This is an okay book, though I’m not quite sure who it is for. It’s on the long side for the amount of material it contains, taking half the book to explain that autism shows up differently in women and girls and that they’ve gone overlooked and underdiagnosed and left out of studies, and then spending the second half diving into a lot of detail on brain scans and how those are different in autistic vs. neurotypical people. The author is a brain scientist so that makes sense as her area of expertise, but it's not quite what I was expecting, especially since brain science is still quite young. Also, she talks a lot about interviewing women and girls with autism, but we only get snippets of their comments and the author still seems pretty firmly ensconced in her medical perspective (which again, makes sense, but raises the question of who is this for?).
That said, I did get some things out of it so here are a few takeaways:
- While neurotypical brains do not show significant sex differences in structure or function, brains of people with autism do. Men and women also tend to have different features of autism (although it’s not a bright line; even very male-oriented definitions of autism still resulted in some women getting diagnosed).
- While men tend to have more social difficulties, special interests, and stimming/repetitive behaviors, women tend to be better at suppressing all that and camouflaging their autism. However, this commonly results in depression and anxiety, and often results in just surface-level “passing” rather than satisfying social lives. Women with autism also tend to have lots of sensory sensitivities.
- One reason the autism diagnosis matters is the frequency with which girls and women presenting with mental health symptoms are treated for the wrong thing. For instance, eating disorders: many women with autism have them, but it has nothing to do with body image or weight loss and everything to do with sensory issues around certain foods, or just being something they can control or even compete at.
- Cognitive vs. emotional empathy and “empathic disequilibrium”: women with autism may be good at recognizing how someone is feeling, but not at knowing what to do about it.
- A “female protective effect” (making women less likely to get autism) has been theorized, though as far as I can tell we don’t yet have enough of a handle on how many women actually have autism to know whether it’s real. Women diagnosed with autism using the current tests do tend to have more relatives with it than men, and more of the gene mutations associated with it, but this may just come back to gender biases in those tests and women being better able to mask, so that those with fewer neurotypical relatives to emulate or with a higher degree of autism are the ones who show up at all.
- Also, there’s a dark history to this assumption that autism is a male phenomenon: Hans Asperger, one of the early doctors to describe the condition (who said he’d never met a girl who had it) definitely did work with at least two girls quite similar to the boys he was studying. However, he was a Nazi, and chose to save the boys from the regime but not the girls. Also, a female doctor, Grunya Sukhareva, who worked in the Soviet Union, described autism case studies well before either Asperger or Leo Kanner but often isn’t credited. Unsurprisingly, she was able to find girls as well as boys.
- Weirdly, none of these sex-difference studies seem to involve the people with the most profound version of autism, which seems like the right group to study since that’s not something people can hide (though perhaps they might be mistakenly diagnosed with another developmental disability). However, indications are that the sex ratio for that group is much more even than the numbers usually thrown around.
At any rate, interesting enough but I think I’d have gotten about the same value out of a good magazine article. Only recommended for those especially interested in the topic.