And there IS research stating that a high percentage of young children/toddlers who are diagnosed no longer fit the criteria a couple years later.
It's not a high percentage. It's some. The ones with higher IQ do have a much better chance of not needing the diagnosis later.
Some ND advocates argue that these cases result from parental suppression of autistic traits. Even if someone seems "normal" they may be working very hard to maintain appearances. How it's experienced is also important.
It's not really fair to the people who actually are impaired and really do need some major interventions. Autism CAN be devastating to families, and when there are people claiming it is not that big of a deal, it's just a normal variation, I can imagine that is highly offensive to people who struggle every day, are trying to get treatments, and need a lot of help. Maybe it should be broken down into groups of severity like category 1, 2, 3, etc.
I would never argue that it's not a big deal-- only that calling the existence of some people "a tragedy for their families" is mean and harmful, compounding the difficulty of the disability itself.
One thing that I think many sensible people can agree on is that there's a lot of research into biological "cures" but not a lot of money spent on supporting people with autism and their families. Whether one needs small or large supports, outcomes are best among the affluent who can pay for those supports because they're often hard to get otherwise. This should change.
