Historically, autism has been considered a neuro-cognitive style of boys only. Boys and men are still more readily diagnosed than women, girls, trans and non-binary individuals. There are many reasons for this diagnosis gap which I cover in De-Centring the ‘Male’ Autistic Experience.

To counter this theories on womens and girls experiences of autism have emerged. This includes the Female Autism Phenotype which asserts that autistic women have the same core traits as autistic boys and men but they manifest differently (Kopp & Gillberg, 1992). Other such theories include the supposed differences in Autistic masking between men and women, which often suggests that these differences are biological in nature (very problematic when sex and gender are conflated so easily).

Gender as productivity

Gender stereotypes are based in the nuclear family as a means of production- men go to work and women look after the children to create future workers. This has been sold to people as the ideal/only way for family to work in Global North Countries and those countries they have colonised.

Gendering autism feeds into these ideas of production which are inherently inaccessible to many autistic people and their support network. Currently autistic people in the UK are the largest disabled group to be both majorly under and unemployed with only 30% of Autistic people of working age in employment in 2024 (read more on these rates here).

What’s the problem with gendering autism?

Gendering autism reinforces these gender stereotypes and the gender binary. It erases many people, including trans and gender diverse people and many cisgender Autistic people too. The individuals who do not fit the stereotype of so-called gender “presentations” of autism.

This erasure makes it more difficult for people to see themselves represented in the Autistic community, inhibiting their self-understanding and ability to seek formal or informal diagnosis.

Creating ideas around ‘female’ autism may have gone some way to closing the diagnosis gap between men and women, but it has arguably created more gaps for people to fall through.

If a person does not fit the stereotype of supposed female or male autism where do they fit and how do they access support and community?

Who gets erased?

Colonialism and capitalism has erased much Global Majority culture and understanding of gender, neurodivergence, disability and community care. These groups are the most effected by the diagnosis and support gap. They are the individuals who either cannot mask or must mask in all domains as they are made vulnerable through being racialised.

Again, within these groups men are more likely to be diagnosed than women but the groups as whole are less likely to get diagnosed or receive help post-diagnosis. In fact many are more likely to be misdiagnosed with conduct disorder (Baglivio and colleagues, 2016). Unfortunately, many of the ‘female autism’ research focuses on white girls and women, deepening this divide in care, support and realisation.

What can we do instead?

Considering questions on the idea of gendering autism. Some good ones to get us started:

• Who get’s to decide who comes under the terms “woman” and “man”?
• Who decided on these categories in the first place? And who do they serve?
• What do we want from gendering autism?
• What does this say about how we understand and embody autism?
• Who does this erase? Why is this problematic?
• How do we take the intiative from, and support Global Majority, non-speaking, queer and trans, and higher needs individuals?

There could be as many gendered autisms as there are Autistic people, this could be an interesting idea to explore. Women, girls and marginalsied genders must be included in the conversation on Autistic experiences but not at the expense and erasure of other Autistic people.