Even though it's a spectrum--in that it's comprised of a number of different characteristics that are present to varying degrees--I think that perhaps some of those characteristics have been overly pathologized. I'm not sure exactly how to explain it. If I made up a disease--I'm going to call it Short-Man Syndrome (SMS)--and said that any male under 5'2" had SMS, then someone that was 5'2.1" wouldn't fit the criteria. But wait!, he says, I feel short. So maybe that definition gets widened a little bit. So now a person that's 5'2.5" says, well, I feel short too, and maybe a doctor disagrees, since 5'2.5" is pretty short, and that definition gets even wider. Eventually maybe someone that's 5'11" is saying, well I feel short compared to Yao Ming...

And maybe that's what's happening here. I don't know. Even though all of these characteristics may exist on a continuum, you need to have a definite cut off point where you say, this point and beyond is pathological, and anything up to that, no matter how close, isn't. Otherwise your definition becomes pointless.

I like "Normal is boring" as a slogan.

There's some thought that autism rates are identical in men and women, and that the difference in diagnosis has more to do with the presentation. It's plausible.

Yeah, I've suspected for a while that some of the autism spectrum is just the brain allocating resources differently to different things. It has a finite number of neurons (which is true even if it can grow new ones over time), so a higher emphasis on learning one thing could come at the cost of something else.

Or it could even be a matter of some people not building as strong of a foundation in some areas because their brain didn't figure out something that others did, and it snowballs from there as peers develop on that stronger foundation of things they think they just inherently know and can't imagine someone not knowing it and those without that strong foundation try to develop along with their peers but can't because of what they are missing.

Like imagine that while learning math, you somehow miss learning the number 3. This would be pretty obvious because math is a rigid system, but imagine it wasn't as strictly logical like language or social interactions. Maybe a better example would be developing drawing skills without knowing anything about perspective or lighting. Sure, there's plenty of styles that don't need that foundation, but if you want to draw photorealistic pictures, they are going to look off or even bad, even though they might still be recognizable. Kinda like socializing with someone with autism who isn't good at masking.

Though the ability to mask itself might indicate it's deeper than that. It indicates that some are capable of adjusting for their foundation, does being able to mask while still having those gaps mean the gaps are genetic? Or can we only develop by building on what we have, so the best we can do is put patches over the shortcomings we recognize in ourselves and want to correct instead of being able to truly fill those gaps in the foundation?

And all of this doesn't even go into sensory issues related to autism. If there's different mechanisms that result in the different aspects of autism, should they even be considered the same thing? How would one even figure out if they share mechanisms?

The plastics are blocking my dopamine receptors

I might go a level deeper and argue that the formal education process requires a degree of attention and focus that lots of kids don’t have. The “autism” diagnosis and subsequent treatment is more about fitting round kids into square holes than it is treating an actual mental disorder.

Okay, but that seems to be more prevalent now than it used to be. Is it really more prevalent? Or maybe the way we teach things has changed, leading to worse outcomes? Full disclosure: I was formally diagnosed with ASD in my later 30s; Asperger's didn't even exist as a diagnosis until after I had graduated from public schools. I had a very hard time focusing in all of my classes.

Also possible that autism - like a number of other disorders - is linked to aging mothers

I know that there's a strong link between trisomy-23 (Downs Syndrome) and older mothers, but I hadn't heard of other genetic issues. I'm not disputing it, just saying I wasn't aware of them.

more mentally adapt babies with mental talents the rest of us dumb-dumbs only see as a handicap,

It is absolutely a handicap. This is undeniable. It's a handicap because it hinders your ability to interact appropriately with the world. I have greatly reduced empathy and communication ability; I can usually guess how people are feeling, but I don't really feel it in the way that most people say they do, and I don't really feel much of my own emotions. I can't just power through shit like some people can either; I'll sometimes go into complete shutdown when there's too much going on, things that most people have no issues with. There's a lot more, really. But trust me, it's a handicap in dealing with life.