13/03/2026
Recent online discussions have suggested that the diagnostic definition of autism has been replaced by a new model centred on “masking”, or that individuals with higher support needs are being excluded from the autism spectrum. Or that individuals with lower support needs are diluting the meaning of the Tism.
Those claims do not reflect the current clinical standards. Nothing has actually changed.
Autism continues to be defined under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) and the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11). Under both systems, diagnosis still requires differences in social communication, restricted or repetitive patterns of behaviour, early developmental onset, and clinically significant functional impact. Support needs also remain explicitly recognised, including for people with substantial or very substantial daily support needs.
“Masking” or “camouflaging” is a research concept and term from Autistic culture. It describes strategies some Autistic people use to manage social environments. It is not a diagnostic criterion, is not required for diagnosis, and is not used to exclude people from diagnosis.
That clinical clarification matters. But it is not the only issue.
The more important framework is the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The central question is not which subgroup can claim legitimacy over another. The central question is whether all Autistic people, including those with high support needs, intellectual disability, limited or no speech, or different presentations across gender, are recognised as equal members of the disability community with equal dignity and equal rights.
Are they supported with dignity? Do they have what they need? Are they supported to choose? Are they free? Are they seen as people with inherent worth and value? Are they included, and are they supported to communicate in their way? Are they welcome and safe at school, home, and in public - in the community? Are they afforded the same opportunities in work, in schooling, in relationships? Are they safe from harm?
None of these questions are being answered whilesoever attempts are being made to sow conflict over terms. Conflict uses a lot of energy. Those who work to create division where none needs to exist are distracting us from far more important work.
The UNCRPD does not, anyway, support a hierarchy of human worth based on communication style, independence, social presentation or capacity to self-advocate in conventional ways.
It requires recognition of inherent dignity, non-discrimination, full and effective participation and inclusion, accessibility, respect for difference, and respect for the evolving capacities and identity of disabled children - all of them.
There is no hierarchy of deservingness - there is only individual and genuine assessment of functional needs, for every person, and then meeting those needs. We are equal, and different.
That means we should be very careful about narratives that divide the community into supposedly more valid and less valid forms of Autism. We should also be cautious about who benefits when Autistic people, families and advocates are pushed into conflict with each other. Professional, commercial, and policy interests are not always neutral, and divisions within the community can distract from shared rights claims and material needs.
For this reason, it is always more beneficial when Disabled people with very high support needs and their loved ones work together with Disabled people with lower support needs and their loved ones. We are far stronger together, and to be frank: there IS enough money for everyone, no matter what the government claims. In a country that gives away our natural gas for free (and that's even before we get to the taxation question!) and in which most billionaires pay no tax, it is more than a bit silly to squabble over scraps.
There's no need to play the Hunger Games. We can stand together, turn as one toward the Federal Government, and demand a better deal. That is perfectly possible. But of course, there are many who do not want us to do that, because when we fight each other, we are easier to manage and monetise, aren't we?
A rights-based approach requires us to hold two things at once. First, the spectrum includes a very wide range of lived experiences and support needs. Second, that diversity does not reduce our obligations to one another. On the contrary, it strengthens them.
Autistic people are one community. The spectrum includes people who mask and people who do not or cannot. It includes people who speak and people who do not. It includes people who live independently and people who require lifelong intensive support.
A rights-based framework does not ask which of these groups is the “real” autism. It asks whether our systems, services and public discourse are structured to uphold the dignity, voice, safety and rights of all of them. It keeps a close eye on industry and research, clinicians and government alike and says:
I am not a product. I am a person. And so is my comrade who can speak. So is my comrade who can't. Both of us are deserving. Both.
One for all and all for one, yo. It's so simple, and so easy, to stand together and not apart.
x Sarah
[Image Description: a table with lego being sorted into colour groups]
