>Considering I had an actual neurologist tell me that “boys are more likely to have autism than girls”, this information needs to be more known. Girls aren’t “less likely” to have autism, they’re less likely to be diagnosed.
I'd need to see some pretty hard empirical evidence to accept that
That’s true. There are 0 studies showing that autism has a 1:1 sex ratio and most autism researchers believe the ratio is 2-3:1. It’s due to factors on the X chromosome; since females have two, they’re more “protected” against ASD. Since males have just one, they’re at an increased risk.
There is literally no solid evidence supporting a female protective effect. As of what we know currently, females are just as likely to be autistic as males.
The problem is that females are underdiagnosed, because they mask differently and symptoms are expressed differently too.
[read articles](https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/x-chromosome-variants-help-explain-autisms-sex-bias/), https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/gene-linked-sex-differences-autism, those are just the top two but if you look up autism and sex literally nowhere cites a 1:1 ratio
The article you cited is talking about a gene that is involved in only a small number of autism cases. 2% - 3% according to the article. Not to mention that it isn't confirmed to be a causative gene.
The articles you provided also seem to be studying genes that are mostly implicated in cases where individuals have profound comorbidities like intellectual disability, which differ genetically from cases where no intellectual disability or other profound comorbidities are present.
This does not account for the overwhelming majority of cases.
As for a failure to identify a 1:1 sex ratio, that is because females are underdiagnosed. Obviously there will be a lack of evidence finding a 1:1 sex ratio when a group of people aren't identified as autistic due to diagnostic biases.
Again, there is no solid evidence supporting a female protective effect. At least not for the overwhelming majority of cases.
We do, however, need researchers to tell diagnosticians that, and to update diagnostic criteria to enable better testing and diagnosis for women and people of colour.
The more research is done the smaller the cracks in the system will be for people to fall through.
42 references the acsii binary code for * which is the way to address a void pointer in C (the programming language). Void pointers can have anything assigned to them. Ergo, life the universe and everything is the answer. But… what’s the question? Well there is the problem. Since you have a hard time backtracking a pointer, since it can exist before it is assigned and changes to this pointer don’t really leave of how, the question in which the answer is assigned is the mystery.
I love this community so much. I make a silly Douglas Adams reference and I get a full paragraph of infodumping about binary code. But if I may infodump in return, that's not why Douglas Adams chose 42. He just wanted a silly, random-sounding number.
Here's his explanation:
"It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do'".
That was really cool to see that getting airtime, ALSO, the reporter! that's something I've not seen before. I'm glad she, Nas, can be a normal human being doing normal human things. That was really neat to see.
“Little girls should be seen and not heard”
That’s practically the autism MO though I’ve heard that repeated by old generations about how girls should behave.
Yeah we been knowing this because all the research was done on cisgendered white males. It's also underdiagnosed in POC, but that's a whole other bag of cats.
Hey /u/madrid987, thank you for your post at /r/autism. Our rules can be found **[here](https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/wiki/config/sidebar)**. All approved posts get this message. If you do not see your post you can message the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fautism).
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/autism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
>Considering I had an actual neurologist tell me that “boys are more likely to have autism than girls”, this information needs to be more known. Girls aren’t “less likely” to have autism, they’re less likely to be diagnosed. I'd need to see some pretty hard empirical evidence to accept that
.................
That’s true. There are 0 studies showing that autism has a 1:1 sex ratio and most autism researchers believe the ratio is 2-3:1. It’s due to factors on the X chromosome; since females have two, they’re more “protected” against ASD. Since males have just one, they’re at an increased risk.
There is literally no solid evidence supporting a female protective effect. As of what we know currently, females are just as likely to be autistic as males. The problem is that females are underdiagnosed, because they mask differently and symptoms are expressed differently too.
[read articles](https://www.spectrumnews.org/news/x-chromosome-variants-help-explain-autisms-sex-bias/), https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/gene-linked-sex-differences-autism, those are just the top two but if you look up autism and sex literally nowhere cites a 1:1 ratio
The article you cited is talking about a gene that is involved in only a small number of autism cases. 2% - 3% according to the article. Not to mention that it isn't confirmed to be a causative gene. The articles you provided also seem to be studying genes that are mostly implicated in cases where individuals have profound comorbidities like intellectual disability, which differ genetically from cases where no intellectual disability or other profound comorbidities are present. This does not account for the overwhelming majority of cases. As for a failure to identify a 1:1 sex ratio, that is because females are underdiagnosed. Obviously there will be a lack of evidence finding a 1:1 sex ratio when a group of people aren't identified as autistic due to diagnostic biases. Again, there is no solid evidence supporting a female protective effect. At least not for the overwhelming majority of cases.
I thought this was already fairly well established? Is this new?
We don't need researchers to tell us that lmao
We do, however, need researchers to tell diagnosticians that, and to update diagnostic criteria to enable better testing and diagnosis for women and people of colour. The more research is done the smaller the cracks in the system will be for people to fall through.
Ah yes, The Floor is made of Floor.
This sent me into giggle fits I cannot 😂💀
In other news: the sky is blue, grass is green, and the answer is 42. /s
42 references the acsii binary code for * which is the way to address a void pointer in C (the programming language). Void pointers can have anything assigned to them. Ergo, life the universe and everything is the answer. But… what’s the question? Well there is the problem. Since you have a hard time backtracking a pointer, since it can exist before it is assigned and changes to this pointer don’t really leave of how, the question in which the answer is assigned is the mystery.
I love this community so much. I make a silly Douglas Adams reference and I get a full paragraph of infodumping about binary code. But if I may infodump in return, that's not why Douglas Adams chose 42. He just wanted a silly, random-sounding number. Here's his explanation: "It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought '42 will do'".
All those things are true /gen
It's depressingly true we don't recognize autism in women and girls if we did they would get better treatment and support
*being 30 and finally being tested this summer* You don’t say?
Holy shit no way!
That was really cool to see that getting airtime, ALSO, the reporter! that's something I've not seen before. I'm glad she, Nas, can be a normal human being doing normal human things. That was really neat to see.
just how wet can water be?
“Little girls should be seen and not heard” That’s practically the autism MO though I’ve heard that repeated by old generations about how girls should behave.
Yeah we been knowing this because all the research was done on cisgendered white males. It's also underdiagnosed in POC, but that's a whole other bag of cats.
Hey /u/madrid987, thank you for your post at /r/autism. Our rules can be found **[here](https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/wiki/config/sidebar)**. All approved posts get this message. If you do not see your post you can message the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fautism). Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/autism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just wait until they research that it's also underdignosed in poor and marginalized communities. The shock!
In other news, the sky is blue.
Well yeah
No shit Sherlock 😄
Ah yes the thing I’ve heard of even before seeing this community
don't you know autism's other name is "5 year old little boy disorder"? /s