askanautistic

[askanautistic]

My partner is autistic and sometimes has violent meltdowns - throwing plates, smashing furniture, recently for the first time they pushed me over. I know their behavior isn't *at* me, I'm often not even in the house and they don't, like, target my stuff to smash. They're always very upset and ashamed afterwards and I comfort them and we talk about the cause of the meltdown and try to develop strategies for the future, but it's still hard living with the chance of violence all the time (though it can be months between instances). I'm always just a little bit scared. Any advice on living with this and responding with grace but looking out for myself too?

Often physically hugging them during a meltdown is the absolute best way to help but obviously I don't want to put myself within pushing range anymore. The outside of their head can be a scary place to be... but I know that the inside of their head during a meltdown is pretty scary for them too, and they can't ever get away.

It would probably be a good idea to discuss this when you are both feeling calm and regulated to try to troubleshoot.

It might also be a good idea to look into whether there is any professional help available. Even if he's not generally an angry person and it doesn't seem like he needs anger management, some kind of therapy might help him to identify what causes these reactions and what might work for him to cope.

Also consider whether you need someone to talk to (possibly someone who doesn't know either of you if you are concerned about the stigma of friends or family knowing that he did become physical during a meltdown).

Find the cause/s It sounds like this is something you both already try to do, which is great. Knowing what's causing them can sometimes make it easier to avoid them happening, or to prevent overload or distress from escalating to the point of violence. Being able to pre-empt that certain situations or problems might cause a meltdown means you can also put coping mechanisms in place. You might need to break down the cause/s, as well (for example, if your partner tends to meltdown after going out, think about what kind of outings tend to be too much and why that might be - length of time, the specific place/s he's been, the travel method). Then you can think of things that might mitigate those difficulties, or be prepared for the fact he is likely to have a meltdown at some point if he's unable to regulate/calm down.

Examine both of your behaviour during meltdowns Does he tend to isolate himself or act not-towards you, or when he gets very angry does he seek you out? It sounds like it's probably the former because you mentioned that he doesn't target you or your things. However, if it is ever the latter, then that might suggest you do need to make sure you are away from him and safe, to prevent him being able to approach you if he might become violent.

Do you tend to try to help? Talk to him, calm him down, ask what's wrong? If so, this would be perfectly natural - it's normal and kind to worry about the people we love when they're distressed, and to want to find out what's causing it and to try to help. But sometimes having someone talking to, touching, or reacting to a meltdown can make things worse. Think of it as a state where you aren't able to properly process and act rationally, so people trying to ask questions or reassure us can be overwhelming in itself, might cause more confusion or frustration (if we aren't in a fit state to be able to reply properly or to act on what we're being encouraged to do).

This does not mean that you are to blame for any violence enacted upon you, so please do not feel bad or blame yourself. But it might help you to react in a more helpful way if you are doing anything that exacerbates things.

Figure out the early signs It's not always possible for an autistic person (or the people around them) to recognise that certain behaviours might be signs of overload or distress, and sometimes the switch from appearing perfectly fine to being in a state of shutdown or meltdown can be so rapid and sharp it seems like it's come out of nowhere. But by paying attention to little changes in behaviour or mood it might be possible to start to recognise hints that something is going on. If either of you start to recognise that he starts to become less able to articulate, or starts to huff or sigh or roll his eyes when he's becoming overwhelmed or agitated, it might mean that he knows to make an active decision to self-regulate, or that might be a good time to offer a hug if that helps him. Being able to identify when I'm struggling, or having someone who loves me kindly point out that they're noticing that I'm getting antsy and checking if I'm dehydrated or want to go off and sit in the quiet and do something that helps me to re-regulate can be hugely helpful. It might also enable you to quietly remove any valuables that might get broken, and yourself if need be, or to implement a strategy before he reaches the point of losing control (like getting out a box of things he can throw safely or something he can hit like cusions or a punchbag).

Have a strategy in place for the meltdown It might not be possible to pre-empt, and once a meltdown has started it can be hard to think and act rationally, so it's not always going to work, but, as mentioned above, you could try to come up with a box of things that it is safe for him to throw or to hit. These things can either be always somewhere visible where he might hopefully use them if it's been pre-discussed and he's aware of what they're for, or you can get them out when he starts to meltdown and leave them where he can see them if it's safe for you to do so.

Part of the plan might also mean you removing yourself from the area he's melting down in if it is potentially going to result in you coming to harm. You don't have to risk any injury to yourself. Meltdowns can be exacerbated or drawn out if things occur while they're happening that cause additional distress, so lashing out and hurting you or you being frightened by him throwing things is potentially going to make it harder for him to calm down anyway - your priority should be your own safety anyway, but it might help to think of it as something that benefits both of you. Discuss this in advance to make it clear that you are leaving the area for safety and not because you are upset or angry with him and leaving in a negative way, but ultimately your safety comes before his feelings so if it is a bit upsetting to him to be left while he's melting down, that's something you can both address afterwards when he's calm.

Meltdown/Shutdown Resource You could both have a look at this resource to see if there is anything that resonates behaviourwise, or that sparks ideas for things that you experience that aren't included, and whether any suggestions for things that help/don't help are useful (or spark other ideas for things that would work for you both).

It's quite generalised (so for example, too much socialisation is broad, and it might be more useful to someone who recognises that is an issue to try to narrow down the things that make it more or less tolerable - the specific people being socialised with, the amount of people, the amount of conversation/interaction involved (cinema trips might be better than a chat in the pub), the venue, the amount of time spent socialising, accrued socialisation over an extended period of time (five hours one evening might be tolerable if there is some time to regulate beforehand and time to recuperate the next day, but 1.5 hours per evening over the course of three evenings might be too much).

For some people, it might be that there is no major thing that causes a meltdown, but a build up of tiny things, and avoiding meltdowns is more about being aware of how many little things are happening. Those things might not actually seem like much of an issue by themselves, so sometimes it can even be about trying to figure out what could be contibuting rather than having to identify something is definitely contributing (if that makes sense?); if in one day I got up and had no milk left to have my routine breakfast but managed to get over it fairly quickly, then went to a shop and got something I was excited to get, then went to an event that I enjoyed, then came home on the tube still in a good mood, then ordered something to eat and it was delayed, then my t-shirt got caught on a handle as I walked past it and I had a huge, disproportionate meltdown, none of the things that happened were necessarily to blame, but all might have contributed - disappointment, sensory overload and crowds, more crowds and having to use public transport, gradually getting kind of overstimulated but doing things I enjoy and that making it bearable and making it harder to recognise, and eventually something tips me over the edge. So perhaps the next time I might need to plan to only do one thing in the day that requires going to a crowded place, or I need to remember my earplugs on the tube, or I need to make sure I eat earlier in the day or order food a bit earlier to allow for delays. And recognising it's a build up of lots of little things that by themselves I was able to cope with helps it seem less shameful than believing that I flipped out over my t-shirt catching on a door handle.

And being aware that this can be the case can help with being more aware and mindful about the fact that the little things add up, it might be better to limit activities (take some things out of your bucket), or that you might need to actively make sure that you're regulated, hydrated, have eaten, etc. to avoid your bucket overflowing.

[askanautistic]

Extra info on this situation, and it continues to be deeply concerning; our legal system is either incompetent or corrupt, and either way it is dangerous and terrifying.

As was clear by how quickly the EHRC published its initail interim guidance, they seem to be trying to rush anti-trans legislation through.

The EHRC later released updated interim guidance, possibly due to criticism and realising that much of what it stated would, in practise, be unlawful. This guidance doesn't actually rectify much of that. The new guidance stressed that the law must be enforced and seemed to amount to: you must not let trans people in single sex spaces, but also you have to be careful that, when trying to pry into a person's 'biological' sex/gender reassignment status, that you aren't harassing them or invading their privacy.

There was a consultation on the guidance, however initially there was only a two week window (which was then lengthened after backlash), and the Good Law Project alleges that the EHRC would only actually consider 50% of the 50,000 responses. Instead of reviewing all the submissions and taking all feedback into consideration, the EHRC apparently intended to have AI determine which responses would be analysed. This information was apparently gleaned via leaked internal messages, sent by EHRC staff on Microsoft Teams:

“Just wanted to let you know that EHRC is only analysing 50% of code consultation responses from organisations because it is overwhelmed by volume and board wants redraft by 18 August.” “This approach may mean we do not capture insightful but singly /infrequently made points but there is no way that we could action 50,000 individual points in any case (it’s simply impractical and the Code would end up being enormously long if we tried to).”

So, yet another rush job on an incredibly complex and important issue that impacts on the rights and safety of human beings. Without knowing how AI would be instructed to narrow down the responses, there's further cause for concern - the possibility that it would select a disproportionate amount of anti-trans responses, which would render the consultation almost pointless, and would yet again prevent the trans community from having a say (after the Supreme Court already denied all trans individuals and organisations their voices).

The Chair of the EHRC, Baroness (Kishwer) Falkner, with regards to whether asking someone about their gender identity breaches their right to privacy, said in Parliament:

'We don't think Article 8 rights apply, and neither does the Supreme Court, and neither has previous advice we've taken.' 

Let's not forget that EHRC stands for Equality and Human Rights Commission. If the Chair of that organisation isn't concerned with trans people's right to privacy (a human right), the organisation is not fit for purpose.

Luckily she is coming to the end of her term in November. Unfortunately her replacement is Mary-Ann Stephenson, who is very actively anti-trans! Someone who donates money towards court cases and attempts to strip trans people of their identities and their rights should not be in this position, as there is clear and strong prejudice that makes her unfit for that role.

Again, I would suggest that people kick up a fuss.

Spread information to make more people aware of what's going on and why it matters. I only realised there was a Supreme Court case once the ruling was already made. I also only stumbled across Amendment NC21 today - it was a proposed addition to the Data (Use and Access) Bill that would have meant that public records would have to record everyone as their assigned sex at birth (a trans person with a GRC would be allowed to have their correct gender recorded... alongside their assigned sex). It was rejected. But when these things are happening quietly (at least quietly enough that outside of specific community groups it's going unnoticed, and unscrutinised) it makes it easier for bigots to push their agendas forward.

Learn, and find and spread knowledgable explanations - to explain the law, to explain sex and gender. Many people seem to be misinformed. Conspiracy theories and 'trans hysteria' are based on intuitive thinking, not logical thinking. They rely on emotional reactions rather than critical thinking. They also utilise the human tendency towards 'us vs them' dichotomies; a group that is misunderstood and distrusted becomes, in the mind of the conspiracy theorist, a threat. Find out more about natural variations in sex (how sex characteristics vary, the many kinds of intersex conditions there are, how the majority of trans atheletes are not actually performing at an especially impressive level, how anti-trans attitudes negatively impact cis people who present as gender non-conforming or have characteristics that are associated with the opposite sex.

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.

Be prepared to challenge anyone who tries to challenge or harass anyone they perceive as potentially being trans.

People are entitled to their opinions, but there's a difference between having and voicing an opinion, and being a bully. Call out bullies.

Always fight for your rights and fight for other people's. Let's not make it easy for the bigots.

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]

(Idk if this makes sense but) Do you have any suggestions for trying to look like a more mature adult sometimes? I don't mind the fact that I'm kinda seen as childish for my looks and interests most of the time, but sometimes I want to actually be seen as an adult and trying to do that is hard (especially with navigating sensory issues and my nonexistent social skills).

I can relate a bit to this. I am quite 'babyfaced', and even though I can come across as being very quiet and serious, I tend to be mistaken for being considerably younger than I am, and although it can be a nice thing, it can also be quite embarrrassing. It's also frustrating if that perception means that I'm taken less seriously than my peers (in the past it was common for colleagues to be automatically viewed as more competent based purely on them being perceived as 'real grownups' even if I was more experienced and knowledgable, and my perspectives being dismissed/being patronised).

Sometimes it can be a positive (even if people underestimate you); people can far more forgiving of neurodivergent traits when they believe you're younger than you are.

But sometimes it's nice to be taken seriously from the off, and not to have to work harder than everyone else to prove yourself.

Clothes

Clothes can make a huge difference, even if it's just in comparison to how you usually dress. If part of the issue is that you wear clothes that are comfortable but seem less professional/mature, I'd suggest looking for clothes that are different to the ones you already wear, but that have similar characteristics sensory-wise.

For example, I am a 'baggy clothes' autistic. I like soft clothes. I ended up, for a long time, wearing exclusively jogging bottoms in colder weather and baggy cargo shorts (that were actually cargo swim trunks, so very lightweight and loose) in hot weather. I found some 'loose fit' cargo trousers that were quite soft and had an elasticated waist, and was able to get a size that was loose enough to be comfortable but not so much they'd fall down. I could sit comfortably, walk comfortably, crouch and sit crossed legged on the floor in them. They're casual trousers, but when my partner saw me wearing them, the contrast was so stark that to her it looked like I was actually dressed 'smart'.

So over time I have managed to find some trousers that feel comfortable, are in keeping with my 'style', but that seem less childish or unprofessional than what I previously wore. I tend to stick to the same brand/s when I find things that I like.

It's also about figuring out what you can tolerate and in what situations. For me, looser clothes trump material (so I can tolerate a slightly stiffer/rougher material if it's lightweight and oversized more than I can tolerate soft material that's too clingy). It's basically about figuring out what your needs are, looking for clothes with similar characteristics to try, and experimenting until you find something that works for you.

If you don't dress to suit your personality (focusing more on purely comfort) then you could see whether toning things down helps (like wearing neutral colours and avoiding bright colours or loud patterns), or whether brightening things up does! Switching from wearing hoodies to wearing hoodless jumpers can somehow come across as a bit more mature stylewise and more professional. Maybe a stronger sense of style would be read as confidence rather than childishness. A lot of it probably depends on the clothes themselves, how you carry yourself, etc. (maybe finding the right clothes that are comfortable but also make you feel and act more confident).

If you dress in a way that suits your personality, and feel like you can't dress in a way that reads as less childish without compromising yourself, you might want to think about other ways you can assert yourself if people aren't treating you like a competent adult.

This can also apply to sensory aids like ear protection. If you find that people tend to associate ear defenders with children, then switching to headphones or ear plugs/ear phones might help with things like that (drawing less attention for example). Sensory-wise it can require some trial and error to find what works, or building up a cache if you need a range of options depending on the situation: still needing to be able to make out what people are saying, needing extra protection because of the level of noise, needing or preferring to listen to music, not being able or allowed or not wanting to also listen to music, not wanting something that goes in the ear, or not being able to tolerate tightness over the ears or having something in your ears for too long, etc.

Haircut

Different haircuts can also make a difference. They can make your face seem a different shape, hide or reveal signs of aging (someone who wants to appear younger might have a fringe to hide lines on their forehead, but maybe someone who wants to look older might brush their hair back to show those lines!).

I've noticed the difference a haircut can make, possibly more so because I dislike getting my hair cut, so tend to wait a long time between visits to the barber. A negative of this is that people notice the change more, so I'm more likely to get comments, but this also means that sometimes the comments basically amount to me looking a bit older (comments that amount to me looking like a 'real' adult, or being referred to as 'handsome' instead of 'cute' by the few people who are somewhat fond of my face). So it seems that iIf my hair is a bit longer and either has no style or the style has grown out I am perceived as younger and more childlike (context can exacerbate this, of course, because multiple things can add together to create an appearance; I once had a doctor assume that my girlfriend who is younger than me was my mother when I was in hospital, but there was a lot of context that created the perfect conditions for that drastic a mistake: I was on a ward full of elderly men which made me look younger by comparison, was obviously unwell and so had lost weight on top of wearing my oversized joggers and t-shirt (and so looked more 'slight' and apparently vulnerable on the big hospital bed), with my basically dark version of Bam-Bam Rubble hair). But if it's cut in a way that looks more styled and therefore 'groomed' it seems to read as more mature.

Again, this might vary depending on your hair and face shape. But you could always ask a barber or hairdresser what cut/style would suit you and help you to look more your age.

So there are things you can do that can alter how people perceive you a bit. But you could also focus on:

Confidence and (Relevant) Skills

Coming across as self-assured and confidence might also help people perceive you as more competent and mature/less childlike. And this doesn't have to be achieved through your image. It could be through looking into professional advice to help you better assert yourself or feel more confident, or through focusing on your strengths and how to show those to other people.

I could be through awareness of your body language. If you tend to slouch, standing up straighter. If you find it hard to make eye contact, either focusing on another part of the face or just being more positive and confident about not making eye contact. And/or being more open about the misperceptions people have. 'People sometimes think I lack confidence because I'm quiet and don't make eye contact, but that's just beacuse I'm autistic. I am very confident in my ability to do [whatever].' 'I know that my attire might seem a bit unfashionable/unprofessional, but it's just because I prioritise comfort over fashion/find I'm much better at performing my job role when I'm comfortable.'

That last one might even just be about being more honest instead of doubting yourself, and then if other people recognise that your choices are actually more self-assured or sensible than doubting yourself and trying to fit in, undersstanding your choices or needs might make them more respectful and mindful.

If people recognise strengths/skills and consider you knowledgable and experienced, if they value your perspective, then it doesn't really matter quite as much how else you present yourself a lot of the time. Sometimes you have to be prepared to assert yourself as knowledgable or your opinion as informed. If you can demonstrate your knowledge or skill, it makes it harder for the people who have underestimated you to continue to do so. And you don't need to be charismatic or sing your own praises or dominate a conversation in order to flaunt yourself.

You could also find some ways of interacting that level the playing field a bit. Zoom limits what people see (and you can limit that further by turning off your camera) so they can't pre-judge. Sending an email to express an idea or concern in the workplace rather than trying to address it face to face if you find i

Maybe our followers have ideas for things that work for them.

If you find any of my posts helpful and want to support me, here's my Ko-Fi.

[askanautistic]

Hi, I don't know if anyone else who's autistic goes through this, but I consider myself pretty low on empathy, but also really high too???

See, most of the time I don't really empathize with things, it's like I really couldn't give a flying fuck about them(although I obviously am compassionate)

Thing is, I ALSO literally CRY because of good/pretty things that happen not only to me, but with my friends too, so, sometimes they'll tell me something super silly that happened to them and i start crying out of joy for them??And i don't know, this also happens when I see something I'm super interested in, so, I'll cry when I see a cute drawing of something I like or when i see an actress i think is really pretty, especially if its gay representation???I always thought all of that was weird because, well, tearing up while two characters are making out is weird and, you know, I could never understand how most of the time my friends tell me stuff, especially bad, and I cant feel anything, but then I also do THAT

does anybody go through this???WHAT is this??? am I just bad at emotions???

Yes, I completely get this (although I don't experience things exactly the same as you - I don't get as emotional or cry over things, and rarely (if ever?) feel the things that someone else is feeling). But whilst I tend towards low empathy, I am definitely more empathetic/sensitive in some situations and very much not sensitive or empathetic in others. I think that a lot of people probably do experience being both sensitive in some respects and insensitive (or unsensitive) in others, but this might be more extreme in autistic people (or more 'odd' in how we experience and express it compared to our peers).

But even being 'insensitive' or 'unsensitive' in some situations doesn't mean that we are actually uncaring or cruel, however it might appear that way to some people. I think it can depend on the catalyst for the emotion, and what your brain can automatically connect emotion to.

What I mean by this is that if the catalyst is 'too big', or sudden, it's harder to process. So there might be less of an emotional reaction. Even to things that automatically seem to trigger strong emotion in other people.

It might also be a social/emotional imagination issue. Lots of people, without having directly experienced something similar to someone else, might have an automatic reaction. They can automatically fear that thing happening to them, or feel some kind of joy at the thought of experiencing something like that. But I tend to find it hard to react to something if I can't imagine it happening to me, and having to imagine something takes me more time because it's not an automatic process like it seems to be for lots of other people. So I'm unlikely to react 'correctly' in the moment.

And perhaps it can also be impacted by 'big picture' thinking vs 'focusing on the details'. Or bottom up/top down thinking. I tend to need to gather lots of details in order to build up an idea of the bigger picture, whereas most other people might have a general idea first before they focus on/worry about the details.

Perhaps for people with alexithymia it might also mean difficulty understanding how someone else feels or how you would feel in that situation (or how you do feel about something on hearing about it).

Autistic brains often process things differently. So I tend to think of it more as a processing issue, in which sometimes the processing is delayed or hindered because of various factors, and sometimes processing is quicker and perhaps even more intuitive. And one person might experience both kinds of processing, but in different circumstances (and in ways that might be at odds with their peers). And sometimes connections occur more naturally than others (some people connect more with children or with older people than their peers, some people connect more naturally with animals than with people).

As an example (mention of animal illness and death):

When my dog was diagnosed with an illness, the vet never specified that it was terminal. She was very regretful, trying to express how sorry she was to be giving us such terrible news, but she never explained the details about prognosis, life expectancy, potential treatments and success rates. My mum automatically reacted like it was the end of the line and that we were going to have to say goodbye imminently. Everyone else who was told also immediately reacted in the same regretful, sorrowful way, as if it was just a given that it was terminal and untreatable. Whereas I felt nothing at all towards the initial news, and didn't react at all negatively towards it. My dog was my best friend and meant the absolute world to me. And I think that, for me, the news wasn't really meaningful, because the diagnosis was a very broad illness - there are lots of types, with different treatment options and survival rates, so the news itself didn't mean anything. I needed details to be able to really process the news and to be able to make decisions about how to proceed.

I suppose it's like in Inside Out with Riley's core memory island things. Everyone else seemed to automatically connect his diagnosis to an island - they already had a fully formed 'big picture' notion of what it meant. Whereas I couldn't connect it to anything, because that 'island' was under construction in my mind. I couldn't just immediately connect to this generalised idea that everyone else seemed able to automatically form, there were too many unknowns that I needed very specific information for. I needed to collect all the information to be able to construct my island and then to be able to feel/react accordingly.

Whereas, there are other situations where we are given more information to help us connect emotionally. In films, TV shows, even adverts, there'll be music to help evoke emotion, and it will focus on the things it needs us to know in order to understand the story. In books we might be given some back story or shown something important about the character, so that we connect with them and care about what happens to them. Even if it's only a short amount of time, we're given some time or information to help develop our understanding of what's happening, our connection to the people involved, and to process. So someone might cry at a film but be less emotional in real life, or be emotionally invested in the relationship between two characters and not have that same investment in their friend's relationship.

Or there might be some situations we might already have enough pieces of the puzzle to have constructed the 'island' that we need to connect to in order to have an emotional reaction that's supposedly appropriate to the situation. So if something someone has experienced that was significant to them happens to someone else (or something similar) they might be better able to connect and empathise based on their own experience.

I think there's often this idea that having too much empathy is better than having low empathy, but having low empathy doesn't mean lacking compassion or being unkind or cruel. Or that low empathy means you lack any empathy at all. And there can be positives. For me: I'm less likely to react to rage bait or be manipulated by fake charities because I am unlikely to have an automatic emotional reaction to things I see or am told. Needing time to process and understand how I feel means that I'm also more likely to verify information before reacting to it. It also means I'm less likely to be emotionally manipulated, because I need to 'build the island' and because that takes time I'm more likely to gather additional information and have thought enough about it to recognise if something seems 'off' or questionable.

Here is my Ko-fi for anyone who finds my posts helpful and wants to support me.

[askanautistic]

Hey, I'm trying to give my partner tips/resources on how to handle dating me as an autistic person and I don't want to overwhelm them or something and basically just need a starting point so they can research by themselves and/or ask specific questions

Here are a couple of posts that might be useful, and you could also browse through our relationships tag.

Our followers might have some additional resources that they find useful.

[askanautistic]

hey! I know you have some ADHD mods on here; I was wondering if I could ask a question about RSD? after any kind of meaningful negative interaction, I always feel like crying/resentment/anger towards the person who said these things to me, even if they aren't trying to be cruel/unfair. I really struggle seeing things in proportion or even acknowledging people might be right (my common sense knows this, but my feelings struggle to get over themselves!). Can RSD feel like this? Thanks so much <3

Of course, it is normal to feel some level of negativity (and potentially even some distress) when experiencing rejection or criticism, but for people who experience RSD (Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria) those feelings will basically be very disproportionate - extreme distress to perceived rejection/criticism that aren't that significant and that other people are largely better able to cope with.

This can occur even if it's fairly minor issue being mentioned (and when it's not even direct criticism), like someone reminding you to pick up your clothes after showering or asking if you left the light or fan on all day (because that is then perceived as a 'failing' and causes shame and anger).

And yes, it can feel like that (some people might cry or feel like they want to, or might feel angry and resentful towards the person who is criticising them or who has caused them to feel rejected).

Often RSD means that people will avoid situations that might result in rejection or criticism. Like not asking someone for a simple favour because if they say no it will make you feel inordinately embarrassed, anxious and rejected, or even actively trying to avoid any comments that might elicit that same shame/negative feeling. [As an example, I often experience a lot of quite intense shame if my girlfriend makes a jokey comment about a delivery - like, 'Let me guess, another book?' as she hands me the package, or recently I couldn't decide what kind of ice pack to buy when she mentioned we needed a couple extra, so ended up buying two kinds and then hid one set to avoid any comments until both sets had arrived and I could explain it in my own time and on my own terms. My girlfriend is understanding, she's never cruel or mean, but I still got very anxious and needed some time before I could 'admit' what I'd done. As if buying ice packs for us both to use (with my own money) was something terrible! Similarly, if she reminds me about something like picking up my clothes after I shower, or asks if the fan in the bedroom was left on all day while we were both at work (if I forgot to turn it off before leaving the room) I feel intense shame and can get quite angry and snappy, and often need a bit of time to process and rationalise that I am reacting because of RSD rather than because of criticism, that we both forget to do things sometimes, and it's not shameful or terrible.]

Regardless of whether someone does experience RSD or not, if the person is being cruel or unfair, even if they don't intend to be, it might be reasonable to feel extremely upset after a negative interaction. I feel it's worth mentioning this because it can sometimes be easy to blame or pathologise ourselves instead of holding other people accountable where criticism or rejection might actually be unfair, might have been delivered in a cruel, thoughtless or even inappropriate way, or might have been 'overdelivered'. For example, being told that you got something wrong might be tolerable, but having someone go on about it for 20 minutes might not (and might not be necessary to make the point), or where it might be appropriate in a workplace for a line manager to offer some constructive criticism in private, it might not be appropriate (or tolerable) if they criticise you in public.

It is also possible to learn ways to cope. Both parties in a discussion being aware of RSD and mindful of that can help ease it somewhat (because you can at least understand what's happening and reassure yourself/each other). Having structured time to listen and time to respond can also help (giving yourself time to process the information and, where necessary, respond). For example, if someone has to say something critical or make a suggestion that you find difficult to cope with, being able to go away and consider what's been said, discuss it with a trusted person, and construct a reasonable response can be preferable to feeling very on the spot and reacting emotionally (or going away and ruminating). Where criticism is constructive, it might feel bad sometimes to receive it, but it can feel positive later if you have been able to utilise it and recognise an improvement and focusing on that can also help (or alleviate some of the negative feeling later). Being in situations where you've received constructive criticism well or have trusted people who you can have discussions with and receive feedback from in mindful, kind ways, and can actually utilise it to improve things can also feel good afterwards, and can help with developing some resilience/more reliable coping mechanisms.

For people who struggle to ask for favours or for help, it can help to ask via a method there's less pressure (so instead of asking face to face and having to cope with being told no in real time (and having to potentially respond whilst having an emotional reaction) texting or emailing to ask, instead. Or even having someone else ask on your behalf (if I know I will struggle with being told no, I might ask my partner to ask someone for me). It might also help to try to reframe requests as being from or for someone else (I sometimes find it easier to ask someone to do something if it feels like it's on someone else's behalf - so asking my brother to help with something that is actually for both myself and my partner feels less pressure and I feel less like I'm being rejected if I've mentally reframed it as something she wants help with, so I am asking solely or mostly on my partner's behalf; for example, we needed help moving some furniture around which is for both of us because the furniture belongs to both of us and it was in our (shared) bedroom, but by focusing on the fact she was the driving force behind wanting to get new furniture and thus needing to move things around, and because I have physical limitations at the moment due to nerve damage in my spine and it would mostly be them having to do the physical stuff, I could ask for the help on her behalf and avoid feeling I was directly risking rejection).

My Ko-fi for anyone who finds my content useful and wants to support me.

[askanautistic]

Is it werid to have a really person as a comfort character ?

What do you mean by 'comfort character'?

My first thought was that if it's a real person then they wouldn't be a comfort character, but perhaps I'm being too literal?

Perhaps you mean a real life person who you either don't know in real life, or don't actually interact with on a meaningful level (and so by 'character' you mean your idea of them is based on the characters they play, a stage persona, a professional persona, or you imagine how you'd like them to be, or have idealised them based on seeing them in certain situations, perhaps?).

I actually think that regardless of which the case it, this is probably pretty common, though. Most people have characters they relate to or find comforting and might wish that this person really existed and that they could have a relationship with them (whether that's a romantic relationship, a parental one, or a friendship). And it's extremely common for people to ascribe traits to real life people they don't actually know personally (actors, band members, etc) and to either iamgine that that person is the character they play (so actors who play villains might get abused in the street, the weatherman might get angry emails because people blame the weather on them instead of recognising they just report the conditions), or people imagine that person how they want them to be. Whether it's someone famous, or someone who works in a local shop, or a teacher or colleague or manager you've idealised and fictionalised in some way.

So no, it's not really weird.

But it's worth being careful, and being aware of the fact that you've fictionalised a real person, and have ultimately created a character with their face (and name, presumably) rather than that this person is actually someone you relate to or that has the traits you admire in them. You can't expect them to always live up to your expectations if you've made up your expectations (even if you've based your ideal on seeing them in interviews or reading other people's descriptions of them).

It's probably also worth being careful that you don't engage in behaviours that might make someone uncomfortable. For example, writing your own fiction that includes someone you know in real life without their permission and without differentiating the character from them enough - if they came across it and it was obviously them. it might be quite uncomfortable for them, and might embarrass them if other people come across it. Or becoming overly personal with that person because you feel like you know them (when you don't).

If you mean that you find genuine comfort from people you are close to, based on who they genuinely are, then that might be more akin to a 'safe person'. Which is also, of course, very common and not weird - people often have favourite people, people who they feel most comfortable around, most comforted or reassured by. Whether that's a constant and based on a very close relationship (like a partner, close family member, or best friend) or whether it's something a little more distant/situation specific (like someone having a 'work wife/husband' or 'work bestie', who they rely on for support when at work, or knowing someone who, in a stressful situation, you think of as being good at problem solving and keeping things calm and so you'd turn to them if you had an issue, or who might have a specific skill that you find comforting (like for someone with a phobia of insects, knowing that someone is calm and able to remove them from your space might be very comforting, even if that person is otherwise not really that special to you). Followers, any thoughts, experiences, or suggestions?

[askanautistic]

The fastest way to shut down my "freelance life means I have to constantly be working" thoughts is to remind myself that if I was a boss holding a worker to the standards I hold myself to, their union would hunt me for sport and nobody would blame them.

[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.