaving might make it easier to mimic and make the scripts and rules quite appealing. Black and white thinking can be very compatible with a cult organisation's oversimplification of complex and nuanced issues/with strong us vs them dichotomies.

When someone is/has been a victim of bullying, is/has been excluded and ostracised, we tend to assume that they’ll be kinder to others, but lots of people who experience being left out or belittled will go on to do that to others because it makes them feel more powerful and because they want to remain on the inside (and sometimes, part of creating/maintaining/remaining in an ingroup, means ensuring that there are undesirables on the outside). Or someone might join in with bullying behaviours as self-preservation – to avoid being ostracised and victimised themselves.

Lacking social skills and a desire for belonging might make an autistic person vulnerable to the ‘love bombing’ of a high influence group. In the initial stages, recruiters and other members will act like they’re your friends, to convince you to attend events and to convince you that you are valued and respected by the group. Being praised for doing and saying the right things might feel good, and later it might feel bad to be criticised for questioning or doubting the doctrine.

What should we look out for? There are cultish aspects to almost any kind of group that's pitted against another in some way. Not everything 'cultish' is the sign of a cult. People become very tribal when they align with groups - whether it's a political group, a football team, or even something like iPhone vs android or Coke vs Pepsi! It's very easy to adopt an 'us vs them' dichotomy without it necessarily meaning that someone is bring indoctrinated into a high control group that will cause them or others damage. However, in some groups, these aspects of human behaviour are manipulated and become tools for control. The dichotomy will be absolute/extreme. There will also be other factors in play, like the group controlling what information their members access, whether that’s by banning certain books or access to media, not allowing someone to visit friends or family, or whether it’s ensuring that you distrust outsiders/anyone who doesn’t follow the cult doctrine (so that if you do engage with outsiders you will not do so in good faith - you will not listen to outsiders and so won’t allow them to make you doubt the doctrine). Members of cults are routinely and intentionally deceived by those above them and often don't know the actual intentions of the organisation.

Here I break down some of the criteria of mind control/thought reform, so that you might be better able to recognise it. The more of these things you notice, the more likely the group is a high control group that it might be best to avoid. Some of these things might be subtle enough that it’s hard to identify them. Steven Hassan's BITE model of mind control: Behaviour Control In more stereotypical ‘cults’, this often involves members being told where to live, who to live with, having their sleep schedules and diets controlled, etc. People who are tired and malnourished or overworked are easier to control. Members are kept closed off from others in some way (whether physically or mentally), and are often told what to spend their time doing. There's lots of chanting and 'meditation' type activities that create the perfect mindset for indoctrination. In some groups people are told what to wear – this might be a uniform of sorts, or some limit on what kind of things are allowed (colours, fasteners, etc). Members are indoctrinated to control their own behaviour, and often go on to control each other's behaviour by ensuring there are consequences for not saying or doing the right things, not following the doctrine closely enough, etc.

Information Control Any source that isn't cult-approved is seen as unreliable and is rejected. Many more powerful high influence groups have members who work on editing Wikipedia entries about anything that might be linked to the group or the group’s dogma in some way, and might own organisations under different names to ensure that the top online search entries are all positive (and any information they don’t want you to have is buried under lots of positive, cult-approved entries). The sources people most rely on for quick info (and that comes up at the top of searches) is therefore full of propaganda and misinformation. This prevents members or prospective members from seeing anything that might cause them to have doubts. The high control group controls the narrative.

Thought Control Members are 'indoctrinated so thoroughly that they internalize the group doctrine, incorporate a new language system, and use thought-stopping techniques to keep their mind "centred".' They chant (even phrases that they don't understand the full meaning of, and even in languages they don't understand), give words new meaning (loaded language) to create barriers between communication with anyone outside of the group (who doesn’t use the words in the same way/doesn’t understand the group language).

'Since language provides the symbols we use for thinking, using only certain words serves to control thoughts. Cult language is totalistic and therefore condenses complex situations, labels them, and reduces them to cult cliches.' (Hassan) We see the same words repeated over and over and over, and it does exactly that - oversimplifies and prevents critical thought or good faith discussion that would lead to the cult losing power over its members.

Emotional Control They use the emotions of their members to manipulate them. This might vary from inducing euphoria to create a sense of belonging using rage bait to rally members to ‘the cause’, or using guilt and fear to control how members behave.

Euphoria: Members are amped up and unified in various ways depending on the individual group, via acts like marching, meditating, chanting, call-and-response, or praying.

Rage: Members might be taught to be angry at a certain person, certain groups of people, or world events, so members can rally against ‘the other’ or the group can present itself as the solution to the problems.

Guilt: For not believing or behaving as the doctrine says they should, for being in a privileged class of some sort, for not doing enough for ‘the cause’, for doubting or questioning. Fear: If you dissent in the slightest, you're evil and wrong and they dehumanise you. So there's also fear - fear of not living up to that standard, of being impure, of being rejected from the group, of having your ‘confessions’ shared. Personal feelings and struggles are also seen as selfish and unimportant because everything should be about the cause. Sometimes the group will convince people that awful things will happen if they leave, and these fears can be deeply embedded even if they seem obviously false (to outsiders who haven’t experienced the level of control the member has experienced).

Group conformity and obedience Even without behaviour modification techniques, group conformity and obedience to authority are powerful influences. Experiments have repeatedly shown this. If people are put in situations where the most confident people around them give the wrong answers, the majority will doubt their own perceptions and will accept those answers. The majority of people will be obedient to authority, even if it means causing harm to someone else. In a crisis people will often hesitate, waiting for someone else to take charge, or will follow others (even if the other person also doesn't know where they're going). People often don’t want the responsibility of having to make decisions so it’s easier to have someone else make those decisions and give you permission to enact them.

This can also occur because of trust in specific people or groups of people. Generally, we tend to assume that the people we are aligned with, and who we usually agree with, are probably right about everything else, as well. And we usually don't want to agree with people we dislike. So the politician we detest? If that politician says or does anything that we agree with, we are uncomfortable and might doubt ourselves. Whereas that politician or influencer we like and look up to says something we perhaps didn't agree with previously, we're more likely to be swayed into agreeing with them. Even though there are people who are hero worshipped and thought of as being very good and pure, who turn out not to be. No ones politics or identity makes them infallible.

Universities are prime places for cult recruitment - university students are separated from their usual home and their usual people; they might also be disillusioned, or desperate to make a difference, and stressed from studies and trying to fit in, trying to figure themselves out. Humans are also often primed to trust experts or people they believe to be more intelligent/more knowledgeable about a subject (there is a term for this phenomenon called Captainitis – there can be(and have been!) fatal results if other crew of an aircraft defer to the captain even when they recognise the captain might be making a wrong decision). And cult recruiters might offer all the answers. Or an escape. They provide meaning or belonging or ‘the truth’.

Lifton's Eight Criteria of Throught Reform: Mileu control This happens in various ways, but ultimately most people indoctrinated into a high influence group will heed their peers and leaders and isolate themselves (to some extent) from anyone who doesn't comply with the cult doctrine fully enough. Various other organisations or companies, professors or classmates, strangers online etc., are impure and not to be trusted, so a barrier is created between members and non-members.

Sometimes physically (through members all living or staying in the same place) or through encouraging members not to fraternise with non-members, to distance themselves from family or specific groups of people that might challenge the doctrine (or at least not to listen to others when it comes to discussing concerns with the cult or with issues the cult is concerned with). A campaign of disinformation, loaded language and emotional manipulation that’s successful enough will mean that the influential figure/group doesn't need to physically isolate people in ranches in the middle of nowhere, or control where they work and study, because people are so primed to react to the language and ideology that it's still powerful even over huge distances and spreads effectively via online discourse and other various mediums. Mystical manipulation (or planned spontaneity) Many groups have a defined ‘leader’ who is almost godlike, and in this case all the messages and occurrences are somehow supposedly coming from a higher power (not the careful planning of the ‘leader’ who is presenting themselves as a prophet or a kind of messiah).

Cultish movements don’t always rely on a mystical ‘leader’, however. Many are designed to look like a grassroots movement, created or initiated by 'the people', but if you follow the trail up the pyramid there'll often be big money and lots of organisation behind it all. The wizard is hidden behind a curtain (or two or three curtains).

Because it looks (and feels) spontaneous and organic (when events are put together and crowds gather, and people sing or chant of pray together) mob mentality kicks in. Speeches, chanting, etc. gets people fired up. it all feels like they're a part of something big, powerful, and real.

The demand for purity This demand for absolute purity enforces a strong us vs them divide. The cult and its members are pure, good, right, innocent, and anyone who opposes them or does not surrender to the cult completely is impure, evil, wrong, guilty. Bearing in mind there are good and bad people in all demographics, no group is a monolith, yet in the eyes of the 'ingroup', nothing bad they do is ever condemnable, and nothing good an outsider does is ever good enough.

The realistic and reasonable idea that there are good and bad people in every demographic – that all humans have hopes, dreams, doubts, fears, and all are fallible and capable of both good and bad, like the rest of us - does not align with the demand for purity. Anything anyone does or says that does not align completely with the cult rhetoric is deemed impure.

Feeling justified and right is quite a powerful feeling, and unfortunately that often hinges on having people who are ‘wrong’ to berate and judge. It’s also quite human to feel superior and to enjoy this dynamic, and the flip side of it is that the judge fears becoming the judged and so ascribes even more completely to the cult rhetoric to ensure they never have to become the judged.

The cult of confession Somewhat similar to the above. In some cults confession is used to gain useful info on members that can be used against them, and to make members more vulnerable, but it also has another function…

Guilt is a powerful deterrent (people feeling guilty for their own wrongdoings and privilege will work extra hard to become morally pure) and by 'confessing' and cleansing themselves, people feel they have more right to judge others.

Focusing on specific issues also excuses you from having to face up to the things you might actually need to work on. No self-improvement is necessary, no genuine self-reflection has to be faced, because you can 'confess' to the less personal failings, or confess and be cleansed by the purity of the cult. You can also focus on the perceived guilt of The Other to lessen your own guilt. The confessor then gets to become the judge, having confessed and basked in how aware and disgusted with themselves they are for their privileges or wrongdoing. [This also feeds into the demand for purity – people who feel guilty want to offload their privilege and they can do this by believing in The Other is an all-powerful entity (even if, in reality, The Other is a vulnerable and/or minority community. For example: antisemites (which specifically refers to Jew haters) claim that Jewish people (who make up only 0.2% of the world’s population) are supremely powerful and control the media (regardless of all the evidence to the contrary); transphobes often claim that there is a ‘trans lobby’ that is somehow taking over and has the power and influence to somehow make children transgender.]

People enjoy feeling superior and getting to criticise others, and many people will actually become quite gleeful and excited when they are being hateful towards 'The Other'.

Sacred science The world is simplified into a sacred set of dogma. Often the dogma won’t make sense to anyone outside the group, and might even seem ridiculous. Members might seem to just be regurgitating catchphrases and nonsensical conspiracy babble, but they've accepted it as the absolute truth.

There might be an ‘end times’ plan, where the group members will either survive or will ‘ascend’ to a higher plane. Or the group’s cause might involve acting to bring about a better era (which might be as innocuous as selling flowers and/or proselytising for the ‘cause’), or eradicating an evil that will apparently fix all the world’s problems, and supposedly create a utopia where people live in peace (basically it will being a messianic age, even if the group is not overtly a religious group, and even if group members do not consider themselves or the group to be religious). The Other is solely to blame for all the world’s ills (or primarily to blame, to the point that nothing else really matters).

Loading of the language The above feeds into the loading of the language. Everything is extreme and yet oversimplified. No critical thought is needed (or possible). The language is appealing and powerful and absolute - it's emotive. The same arguments are used for everything, whether fair or logical, and whether accurate or not.

Much of this language is made up of thought terminating cliches; it shuts down discussion and prevents facts or reasoning from challenging the cult doctrine. For example, saying that someone is brainwashed is in itself a thought terminating cliché. You’ve already rendered that person’s words not worth listening to because that person has already been labelled incapable of rational thought. By using extreme terms to label someone, they are effectively ostracised from the conversation, and/or the conversation is derailed (the labelled person now has to argue against the label or prove themselves, instead of being able to engage with the original topic).

The language is so extreme and false that you often can’t even argue with it effectively, and that’s the point. ‘I’m not listening to a [insert extreme label]!’ They don’t want a good faith discussion, they don’t care about the facts, they want to control the narrative by making discussion impossible. Whether that’s shutting things down completely, or creating a situation in which the non-member is forced to defend themselves against baseless accusations.

Words are given new meanings to weaponise them and render connection and understanding with outsiders impossible. This language also makes group members feel special and connected to each other (and to the sacred science), but creates a bigger divide between them and anyone outside the group who either doesn’t use those words, doesn’t use them in the same context, or uses those words correctly/differently. The same often goes for chants and slogans that might mean different things to members than non-members, or might be used in place of more accurate or understandable language (so that group members repeat things that they don’t really understand the meaning of, and that might not even have any particular meaning).

Doctrine over person The doctrine is everything - your thoughts, feelings, your previous morals (that the doctrine might contradict) are meaningless. If you do experience any doubt or guilt because of how the doctrine misaligns with your ethics, that's just evidence that you are guilty/impure. There is no nuance, no room for critical thinking or trying to understand someone else's perspective. Your suffering, the suffering of friends or family who are concerned about you, the suffering of ‘The Other’ are all unimportant compared to the doctrine.

Dispensing of existence Anyone who does not pass the purity test, and is not a part of the cult's movement, ceases to deserve to exist. The cult members are pure and elite (which feels quite good!) but, actually, even the members lives are less important than the doctrine. If the doctrine states that in order to achieve the end goal (whether that’s peace on earth, ascension to a higher plane, or protecting leaders from accountability) the lives and freedoms of members are expendable.

Everyone is a tool for the 'greater good'. Because...

The means justify the ends. However horrific or morally corrupt those means are, whoever those means are enacted upon, as long as it's done in the name of the cause it's magically purified.

In cults, anything can be justified. For a higher power or a greater good, anything goes. Deceit, mind control, slavery, human trafficking, all forms of domestic abuse. Leaders can lie to followers, followers can lie to prospective recruits or outsiders, because it's for a good cause. It's all somehow justified, then becomes normalised. And if someone has been taken in and has engaged in anything that they might not be quite so proud of if they really thought about it, the cognitive dissonance would be too much. So it becomes easier to continue to justify it.

[Most people who end up involved in high control groups probably start out with good intentions, and with optimism that the group is good and will help find the answers to all their problems. But the cultish nature of these groups or 'movements' (mind control, thought reform - limiting access to information, disinformation, loading language, a strong us vs them dichotomy, etc.) leads most people away from the well intentioned and caring place they started at into a radicalised, dogma driven mindset.]

Cult members are victims of the cult. Even members who have behaved horrifically whilst under undue influence. Like most things in life, this can be nuanced. So if you have been in a cult/under undue influence, realise you are currently in a cult/under undue influence, and you are struggling to come to terms with that, especially if you’ve done things that are wrong, or have demonised another group, it’s never too late to recognise this and to distance yourself from the cultish dogma. Seek support from other ex-cult members, find therapists who understand indoctrination and de-indoctrination. Better to stop now and work towards undoing the mind control than to continue. It doesn’t have to become another ‘cult of confession’ where you have to self-flagellate to make yourself pure – humans are not pure. We are complicated, multi-faceted, confusing (and often confused)! And that’s okay. We get things wrong, sometimes. We might get things drastically wrong. But once the harm is done, it cannot be undone, and all anyone can do is move forwards, seek support, apologise and take accountability for our actions, work to improve, and try to make amends. If you know someone who is under indue influence and has been indoctrinated into a cult or radicalised by an extremist group: Most people under undue influence will not accept it just because you tell them so. Any confrontation will just make them use the above-mentioned cultish tools to shut you down and to avoid having to think too deeply about it. It's jarring to have your reality or morals called into question. Sometimes more subtle methods might help, like referring to other cults with similar tactics, and if you know anyone who has been indoctrinated and managed to get out, perhaps asking them to share their experiences (it's much easier to hear from people with similar experiences (if someone feels they've been duped, that's easier to discuss with someone else who they recognise is a good person but was also taken in by similar tactics/if you've believed something radical and absurd, it's easier to discuss this with someoen who has also believed things that are radical and absurd). If someone has caused harm while under undue influence (towards you personally, or with their cult-influenced morals/ethics) and they then recognise this and want to leave a high control group, even if you’re angry or disappointed in them, it’s worth remembering that they were also a victim. It might still be worth offering them support to leave, and a chance to make amends and to get away from that influence as long as they are able to acknowledge any harm they caused.

[askanautistic]

How do I deal with running out of spoons during school?

Try to figure out what things drain you. If you know what things are draining your energy, you might be able to find ways to avoid those issues, or ways to mitigate them. And think about the things that affect you more when you're drained, and what things might then help you when you're drained.

This might involve doing things yourself: - using earplugs to block out sound if the environment is too noisy or your overloaded and need extra quiet. - taking your breaks in quiet spaces to recharge (even preemptively if you tend to get drained quite often - on days you feel okay it might still be good to take some quiet time away from everyone). - having some sensory items on you that might soothe or recharge you. - having snacks or drinks that might give you a boost when needed. - finding clothes that are close enough to school uniform (if your school has a school uniform) that no one would reprimand you, but that are comfortable to be in all day. - creating playlists on your phone (music that helps relax you, another with music that gives you a mood/energy boost, maybe even another that helps if you're feeling angry and need to blast something heavier/angrier to help 'vent').

OR it might involve asking for reasonable adjustments: - being able to take breaks when needed even during class time (if not all the time you might be allowed a pass or two per day, or a break at a specific time if you find you tend to run out of energy at a certain time of day, or that certain lessons are harder to cope with). - a designated quiet space for break times and to eat your lunch in (or to go if you need a break from class). - access to items or activities that might give you a little energy boost or help you to focus, or a space you can move around in to re-energise if that would help you. - being able to choose the optimal place in class for you to be able to focus/avoid having too much light in your eye-line or being away from heaters or draughty windows depending on your particular sensory needs. - if there are things you aren't allowed without permission, ensuring you are allowed to wear sunglasses or use earplugs as and when needed during the day. If you aren't allowed your phone at school, it might mean you being allowed yours, or at being allowed access to it some of the time. - being allowed to wear things that aren't quite the usual uniform standard.

If you find any of my posts helpful, please consider tipping.

[askanautistic]

Hey, i'm currently applying for jobs in the UK and some places have "equal opportunity" forms to fill in with your gender and disability etc. As i am not professionally diagnosed yet, can i put that i am autistic on those forms, without actually having any paper diagnosis? I am worried they will think i am lying just to get an interview when i can't come up with any proof. tl;dr - does the Equal Opportunities Act 2010 accept self diagnosis?

Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 says you’re disabled if:

you have a physical or mental impairment

your impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to do normal day-to-day activities

An impairment doesn’t have to be a diagnosed medical condition. [...] If you don't have a diagnosis, you still need medical evidence to show your impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to do day-to-day activities. [CitizensAdvice.org.uk]

I'm not sure how necessary it is to be able to evidence a disability in the workplace, but if you know that you would be unable to if it was or became necessary, you need to weigh up how necessary or safe it is to disclose. This might depend on your employer, or on circumstances. So:

Do you feel confident that you fit the legal definition for disability, and therefore believe strongly enough that you'd be covered by the Equality Act 2010? Or, if you're not sure, is there anyone you could consult about this who could give an informed opinion specific to yourself?

Do you think you need to be considered under Equal Opportunities (do you feel you are disadvantaged, and need it in order to get an interview)? Is being autistic something that impacts you in ways that you will require reasonable adjustments in order to be able to do your job, or are you able to cope well without needing reasonable adjustments?

Could you contact the company/companies to ask them? Knowing how open or closed they are to it might inform whether you feel it's safe and appropriate to declare it (and also, depending on the level of support you would need once employed, whether they're someone you are likely to be able to comfortably work for).

Would you be open about being self-diagnosed, or leave them to assume that you are formally diagnosed? (If in a situation where you are asked outright and have to either disclose that you aren't diagnosed, or lie about it, I'm not sure how protected you'd be if your employer found out you lied and sacked you based on dishonesty - not that this is something you'd do, but it might be relevant to someone else to either think about or look up to see if they can find out the answer). If you would not be open about being self-diagnosed...

What is the possibility that you might end up in a situation where you are potentially referred to Occupational Health for an assessment, or put in another situation where your employer might find out you aren't diagnosed/don't have any evidence to back you up? This could happen if you ask for reasonable adjustments, are off sick too many days or have too many absences within a certain period of time, or if you have any difficulties with things (but don't ask for reasonable adjustments) that might result in them deciding to refer you to see what kind of support you need.

Are you likely to want to use Access To Work? They'll do a workplace assessment, and part of the report will probably include whether you are formally diagnosed. Again, this might not be an issue if you are 'legally disabled' according to the Equality Act 2010, and if the workplace assessor is still providing evidence of your needs, but would this cause any embarrassment or awkwardness for you if your employer wasn't aware you're self-diagnosed?

Are you likely to seek a formal assessment in the near future, and could that have an impact? Would it cause problems if your assessment was during work hours and you had to book time off for a medical appointment? Would it be difficult not being able to be open about it if you haven't told them you're self-diagnosed? Sometimes assessors might include information about what kind of employment support someone might need, so would that make it awkward for you if you felt you couldn't share that part with your employer, or did share it but knowing that your employer would realise you weren't previously diagnosed?

Because, despite legal protections, realistically employers (and colleagues) can still discriminate, and this can cause problems in the workplace (whether it's just discomfort due to well-meaning but inappropriate comments, or outright bullying or discrimination), and it's not always easy to go through the grievance process. Often organisations can have a closed culture, which makes it harder to seek justice or to get fair treatment. However, it's also often difficult to take legal action against an employer, and whilst there might be situations where a diagnosis/medical evidence wouldn't be necessary to prove discrimination, there might be situations where it is.

For example, if you took legal action because you overheard a manager say, 'Oh, apparently they're autistic, that explains why they're so annoying and useless,' they're clearly making a derogatory comment about the fact you're autistic. In fact, if they made a comment like that and you weren't autistic, it wouldn't matter - their belief that you are and the fact they said something openly derogatory would be enough to be considered discrimination or possibly harassment (so you wouldn't need to prove that you're autistic - in the same way that if an employer said homophobic things to a straight employee because they thought they were gay, it would still be considered discrimination / harassment). However, in a less obvious situation, like if you faced disciplinary proceedings because you failed to stick to the dress code, or were demoted or passed over for promotion because you don't stick to the dress code, you might then end up in a position where you need to be able to evidence that you have sensory issues or some other reason for not being able to abide by the dress code, to defend yourself against the action and to prove that their actions were discriminatory.

And the fact people can and do still discriminate also means that, despite the fact an Equal Opportunities form might be used (which would suggest a willingness to hire people with protected characteristics), declaring any form of protected characteristic could still ultimately result in discrimination! If the person selecting interview candidates has prejudiced ideas of how capable autistic people are, they might be less inclined to give you an interview. Even if they are otherwise willing to put forward candidates who have other protected characteristic including other disabilities.

So, unfortunately, it's always a risk. Even with a formal diagnosis. So it's something you need to carefully weigh up.

If you find any of my posts helpful, please consider tipping.

[askanautistic]

When people offer me help, part of me feels insulted because it means they don't have faith in me to do the thing on my own.

One area I suppose I struggle with is dating as I'm naturally interested, but when I set up an account on dating sites, I tend to have no idea how to set up my profile or engage with people in the right way, and I don't feel comfortable asking for help because that seems like an area where you really need to do it on your own if you want to be authentic.

If it's something you are struggling with, though, it's not necessarily about whether they trust you? It might just be that they can see that you need some help? Which could be for all sorts of reasons, and doesn't mean they perceive you as generally less capable. It might be that they are aware you aren't as practised at that particular task, or they can see that you are doing it more slowly then they would do it themselves. If you do need help, it's then fair to accept. But if you feel like you don't need help (even if you are struggling a bit) because you want to figure it out for yourself, and process the task in your own time so that you'll get better at it (and think that's more likely if you do it yourself without someone else interfering or taking over), you can always just acknowledge that you are still getting to grips with it but you really want the practise and would prefer to do it yourself.

If it's something you're not struggling with, it might be that they don't think you're struggling, but they have some other reason for offering help. It might be something that most people need help with! Or that most people seem to want help with. They might only be offering to be polite/kind (often if someone else doesn't have something to do, they seem to offer to help other people with tasks, regardless of whether they need the help - I suppose arguably the help should mean the task is completed more quickly, but whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on the situation - sometimes at work I'd rather do something alone, do it exactly how I want it done, and NOT finish it early so that I have to find something else do do). Sometimes someone might offer to help another person with a task that they enjoy doing! Or to avoid having to find something else do do that they might not want to do as much (or because they'd rather be busy doing something with another person and not having to go find their own thing to do by themselves). Or maybe the task is a laborious one that would take a long time and they assume you'd rather get it done more quickly, or they think you might have limited time in which to get it done.

There are all sorts of people, and it's not always possible to guess what someone else's preferences are. I know people at work who'll happily let you do things for them (they might ask, or they might accept the offer of you doing something with them or even for them). I also know people who seem to hate the kinds of tasks I enjoy, so will gladly offload some or all of it if given the chance. For me, there are tasks I hate and would rather someone else did, or there might be tasks that are time consuming and that I would appreciate help with to get it done quicker (esp if time sensitive) but there are also tasks that I'd rather do by myself just because I enjoy them or I have a specific way of doing things don't want anyone else messing things up. There are tasks where I might want someone more experienced to help run me through it, but sometimes even if I might be struggling at first, or even if the way I'm doing things seems to take a bit longer, I might still prefer to do it alone so that I can process things in my own time, figure it out in a way that makes sense to me, become more confident, or because I have a system. Often apps and online stuff involves just being able to play around with it a bit and experiment - looking at the different tabs on a website, seeing what they do, having a look at what information needs to be input, using the search function or browsing through files, etc. Having someone leaning over my shoulder would just hinder my ability to get to know the system (I'd be anxious and feel less comfortable having a little play around to get to know the system with someone watching me or telling me what to do) so I'd rather look at it myself, test it out myself, and then just ask them clarifying questions if there are any parts that I cannot make sense of. But lots of my colleagues are a little tech-phobic, prefer to be walked through things or to have someone supervise when they first use a system, or would ideally love for someone else to just do it for them if possible as and when they need to use it. I might get frustrated if we're told to have training in how to do something or someone offers to help guide me through a new system that I feel confident I can or have figured out alone, but I need to remember that some people need it/want it and it's not personal or a judgement of my abilities.

If you have reason to believe that there is an unwarranted lack of trust in your ability (they offer you help more often than others, or it is clear that they seem to assume that you don't know what you're doing even when you do, or that they are not giving you opportunities to process and figure things out for yourself) it's also worth raising this in whatever way is most appropriate to make sure that they recognise it's not really appropriate. Or, if you're not sure what their motives are, but are concerned that there is a lack of trust in your abilities, it might be best to actually ask in the moment! Just politely ask whether there's a reason they're offering help ('No, I'm fine, thanks. How come you offered? Am I doing something wrong?') - this might result in you feeling reassured (if they then explain that they're bored or just get uncomfortable sitting around while other people are busy), OR it might make them think twice before offering help unnecessarily.

Regarding internet dating sites, to some extent most profiles aren't authentic because people are choosing what information to include, trying to put forward information that they think is important, or that they hope will attract the right sort of person. It's more like a sales pitch, almost. Which is why there are sometimes things that people can advise you of, like things that might be misconstrued if you're not specific enough, or things that tend to put people off if they learn about it before they get to know you, the kinds of images that people might assume aren't genuine, etc. Getting help to set it up seems like a completely fair thing to do, because not all sites are intuitive to use for all people, and often sites have their own culture... which leads me to...

There are often cultures on certain sites that make it harder to 'fit in' if you don't understand that culture. And, as autistics, we might not naturally pick up on or recognise that a culture might vary from space to space. Because of those different cultures, you do need to sometimes learn what things will mean to other users of a certain app or site, not so that you change how you interact in a less authentic way, but so that you are more aware of certain social expectations or meanings behind things (so that you aren't miscommunicating or sending the wrong message to prospective dates). It also makes it easier for you to understand what other people might mean (so you'll be better able to tell if someone's interested, perhaps). It's not something that comes naturally to all of us to converse with a complete stranger, so learning how to do that isn't really inauthentic as such. So if you do feel like you need some help understanding how to maintain a conversation, that's fine! You can always disregard any advice you think doesn't really apply to who you are as a person. As an example, if I see that someone else is having a flirty conversation where they're using innuendo and the other person is responding well to that, I wouldn't really care to use innuendo with a stranger because I'd feel uncomfortable and my personality being different might mean that it doesn't come across as well coming from me, anyway. So even if I can recognise that something works for another person, or even if there were studies that showed that a particular way of speaking was more successful, if it's something that's very unnatural to me and not something I wish to have to maintain or deal with, I can choose to just ignore anything that I think would make me less myself.

Following on from the previous post, it's about getting the level of help you want/need. So, with the online dating profile, they don't need to tell you what you should write, or choose your profile picture, OR dictate what information you shouldn't include. Everything is ultimately going to be your decision. But getting some help might be having someone initially help you set it up but letting you choose the content you include, or having someone check your profile after-the-fact to give you their opinion of what it is communicating to them so you can decide whether you're happy with it or want to tweak it/get further advice.

If you find any of my posts helpful, please consider tipping.

[askanautistic]

As an autistic adult, I have trouble asking for or accepting offers of help I don't think a neurotypical person would need. Is this wrong?

It's not wrong as in bad. But perhaps your reasoning might be incorrect?

I don't know what your reason/s is/are, but common ones tend to be things like feeling like a nuisance, feeling embarrassed, feeling inferior in some way, or strong desire for autonomy and independence.

Needing extra support doesn't make someone inferior. Besides, neurotypicals (and non-autistic neurodivergents) aren't a monolith. The idea that they are always capable of everything and we are not isn't fair or true. Everyone needs help at some point or another. This might be because it's a hard task for them to do alone, something they're less familiar with doing, or because they're feeling tired or unwell or have an injury that makes it harder to do alone. And sometimes people just want a bit of help! There are lots of things that someone might be fully capable of doing by themselves, but sometimes it's nicer to have help, and sharing the work eases the load.

If you tend to consistently have more difficulties than the people around you, that's also not a negative thing. The world is not really built for our brains, and many things that we're expected to do are overwhelming in some way. This might mean not being able to do something without support, or it might mean being capable of doing the task but then suffering consequences that aren't worth the effort (which might mean that, to avoid negative consequences, it's best to have support). All we can ask of ourselves is to do our best, and part of that also includes doing our best to manage our needs appropriately so that we aren't struggling too much or suffering from the aftereffects of pushing ourselves too hard. Ending up in a state of burnout will make things even worse, so if support is needed to avoid that happening, it is best to accept/ask for the support that's needed.

It's common for people to feel like a nuisance if they have to ask for help or accept help from others. It's best to assume that if people are offering help it's because they are genuinely willing to give it. Think about any time you've helped someone - has the offer to help or the agreement to help usually been genuine? Have you ever appreciated being given the chance to help someone, or wished that someone who needed help with something would confide in you and give you an opportunity to help them? There's no reason to think that people would feel differently towards helping you than you do helping them.

It might help to think about how you'd feel about other people needing the support, and perhaps even trying to explain to someone else why you feel they deserve the support (then applying that to yourself!).

It's fair to want to be able to do things for yourself, or to want to have control over things to an extent that makes it hard to accept help (or someone else's input/interference, as that can be what it feels like). But, as explained above, everyone needs help at some time or another. There are often ways to ask for help whilst maintaining control, particularly if the person supporting you understands the importance of autonomy. Sometimes getting support at first might mean that someone becomes more able to do that particular thing independently, but humans are social creatures so there's no shame in needing help with things.

There are some situations in which people are obliged to support you. In school or at work, for example, there are often laws that mean that if you are disadvantaged due to disability, they have to make reasonable adjustments to enable you to do the work without having to struggle more than everyone else. Asking for the things you need not only benefits you, but it would benefit other disabled students/employees/service users (because it makes people more aware of the kinds of difficulties someone might have and what things could mitigate those disabilities). If the lights are changed in a space you use because you requested it, or if you are allowed to wear sunglasses inside, someone else might either benefit without having had to raise the issue, or might be aware that they could also wear sunglasses. So, although you have every right to ask for individual support, it might also help sometimes to recognise that by normalising asking for support you're contributing towards making things easier and more inclusive for other people. If there's any other reason you feel you'd like to discuss or get some reassurance with, feel free to respond to this however you want, and maybe I or someone else will have something else to add.

If you find any of my posts helpful, please consider tipping.

[askanautistic]

Hi, I was wondering if you had any tips for reclaiming/becoming more comfortable with the word autism? I was originally diagnosed with aspergers but I've been trying to move away from using that word to describe myself, because of it's problematic uses and because I prefer being able to say "I *am* autistic". The problem is that the word autistic has only ever been used for me by people who have bullied/harassed me so I have extremely negative connections to it.

Be defiant.

If you have a stubborn streak as strong as mine, you might find it helps to be defiant. Get a bit of an attitude and vent it out if it would help bolster you - stick your fingers up at imaginary bullies and tell them to eff off.

Remind yourself: It's our word. Why should ignorant and horrible people be allowed to ruin it for us? I'd rather be autistic than be a bully. My negative feelings are towards the bullies, and not really towards myself, my autisticness, or the word 'autistic'. I'm not the problem. Being autistic isn't the problem.

Create positive associations.

Think about autistic people you like and admire, especially if the word autistic is used specifically in relation to them in any way. Look up Autistic pride/Autistic joy content. Find quotes, posts, art, articles in which people celebrate aspects of being autistic. Make a list of things you like about being autistic, specifically using the word 'autistic'. Maybe there are certain sensory experiences that you particularly enjoy because you're autistic and process things a bit differently to other people. Maybe there are interests you have that bring you joy that might not feel the same if you weren't autistic. Maybe there are things you have a certain natural flare for, or was interested enough in to become impressively knowledgable about a subject, or perhaps you have a bit of a different thought process or approach towards something that's interesting and valuable and all because of how your brain works. It could be something really silly and tiny. For example, some of mine might be: Aspects of my creative writing that people seem to respond well to are because of how my autistic brain thinks, and how I focus on things that other people miss. I make the best Ready Brek because being autistic and needing things to be accurate and the same every time means I am very precise. My current obsession with a particular band is bringing me a lot of joy and I probably wouldn't be experiencing it this intensely or engaging in it in this focused a way if I wasn't autistic. I am bilingual because I am autistic (as I sign specifically due to communication difficulties). Make a poster so you have a visual of positive associations. Perhaps the word 'autism' and/or 'autistic' in your favourite colours, and then lots of other words or images of things you like and that make you feel good. Maybe seeing the word 'autistic' amongst all those joyful things will help you to feel more positive towards the word.

Make it a habit.

Just use the word as you want to. Even if it feels a bit uncomfortable at first, you might find this eases when you get more used to it. If you're using it for yourself then that in itself might also help you to 'take it back' from the bullies that caused this discomfort/negative feeling in the first place.

[Obviously being autistic can also be difficult, and this isn't intended to mean that people should resort to almost toxic levels of positivity. Sometimes things are hard, and it's okay to acknowledge that, too! But I think that's all the more reason to find the joy and focus on the positives as much as possible (and particularly if it is other people's ignorance or lack of acceptance or understanding that's causing pain - it's easy to internalise it and feel shame when people don't understand us). Plus, it's easier to deal with the hard when there is good, too. Struggling with social expectations, isolation, sensory overload, or anything else that might be causing problems but having a special interest that makes you feel good or distracts you, or having some sensory pleasures that can help ease the discomfort of the sensory pains, or even just having some positive associations so that there's some reassurance that things can be good/better can make a huge difference.]

If you find any of my posts helpful, please consider tipping.

[askanautistic]

(1/2) One of my special interests is a 1960s cartoon that is a huge mess in every possible way (repetitive, mediocre animation, etc). It makes me happy but it still embarrasses me too much to talk about it with most people. Although the obscurity and lack of content made me really desperate, my biggest barrier is the fact that it is the fact that it's very politically incorrect by today's standards. I'm fully aware of it and I'm critical of all of my interests but I'm more worried about people

(2/2) taking it the wrong way and being uncomfortable. I also really want the DVD set with the full series except I'm too embarrassed to ask for it. On a more positive note, I have an idea for a fanfic where I will turn it into a serious thing. It will address all of the issues, and I have a very genius way on how I will reframe canon. I am also writing one of the main characters as (undiagnosed) autistic, and although I don't have a plot yet I do know it will center around him.

I'm not really sure what you're asking? Are you just hoping for some support, or reassurance? An opinion? Realistically very few things are morally perfect because no person is morally perfect. And society's attitudes and expectations towards things change over time. The most acceptable terminology can change. So even things that seem 'good' now might not be viewed as being quite as 'good' in the future. There are lots of things that age poorly based on people becoming more educated over time.

It often becomes a case of weighing everything up:

thinking about why we enjoy something or what parts of something we enjoy. Is it just nostalgic, is it certain characters, or is it the problematic content itself (which would probably be a bit of an issue and might suggest that it might be an unhealthy interest)?

thinking about how we're engaging and whether the way we engage is harmful. Watching a show in private vs watching it openly where people might be uncomfortable or uncertain of your opinions on the negative aspects of that particular media? Watching a pre-owned DVD, or adding to ratings by watching on TV/buying a ticket to see something.

Is the creator (still) problematic (or, if they are dead, did they learn and grow and change before they passed)? People can be ignorant, can make mistakes, and can then learn from those mistakes and grow and do better. I'm not interested in cancelling someone who posted something horrible on their Twitter account 12 years ago but have since matured/worked to improve and no longer hold those views. If that person had included something problematic in a novel or song they wrote, I'd probably be able to overlook it if they'd recognised they were wrong, apologised and made effort to make up for it and to do better in future.

Is the creator still alive? (Does death of the author apply?) So if you buy or are bought the boxset, will that benefit the creator of the show? Roald Dahl is a dead raging antisemite and Kanye West is a living raging antisemite. As a Jewish person, I wouldn't be as uncomfortable seeing someone openly reading one of Dahl's book on a train as I would hearing someone listening to West's music. I know Dahl isn't benefitting from someone purchasing or reading his book, and I know it's likely that a current reader might not be aware of Dahl's antisemitism. Whereas I'd know West is benefitting from a listener's support, and that his antisemitism is so public it's unlikely that someone listening to him isn't aware of it. [I wonder whether 'death of the author' will apply less in the future with so many current creators and celebrities being platformed so prolifically on social media/the internet in general.]

weighing up the issues vs the good. Is this media generally just awful, or are there positives? How offensive or problematic are the negative bits? Mild enough it can be overlooked or criticised without having to throw out the entire show, or strong/vile enough that there's no redemption possible?

the intent of the creator (ignorance that can be rectified, or intentional harm?), and the impact it had on audiences at the time and what the impact would be on audiences now. OR was it satire? Sometimes content that seems bigoted is poking fun at the bigots, but people misconstrue the content or cannot reconcile their discomfort with the intention (perhaps the bigotry is supposed to make you feel uncomfortable).

whether your engagement with something you have deemed to be problematic can be used for good. People often engage with outdated and problematic media to educate themselves, to understand the argument or point of view, to learn about social climate or to understand the creator, to be better able to debate with people who support the content, to write informative reviews or critiques, to educate. So consumption isn't always a sign that someone agrees with whatever it is they're consuming. Or it might be research into how to recreate and improve something - like you describing taking the good aspects to create it how you'd like it to be. We can't always ignore outdated media just because it has content that would no longer be acceptable - sweeping it under the rug, so to speak, creates the illusion that there were never issues with things like very open and public displays of racism or sexism in the past. This interest, as much as it brings you joy, could possibly also be used to educate. It can also be useful sometimes to point out media that was more progressive around the same time as problematic media, to show that it's not just a sign of the times, or excusable.

Thinking about these things might make you feel more confident in asking for the boxset, if you still want it, and feeling able to explain to people why you're interested in it and making it clear you recognise there are issues with it.

If you find any of my posts helpful please consider leaving me a tip.

[askanautistic]

I'm autistic but i don't know how to come up with an autistic character whose autism is different from mine (and who doesn't have ADHD) without looking like i'm ticking boxes, too few or too many. I also can't come up with stims because i don't even recognize my own stims besides literally 2 (til pacing = stim??). At least i assume i must have more than 2 stims.

Help?

Perhaps you need to decide what traits are important to the character/story? What events are going to happen where that character's reaction would be important? You don't want to give a character traits that will contradict their behaviour later in the story, or make certain scenes too difficult to write.

If you want to show a character is overcoming a difficulty or putting another character first (like a character with noise sensitivity staying in a building while the fire alarm is going off to find another character) you still want to make sure it's not going to seem wildly out of character, or that you're sending a message that autistic people need to 'overcome' their autism in order to evolve and grow as a person (a common trope in stories about autistic characters seems to be an autistic character somehow 'overcoming' an autistic trait (like an autistic child making eye contact with their mother) - the autistic person behaving less autistically is a feel-good moment in the story).

I'd even suggest taking a step back from focusing on their autism, altogether, and try to get to know your character as an individual person (and discovering their traits that way). Try writing exercises to put your character in different situations to find out how you think they'd react.

You don't need to mention every aspect of their autism, so there's no need shoehorn in examples of them behaving autistically just for the sake of making it clear that they're autistic. Maybe you'll decide that your character masks a lot, or that their stims are less obvious ones that lots of neurotypical people also do (like biting their nails).

Think about other autistic people you know. How do they behave, how does that change based on where they are or the mood they're in, do they communicate, what are their stims or sensory issues (or how do they sensory seek)? You could even think about some non-autistic people you know who have quirks or tics or behaviours that might be things your character does. Be careful if using people you know as inspiration, though, especially if the trait you've borrowed is quite a big or less common thing (if you have a friend or sibling with a phobia of wet paper for example, it might be quite obvious that you borrowed that trait from them if you give your character that phobia, whereas if you know people who bite their nails it's a common enough behaviour that it probably won't matter if you know people who bite their nails) - if you think it will be obvious that you've borrowed a trait from someone, perhaps it's worth checking in with them to make sure they don't mind.

[Apologies for the late response, we were quite inactive for a while for various reasons.]

If you find any of my posts helpful, please consider leaving a tip.

[askanautistic]

hiya!! im doing some research abt autism bc i think i fit the criteria but i have a question abt nonverbal-ness that all the online sources ive found are vague about/dont explain it in a way i understand.

i dont really go nonverbal, like ever but i would like to a lot of the time. like, if i get really overwhelmed/overstimulated i just wish no one would talk to me for the rest of the day because it just seems like such a chore and makes me more overwhelmed, but when talked to i am able to respond fairly normally, if more stilted, quiet or without as much detail as i normally would answer.

everything ive found has described nonverbal-ness as like you physically cannot speak, even if you want to, and i was wondering if what i experience is an autistic thing or just a me thing or a something everyone experiences thing.

thanks for running this page, its really helpful, and sorry if i explained things badly :)

This particular experience sounds like an 'everyone' thing. Or mostly everyone. The majority of people, regardless of neurotype, experience times when they'd rather just be left alone and not have to speak to people. We've probably all experienced or witnessed someone who is overwhelmed, tired, or otherwise not feeling their best, be quieter than usual, be shorter with their answers or less engaged than usual, or who might even explicitly state that they need to be left alone for a while. Or people might do things to intentionally avoid having to talk, like wearing earphones, pretending to be asleep, or going outside to find a quiet spot/sitting in their car to have lunch instead of using a staffroom/cafeteria when they're feeling overloaded. All of these people might be fully capable of speaking at all times, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily want to speak. Perhaps you could utilise some of the avoidance tactics, or try to script some explanations that explain you need to be left alone but in a way that won't offend people. There are lots of very reasonable reasons someone can give for needing alone time/peace and quiet (whether it's a headache, migraine, sore throat, feeling tired, bad mood, rough day).

Being nonspeaking doesn't magically erase the issue of people trying to engage with you when you'd rather be left alone. In fact, it can exacerbate it in some ways. If people aren't aware that you are nonspeaking (whether that's all of the time, most of the time, or some of the time) they can be quite pushy in trying to get a spoken response, or react negatively (if they think you're being rude). If someone is aware that you use AAC, you're still expected to communicate (regardless of whether you feel up to it or not). If you are unable to communicate at all due to overwhelm (and so can't explain to someone that you need to be left alone even using AAC), people can be quite pushy in trying to get a response and think you're being rude or difficult if you aren't able to communicate as effectively. If using AAC people also can get impatient with waiting for a longer response, and it can also just feel very awkward to have people watching you and waiting for you to type a response. So even when able to communicate fine using AAC there can be awkwardness or discomfort or difficulty having a back and forth between someone who is speaking and someone who is using AAC, with it not being as smooth as a spoken conversation would be.

There are situations in which if it's noticed you are nonspeaking, people will leave you alone, usually because they feel intimidated by the communication barrier or because they assume you are less able to understand. Sometimes this can be frustrating and infantilising, and sometimes it can be a relief (as someone who doesn't like having to interact with strangers, very friendly 'greeters' at events cause me a lot of anxiety and having them avoid me because they see me signing with my partner is a relief, even though it's not really fair or right that they are treating me differently to other attendees, and there are probably lots of people who sign or use other forms of communication who'd like to engage with strangers).

However, there are also situations in which people seem to feel a desire to try harder to 'connect' with you in some way if they realise you are unable to speak. And there are also lots of situations in which being unable to speak is frustrating and embarrassing!

I have experienced: - being chased through a train station by someone who saw me signing with my partner, and felt the desperate need to catch up with us to sign to us that he works with Deaf people (which was irrelevant and awkward). Random people also sometimes try to strike up conversations just because we're signing and they're interested, or will say quite rude and ableist things out loud and in front of other people because they assume we can't hear them. - arranging an appointment via email so the service provider was aware that I cannot speak on the phone, but wasn't aware that I cannot always speak at all. On realising I was unable to speak, he kept asking me if I was okay, which started to become quite annoying and stressful, and then as he was leaving, said it was nice to meet me and gave me a strange, presumably affectionate kind of 'male bonding' punch on the arm as he left. I've even had other (random) autistic people who aren't ever nonspeaking attempt to bond with me much more on realising that I am unable to speak, compared to when I am able to speak. - being in meetings or even being scolded by someone and being unable to respond to explain something, defend myself, ask a question or raise a concern. - having to bolt from work due to not being able to speak in a meeting and then feeling anxious about someone trying to talk to me while I was unable to speak. Then having to deal with the anxiety of having bolted from work, and being too embarrassed to return because I found out someone was concerned and had tried to check on me... and so was even more concerned when they couldn't find me (I had to ask my boss to ensure that no one would mention it to be able to go back to work). - being in zoom classes/meetings and the facilitator being unaware that I cannot speak, and not checking the chat. Then expecting everyone to introduce themselves and constantly telling me I need to unmute myself when it's my turn (instead of checking the chat). Or being in break out rooms where the other members I'm grouped with aren't checking the chat or giving me time to respond/be involved. And I get it. I think most people have the belief that if they presented a bit differently they might have better experienced (perhaps people would be more accommodating if they view you as nonspeaking, or more likely to presume competence if they view you as speaking). As someone who is not always capable of speaking, I've both wished that I could speak all the time or that I couldn't speak at all, because having a mixed/fluctuating presentation causes additional problems: - it confuses people. People understand that some people cannot speak at all, but they often don't really understand how someone can be capable of speaking sometimes, and not able to speak at all at other times. - it makes it harder to access support or adequate accommodations. - it can make using AAC embarrassing or awkward because it's not something you always need to use and it's not something that all people are aware you use. - people make assumptions and can be quite upset when they realise they were wrong (sometimes even perceiving it as deceitful). An audiologist assumed I was profoundly deaf, spoke to me and gestured to me as if I was unable to hear him, and I was of course unable to tell him that I can hear. He then got very embarrassed and quite angry when he tested my hearing. BUT ultimately I don't think there's any single way of presenting that would result in the perfect levels of support and respect or that makes things consistently easier. There will always be situations in which someone is rude or dismissive or situations that will feel uncomfortable and frustrating. So, you don't have to 'go nonverbal' to be able to take a break from speaking. You just need to work on asserting yourself a bit more, perhaps. It's okay to tell people that you need to be left to yourself for a bit.

[askanautistic]

Trans Rights in the UK

There is a bit of an alarming thing happening in the UK right now. Recently, five judges in the Supreme Court ruled that the word 'woman' when used in the Equality Act 2010 applies to 'biological sex'.

This led to the Equality and Human Rights Commission (!!!) very quickly releasing some interim guidance that basically excluded trans people from using any single-sex facilities! There was no guidance on how this would be enforced, which was also concerning.

Basically, the UK has introduced a segregation law!

From what I can gather, there are glaring issues with this ruling and the subsequent guidance, both legally and morally. There are lots of law breaches, contradictions, and fairly weak arguments for the judge's ruling.

No trans people, trans organisations, or even specialists from the trans-related medical field or were consulted with. Almost solely anti-trans organisations were represented in court.

In practise, this ruling breaches the Human Rights Act 1998.

In practise, this ruling actually beaches the Equality Act! (The ruling states that for the purposes of the EA, trans people are to be considered their 'biological'/assigned at birth sex. However, possibly owing to the obvious absurdity of having trans men forced to used women's toilets and trans women forced to use men's toilets, the EHRC have said that trans people cannot use toilets either in line with their legal/acquired sex, or with their 'biological'/assigned at birth sex.)

It's in breach of the Law of Goodwin.

It's in breach of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

The word 'woman' in the Equality Act did include trans women - it was specified that the word 'woman' included trans women who have a Gender Recognition Certificate. So it's unclear why this is being ignored and the word (within the Act) being redefined.

The word 'biological' when used in the ruling is not a scientific or legal term. There are only two legally recognised sexes/genders, yet there was also no regard for the fact intersex people exist (or how this might impact on them).

Many of the reasons they gave for why a trans woman can't be discriminated against for being a woman are things that also apply to many cis women (not all cis woman are able to conceive, for example).

The fact trans people have gender reassignment as a protected characteristic was used to support the idea that trans women don't also need to be protected from sex-based discrimination. However, people can have multiple protected characteristics.

The Good Law Project has decided to challenge this decision, but they need help funding the legal costs.

Removing rights from a marginalised group that has such a devastating and quite disgusting impact is wrong. It's also terrifying. If they get away with this, whose rights will they remove next?

The Good Law Project states:

We believe that the Supreme Court – which disgracefully refused to hear from trans people before handing down a decision with the profoundest possible consequences for trans lives – has placed or revealed the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act. In a 2002 case called “Goodwin”, the European Court of Human Rights said: “A conflict between social reality and the law arises which places [a trans person] in an anomalous position, in which he or she may experience feelings of vulnerability, humiliation and anxiety” and found the UK in breach. Following that case, the UK introduced the Gender Recognition Act to make us compliant. The Minister introducing the Act said it was intended to alter the definition of man and woman in equalities legislation but the Supreme Court, because it refused to hear from any trans people, appears to have been oblivious to this critical fact and decided references to men and women were to “biological” sex. [...] The Nazis forced the LGBT+ community to identity themselves as “degenerates” by wearing pink triangles. Labour’s policy means that for trans people to move through the public sphere they will need, similarly, to identify themselves as trans in an increasingly violent and transphobic world. We believe the UK is now in breach of its obligations under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention of Human Rights and we plan to ask the High Court for a declaration of incompatibility. We believe the legal arguments are strong – but we must also point out that the Supreme Court has revealed a readiness on the part of our courts to disapply, in the case of trans people, normal legal and procedural safeguards. We have put together a legal team involving several KCs and at least one trans barrister. The legal team will be supported by heavyweight policy specialists in equalities law and will be informed by the lived experiences of trans people. We will publish the legal documents in the case as they become available and as the law permits. This is no small undertaking – but, for the trans community in Britain, it is literally existential. We would be grateful for your help. 

This might not be directly related to what this blog is about, but I'm aware that there are a lot of trans Autistics. I'm also aware that many cisgender Autistic people might present as gender non-conforming in some way, and therefore might also be at increased risk of prejudice from the transphobes empowered by this ruling.

Besides, regardless of whether this might also impact the Autistic community, if we don't stand up for other minorities now, it will just bolster bigots to continue trying to take us back in time. Marginalised communities deserve to have rights, and to be properly protected instead of having to rely on the benevolence of service providers, educators, employers, society.

Please, please, let's not let Britain become the kind of country that demonises minorities and legalises their segregation, exclusion, and abuse of their rights.

If you can't donate towards the legal fund, please do support them in whatever way you can (share their articles, videos, posts etc.) and take whatever direct action you can:

Write to your local MP.

Write to the PM.

Complain to the Supreme Court.

Complain to the EHRC.

Join any protests or sign any petitions that you can to make it clear that this isn't acceptable.

Always fight for your rights and fight for other people's. Let's not make it easy for the bigots. If people try to dictate what toilet you/someone else can use, insist that they are violating your/their human rights. If your employer has a segregated toilet they expect trans people to use, insist that they are violating your/their human rights. If you're in hospital and you are, see or hear a trans person having personal info disclosed or being segregated or made to use the incorrect facilities, insist that they are violating your/their human rights. Make a fuss, be a nuisance, make this difficult for them to enforce. Make formal complaints whenever these things occur. Take up their time and resources with paperwork and investigations. Take legal action whenever possible. Don't make it easy for them by complying.

[askanautistic]

I show some autism signs, but I'm also in online school and don't get out much. I have a lot of friends online but go mostly non-verbal when in a lot of real-life social situations, even w/ my own family. Also don't like physical touch/affection much, no! new situations, compulsive, don't use/notice (nonverbal comm like) posture/physical appearance/blinking(?), don't care about appearance, can't tell when rude, etc. Are these things that could be related to be homeschooled? Because I'm worried.

Actually, yes. Lack of real-life social interactions will prevent someone from learning social and communication skills, and could create a lot of anxiety and overwhelm when that person is faced with a social situation (or some people might be overly interactive and behave in a more outgoing and 'odd' way). Part of the assessment process often involves establishing whether someone's difficulties are due to a lack of opportunity to learn social skills (rather than due to being autistic). [Note: Many homeschooling parents will also focus on creating opportunities for socialisation and developing social skills, real world experiences, etc., so not all homeschooled children will lack social skills.]

[askanautistic]

I hope I’m not bothering you guys but I’ve done a lot of research over the past few years and figured out I’m autistic for context I’m a black female so it’s kinda hard to be diagnosed and also I’m high functioning, but my issue is that I’ve been trying to get into relationships but none of them ever seem to work and I think it’s because of my autism , even if I try to explain myself to my partner they brush it off as me being “an asshole” or just being really dismissive in general or if I tell them I have autism and I’m going to act this way and that way they start to treat me like a child or talk to me like I’m dumb and don’t understand my own actions , sorry that’s long but my question is should I just stop trying to get into a relationship ? Idk if this makes sense but I really need some perspective

If you want a relationship, then definitely don't stop trying. At least not before rethinking how you usually meet people, and what kind of people you meet, how you both tend to communicate and what might make things easier to communicate effectively.

Perhaps you'd gel better with other neurodivergent people, and it might be worth specifically looking into dating sites or groups that cater to ND individuals. Or joining more ND groups more generally to get to know people with a possibility of romance.

You could also reframe how you explain yourself. Instead of saying you're autistic, say that you struggle with [insert the specific trait that's causing issues]. Whether that's struggling with social cues, tone of voice, or get irritable because of sensory issues, it might be easier for someone (who is perhaps not very knowledgable on autism) to understand and accept a more narrow and specific explanation.

Maybe also consider the character traits of the people you're usually attracted to, or usually find yourself in relationships with. If you tend to go for a certain type, maybe you need to more actively try to move away from that. You might need someone who is more patient and nurturing than you usually go for/end up with. Or someone you've built a bit of a friendship with first.

Please check out our posts on why functioning labels aren't useful and are considered harmful to the autistic community here. Terms like dumb are also considered ableist and are best avoided.

Tip jar.

[askanautistic]

by any chance is anyone here aware of the origin of Red Instead? I’m making a game which contains various facts about autism, and I want to share information about Red Instead in it but I can’t find ANYTHING online about why the color red is used to represent autism.

All I can find online is articles saying why autistic people prefer red instead over light it up blue, but I can’t find anything online about the origins of it. What year was it invented? Who invented it? Why red? I’ve wondered this for a while now and Google is no help. I was hoping that the people behind this blog or people who browse this blog might have an answer to this question!

I always assumed it was just because it's another primary colour (that isn't already heavily associated with other campaigns) and because it makes for an easy slogan that both rhymes and also makes it obvious that it's specifically countering Light It Up Blue.

However, having googled it, apparently it started in 2015 and was originally 'Walk In Red' but that was changed the following year to Red Instead when they realised that the original campaign excluded people who can't walk. So I suppose the colour choice might still be because it's another primary colour that isn't already heavily associated with another campaign, but the fact Red Instead rhymes and more obviously counters Light It Up Blue appears to be a fortunate coincidence.

If you search 'origins of red instead' in your search engine of choice you should get a range of results explaining what it is, and how it started.

If followers have more specific information, please feel free to reply or reblog so lunathewafflelord can get the info they are seeking.

Tip jar

[askanautistic]

I’m an autistic female, and I’ve been struggling recently with my parents and other people in my life.

When I become interested in something, I want to tell everyone about it, but more likely than not, my parents and the other people in my life tend to ignore me or brush me off, even when I’m in the middle of speaking. It’s just so frustrating when i try to tell them something but they don’t even pretend to listen.

I know I can be annoying, as many people have told me so, and I try to dial it back, but I just get the feeling that no one in my life likes me. I’m always the subject of ridicule and I tend not to understand the jokes that everyone in the friend group makes, and it makes me feel left out and confused.

I guess I’m the type of person that knows a lot of black and white facts, but I don’t know the abstract. I don’t have real-life awareness that other people have and it makes me feel left out and isolated from my peers, and I desperately crave connections with other people; I just don’t know how to form these connections.

how do I reach out to these people and let them know how I feel, and possible remedy the situation with the people I love, and that I’m close to?

INFODUMPING

Communicate to find understanding and compromise

I prefer to communicate in writing. For things that are important or awkward, I find this often gives me a chance to explain myself more clearly and fully, so there's less room for misunderstandings.

It might be best to initially reach out to people who are closest to you, and who you feel should care about you enough to care that you are upset by being ignored and cut off.

Explain that when you are interested in something, you get excited and want to share that, and whilst you understand that other people might not be as interested, it is hurtful and embarrassing to be ignored or cut off mid-sentence.

Understandably it can be boring to listen to people talk about things we're not interested in, and sometimes it's harder to show any interest (even for the sake of a loved one - sometimes people are busy or tired, or some ND people in particular are less able to tolerate being bored), but kinder communication and being understanding of the fact that someone needs to feel respected might make communication less hurtful. If you have ideas for things that might work, suggest them.

These might include discussions about or scripts for: - Asking whether you can tell them about an interest before you start infodumping (and them being kind in their response even if it's to say that they don't want to listen right now). - You or them specifying or checking what an infodump will entail - time limits, a specific number of facts, or a more narrow aspect of an interest (like infodumping about a specific article you've read, or a specific episode of a TV show). - Kind ways to let you know that they don't want to or don't feel able to listen to you infodumping. Or even more subtle codewords/code phrases/signals that can be used to prevent you from being embarrassed in front of other people.

Find other ways to infodump

It might be that you're excited/enthusiastic in the moment, or something discussed is relevant to an interest, in which case it might be hard to hold back. But sometimes you might want to share something with someone, and you could do so in a way that's less immediate (like messaging them, instead).

Sometimes I prefer to use blogging to infodump. I might not have followers who engage very much, so I might not know, or might even feel pretty confident that no one is going to read it. But infodumping into the void can ease the need to talk about something I'm into. Sometimes I even save things in drafts and never end up publishing them, and just being able to type out all my thoughts, or even describe something, helps me to process it, and is cathartic.

Find other people to infodump to

There might be people who are interested in the same thing, either an active interest or just being intrigued when you mention it. Some people are also just very supportive and like to listen to people infodump because they know it makes the person happy to talk about their interest!

You could ask family, friends or acquaintances if they are interested in it, or would be happy to hear about it, or post on social media to ask if anyone you are friends with online/who follows you is interested in the same thing or would be happy to let you infodump at them.

You could join online groups for infodumping at each other. Or groups specifically about the thing you're interested in, where people are more likely to be interested in what you have to say/your posts and comments about your interest would 'fit in' even if people aren't necessarily engaging with them.

FEELING LEFT OUT

Communicate

Trying to explain that someone's behaviour is hurtful can be tricky, because people often get defensive. So you might need to be confident that your friends are the kind of people who are ready to listen and be empathetic, rather than get defensive and feel like they're being suddenly accused if you want to message them regardless of whether anything has happened recently. Or you might want to wait until the next time something happens so that you can use that as a leaping point/example of something that makes you feel less a part of things or a figure of fun.

Think about whether you want to message as a group or message people individually, and whether you want to message everyone, or just people you feel more confident will be supportive and understanding.

Let people know that you often feel left out and isolated, and what things contribute towards that. You could let them know that you feel like you don't always understand what's going on or that you feel hurt or embarrassed when they laugh at you or poke fun at you. If you think they are genuinely joking and mean no harm, you could make it clear that you know that they aren't trying to hurt you. If the issue is more that it's a collective thing, also make that clear, so that no one feels singled out. Sometimes people 'banter' with friends, and genuinely mean no harm in it, but if it's hurting you then real friends should want to stop to avoid that.

FOR BOTH

Call it out as and when it happens

This takes courage and can be difficult, but sometimes it really does help to stick up for yourself. If people are taking advantage of the fact you usually let them get away with it, starting to stand up for yourself might immediately make them behave better, or might at least make them more aware of just how often they do things to you that they'd probably consider rude if someone else did it to them. You could always try to prepare some scripts for specific situations. If friends laugh at you: 'Hey, guys, I know that you're not trying to be mean, but it makes me feel silly and kind of hurt when you all laugh at me.' If someone interrupts you: 'I was actually right in the middle of a sentence just then. Can I finish what I was saying?'

Copy them!

Sometimes it helps to show people how their behaviour affects you by doing the same thing to them. People who don't experience being ignored or interrupted or cut off, or who finds it easy to re-assert themselves in situations where they are interrupted by something, might genuinely not realise how hurtful or embarrassing their behaviour can be.

This is probably a last resort kind of thing because it can come across as quite passive aggressive if they don't recognise that it's something they do themselves (if they call you out and you have to say, 'Well you do it to me all the time!' it might seem petty and argumentative rather than a genuine attempt at garnering understanding).

It can also be difficult if it's not in your nature to behave in that way, or it's hard to find the right moments, or if other people just don't create the same opportunities for you to demonstrate their behaviour to them. If your friends always get the jokes, you'll never have an opportunity to poke fun at them, for example. And, because it's not natural, it can also end up being or coming across as more cruel than the original behaviour. (There are people who I know that are very charismatic and come across as cheeky and can be quite mean to people and everyone accepts it as a joke, whereas if I said the exact same thing people would interpret it completely differently because my personality is too different to get away with it.)

Find an ally/casual advocate

If you have someone supportive you can confide in, perhaps talk to them about this first and ask if they could intervene when they notice these things happening.

When people cut you off mid-sentence, they might call it out for you, or they might just bring things back to you ('What were you saying about [topic]?'). They can also call out people poking fun at you, ask how you feel about it to help you make it known that it makes you feel bad, or try to get people to understand things from your perspective. 'It's kind of mean when we're always laughing at [name]. We all laugh at each other from time to time, but they seem to get it a lot more often and if it was me I'd start to feel a bit upset.' 'Do you mind people laughing at the fact you don't always get jokes, or does it make you feel a bit left out and embarrassed?'

You can also ask if they can explain jokes or references to you when you don't understand them, to avoid always feeling on the outside or being teased.

They can also model good friendship and communication in front of the others, by showing interest in your interests or modelling polite ways to say that they aren't really up for an infodump. If you are openly autistic, they could ask questions or explain things to make others aware that they need to be more considerate of the things you might struggle with.

Look for new people/your people

The people already in your life might be loved ones and friends, but you might also need to find some new people who have a better understanding of how your brain works and share more of your experiences and needs. Being surrounded by people who don't get us or appreciate us or include us in the same way they include each other/we don't connect as quickly or as completely with as many people as our peers often do, can be exhausting and can damage our self-esteem. You don't necessarily have to get rid of old friends or abandon groups you don't feel you fit into as well as the other members, but it can help to have spaces (online or in real life) where you can see that other people share in these experiences because it's just a case of being different - we're not the problem, we aren't less worthwhile, we're just different.

IF PEOPLE DON'T CARE/TRY TO CHANGE

You are not alone in your experiences, and you are not wrong or inferior for having those experiences (even if if sometimes feels it because the majority of the people around us don't have or understand brains like ours).

People who care about you should want to avoid hurting you, and should want you to feel included and valued, even if that means having to accept that their behaviour in the past was (unintentionally) harmful.

People don't have to want to listen to you infodump, but if they know how important it is to you and how much the way they treat you when you do it is hurtful to you and damaging your self-esteem, they should want to find some compromise to avoid that harm (even if they still cannot tolerate listening to you infodump about something they have no interest in, or are aversive to for some reason).

So if people don't try to be more thoughtful and kind towards you, you might want to think about getting new friends.

Tip jar.

[askanautistic]

I am self diagnosed on the spectrum, I struggle heavily with social cues and communicating with other people. It’s hard for me to ask other people questions about their day without being promoted, I expect them to tell me those things without me having to ask. This has become a huge issue in my relationship and recently escalated pretty severely. I have been open with them that I believe I’m on the spectrum, but I don’t want to use it as an excuse. How can I start a conversation with them about how my neurodivergent tendencies are the cause of what they feel is me being inattentive or self-absorbed?

Personally, I prefer addressing issues in writing. I find it easier to express myself, and it means that they have to read what I write and consider it in its entirety before responding (whereas attempting to have a face-to-face discussion means people can interrupt and people get sidetracked by perceived tone or attitude).

So I would send them a message, explaining things from my perspective.

But, as you are now aware that this is an issue, and something that is important to your partner, in this case I would also then say that I'd like to find ways around this issue that works for both of us. To make it clear that the issue is with both of us having different ways of thinking and different expectations, and we need to respect each other's differences and find a compromise.

This might be trying to find prompts/set times when you'll ask them. Maybe they could ask you first and you could use that as a prompt to reciprocate once you've answered. Or you could decide that you'll ask them first thing as soon as you are both together (whether that's one of you arriving home to the other, or both of you meeting up elsewhere).

Or, if there are other barriers to this (like needing to decompress when you get home, or being in the middle of something you're focused on) scripts or expectations for discussing your days. Scripts could be along the lines of: 'Hi! I need some time to decompress, but then I'll come find you so we can tell each other about our days.' OR you could both just expect that you decompress up until dinner time, then you'll both eat a meal together and discuss your days then.

(If you don't live together or have those natural or regular times when you'd be together to catch up, then you could arrange to catch up or eat together via video call, or set an alarm to send a text checking in at a certain time.)

Also, if they are being a bit unreasonable, and wanting you to show excessive interest and to ask multiple questions, then they need to also compromise in this, and understand that you might be able to ask more routine questions, like asking how their day was, but that they can't expect you to know everything that needs to be asked, or to take specific interest in aspects of their day that might be of little consequence (you don't need to care about what they had for lunch every day, or how the traffic was, so why would you ask for those details?). It might be fair that they want you to ask about their day, or take some interest in how they are and what they've been up to, but it's also fair for us to assume that the people we're close to might WANT to share things with us and so might volunteer things instead of always needing for us to prise that information from them.

Tip jar.

[askanautistic]

Does anyone have recommendations for shampoo, conditioner, and body wash products that rinse out really quickly? Or tips for taking shorter showers?

This isn't really an area I'm experienced in because I am a little obsessive when it comes to hygiene. I hate the sensory change and transition between being dressed and naked, dry to wet, under hot water to in cold air, etc., and toothpaste can feel like it's burning my mouth, but my need to feel clean overrides that.

Regarding avoiding the feel of product, perhaps you could use a flannel/loofa/sponge or something just with water to clean your body. This would still help get rid of dirt and old skin. If you are able and want to use a product to help hydrate your skin, or a soap for the smell or extra cleanliness, you could always use a small amount afterwards to quickly rub all over your body and rinse.

Or if need be, perhaps your showers could be mostly a whole body rinse and quick wipe down, but each day you focus on one (different) body part to wash more thoroughly.

Another option, if being in the shower is one of the issues, might be to strip-wash (remaining partially clothed for as much as possible) so you can focus on cleaning each body part (even without soap - using body wipes, or a wet cloth of some kind). Then rinse in the shower if that would make you feel cleaner/better (or to wash your hair). For washing hair, you could use dry shampoo for part of the week, and perhaps get your hair washed at a hairdressers once a week or so (so that you don't have to touch the products, or have the products rinse over your body) or ask someone else to help you wash your hair over a bath or sink.

Followers, any product recommendations, or tips for shorter showers?

Tip jar.