If asked to name someone famous, fictional or real who is ‘on the spectrum’, most people give the same sorts of replies.
Raymond Babbitt from the movie Rain Man is usually favourite, possibly followed by Sherlock Holmes in his recent incarnation by Benedict Cumberbatch.
It’s extremely rare for people to reply with a woman’s name, thanks to a popular misconception of autism as a condition overwhelmingly affecting men – those often socially awkward, creative geniuses who drive human progress with their divergent thinking, but whose idea of small talk might involve a monologue about steam trains.
This belief in the maleness of autism has saturated science and medicine. It even informs the practice of IVF, where choosing a female embryo to avoid the possibility of autism is a practice in some places, such as Australia. This alone indicates what a powerful hold the notion of autism as male has on us.
Again and again, autism-related research papers, websites and even advice manuals for families claim that, on average, males are four times more likely to be diagnosed with the condition than females, before going on to paint an overall picture of it as something pretty much just affecting boys. The World Health Organisation also repeats this statistic.
And, until recently, so did I.
Now, however, I’ve realised I have been part of the problem that I am hoping this article will begin to solve: that autistic girls and women have been systematically misdiagnosed and misunderstood by the psychological establishment, with catastrophic effects on their lives.
These misdiagnoses – more of which later – led to autistic girls and women to be deemed as suffering everything from anorexia to borderline personality disorder. Anything but autism was considered.
My ‘day job’ as a professor of cognitive neuroimaging involves using state-of-the-art brain-imaging techniques to investigate autism, writes PROFESSOR GINA RIPPON
Unnecessary treatment was then given. One mother, who already had an autistic son, was brushed off when she raised the possibility that her daughter might also have the condition and told me of the agony of watching this child being referred to an eating disorder clinic by the special needs co-ordinator at her school.
Some have even been put on medication for conditions they do not have. For example, I have heard the story of one young woman who was wrongly diagnosed as bipolar and ended up taking drugs for this for a decade. This, as she put it, drove her ‘chemically insane’, with her brain either feeling it was whirring out of control, or operating at a painfully slow processing speed.
Today, I feel deeply perturbed by the role I unknowingly played in perpetuating this bias and misunderstanding – hence me working so hard to uncover the truth about autism in females.
My ‘day job’ as a professor of cognitive neuroimaging involves using state-of-the-art brain-imaging techniques to investigate autism. The research group I work with has engaged in meticulous explorations of autistic brains to see if there are ways of profiling their activity to explain why their owners experience the world so differently. When talking about this outside my lab, many people would say something along the lines of ‘autism – that’s a boy thing, right?’.
And previously I would trot out the ‘party line’ that autism was much more common in boys. There were autistic girls, but they were ‘pretty rare’. The fact that very few of the autistic individuals we were testing were female confirmed my impression.
Ironically, back then, I was very keen to highlight biases in sex/gender neuroscience research, without spotting that I was ignoring just such a bias in my own work on autism.
Over many years, both as a researcher and teacher as well as something of a social justice warrior, I had eagerly absorbed publications about how the world has short-changed women, not just way back in history but now in the 21st century, thanks to the world’s gender problem – seeing women as different to men.
When a group of other neuroscientists and I publicly criticised some researchers for, as we saw it, overplaying the importance of sex differences in the brain, we were taken to task.
If asked to name someone famous, fictional or real who is ‘on the spectrum’, most people give the same sorts of replies. Raymond Babbitt from Rain Man (left) is usually favourite, possibly followed by Sherlock Holmes in his recent incarnation by Benedict Cumberbatch
We were dubbed ‘feminazis’ and ‘sex difference deniers’ (just some of the more publishable epithets hurled our way).
It was pointed out to us that there were many brain-based physical and mental conditions where sex differences were clear, so it was vital that when researching such conditions we should assume biological sex was exerting some kind of powerful effect on who did or didn’t succumb.
Top of the list for ‘male’ conditions we were apparently ‘wilfully’ ignoring as inconvenient to our argument were Parkinson’s disease and autism.
It was at this moment I decided to pay much more attention to what research should be telling us about sex differences in autism in general, and about sex differences in autistic brains in particular.
For instance, given that autism is a brain-based condition, and there is little or no reliable evidence about sex differences in the brain, why were there significantly fewer women being diagnosed as autistic?
It was time to turn a critical eye on what research into sex differences in autistic brains had found so far. What I found certainly startled me out of my own biased view of autism as a male condition and made me ashamed of how much I had unthinkingly contributed to the disconcerting state of affairs in autism brain research.
Because this male spotlight problem has skewed just about everything in the world of autism, from what it actually is, how it is measured and how we are searching for the causes of this bewildering spectrum of behaviours.
All this has led to neglect of a group I have dubbed ‘the lost girls of autism’.
Hopefully, revealing the sorry truth about the treatment they have received will make sure they are now afforded their rightful place on the spectrum.
And there are signs that this is now, finally, beginning to happen – the diagnostic rates for females are increasing; not because more women are now being affected but because we are getting better at spotting those who have been ignored.
From the outset, it has been clear that women can be autistic. In the most well-known early description of autism, a 1943 report by psychiatrist Leo Kanner, three girls were described in addition to eight boys.
But the ‘maleness’ of the condition was established so early in autism’s timeline that it became a self-fulfilling prophecy, guiding diagnostic decisions and slowly, but surely, increasing the male-to-female ratio in diagnosis.
This had many consequences. Clinicians have refused referrals because ‘women don’t get autism’ or because they didn’t appear to fit the male-based stereotype. Parents, even those with sons who had already been diagnosed with autism, have had to exaggerate their daughter’s symptoms to get help. Some researchers have suggested that as many as 80 per cent of females might not have received an initial diagnosis of autism when assessed.
Why should it matter that women had been overlooked?
Quite apart from the harm to the individual women, it’s because the model of autism as a ‘boy thing’ has affected the efforts of people like me – a research scientist who has studied autism for decades – to find the causes.
Geneticists will root around on the female X chromosomes to see if they can discover the source of the ‘female protective effect’.
Endocrinologists will explore the effects of testosterone on behaviour in order to understand a ‘male vulnerability factor’.
Brain scientists will research links between ‘male brains’ and autism. Researchers will only recruit their participants from those with an official diagnosis of autism and will build their models of autism’s characteristics and causes from this skewed community: the male one. As a result, the carefully thought-out research programmes we have been putting together, the next round of tests we want to try out, the tentative explanations we are proposing, could be misinformed and potentially misleading.
As long ago as the 1980s, there were some early discussions about autism’s missing females, with some researchers suggesting that perhaps autism had been overlooked in women because it presented differently.
Yet little attention was paid to this, up until the early 2000s. So, in another self-fulfilling prophecy, if you were a girl and didn’t behave like an autistic boy, then it was assumed you weren’t autistic.
As I’ve touched upon, girls were instead much more likely to be given alternative diagnoses, including depression, generalised anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder and eating disorders.
Such bias is reflected tellingly in one multi-centre Dutch study from 2017, which reported on all child referrals to one of six mental health services between 2011 and 2012. Of the 1,200 children screened, 35 per cent of boys and 30 per cent girls were identified as fulfilling the criteria for a diagnosis of autism.
But after a full autism assessment, boys were 2.18 times as likely to receive an autism diagnosis than girls.
The authors looked for what might have tipped the balance: girls with more emotional or ‘acting out’ problems were more likely to be identified as autistic, meaning that those who were more withdrawn (‘shy’) or compliant (‘good girls’) were being screened out.
Indeed, when I finally got out from under my brain scanner, and spent hours actually talking to autistic women and girls – the youngest aged ten, the oldest 72 (and just diagnosed!) – I found their powerful personal testimonies were certainly very different from that of autistic males.
These weren’t antisocial ‘Rain Women’, in the mould of Raymond Babbitt. Rather, they were desperate to belong, keen social observers and often consumed by their efforts to ‘pretend to be normal’.
So why are autistic females so ‘different’ from the traditional socially awkward autistic male?
Many autistic females engage in a habit known as camouflaging or masking: employing a range of strategies to disguise autistic traits, such as training yourself to maintain eye contact, or mimicking gestures and body language, even devising and rehearsing elaborate social scripts in advance of social events.
This pretence can take a real mental toll.
As to why they behave this way, we might be looking at a social characteristic that is more true of females than males. As early as four months after being born, research suggests that girls, on average, maintain eye contact four times longer than boys, reported the journal Sex Roles.
It suggested this tendency relates to mothers spending longer in face-to-face contact with their daughters (think pulling funny faces, sticking out their tongue, and so forth) than with their sons, with whom they have higher rates of rough-and-tumble play that involve less eye contact.
Girls are also more often rewarded for socially appropriate behaviour, such as being polite, sitting still, being helpful, or joining in group play.
As a result, girls have a greater awareness of the importance of social rules, conformity and friendship networks.
A ‘brain-based’ explanation for autistic girls’ greater social awareness focuses on the brain networks underpinning social behaviour. These include things such as being sensitive to social cues – someone’s facial expression or tone of voice, for example – or obeying unspoken social rules such as maintaining eye contact when you’re speaking to someone, or observing turn-taking rules in conversation.
Brain imaging studies have shown that these kinds of networks are much more active and much more powerfully connected in autistic females than in males. Especially the networks involved in negative social experiences, such as being bullied or excluded – the same networks activated by physical pain. So not belonging or not fitting in – as autistic females seem to feel so keenly – is a powerfully aversive experience.
Autistic women and girls have told me how the daily effort to fit in can be mentally exhausting. They described the gruelling process of continuously monitoring and copying the social interactions that appear instinctive to their ‘typical’ peers, always on high alert in case they are ‘caught’.
One of my interviewees told me of the real distress this caused her as a child, saying: ‘I was terrified of going first in any group activity (and would have meltdowns if asked to do so). In hindsight, I was terrified at the prospect of having to demonstrate a behaviour without first being able to observe and copy an “acceptable” model of that behaviour.’ It shouldn’t, then, be surprising to find surveys reporting that about 20 per cent of autistic women are hospitalised for a psychiatric condition by the age of 25, a figure more than five times higher than for women without autism and more than twice that of autistic men.
There are also reports of prevalence rates of 70 to 90 per cent of autistic adolescents having at least one co-occurring psychiatric disorder.
Significantly, there is a notable overlap between females who are autistic and also have anorexia or other eating disorders, anxiety, depression, or engage in self-harm.
Why? Firstly, there is that chance that clinicians, faced with troubled girls (who ‘don’t get autism’, remember?) are reaching for alternatives from among the labels of things that girls do get, such as anorexia.
Secondly, internalising distress, as female autistic ‘maskers’ do, has obvious links to physically self-destructive behaviours such as eating disorders or self-harm.
The loss of self-esteem and feelings of inadequacy associated with repeated failures to fit in can lead to depression and even suicide.
That drive for autistic females to find a place to belong can have far-reaching consequences.
Take, for example, anorexic females with autism. Their cases are often more severe, according to findings published in the journal Psychiatry Research – they’re more likely to have extremely low BMI, to have been tube-fed and to have experienced a record number of purging episodes.
I spoke about this to Sarah Wild, headteacher of Limpsfield Grange in Oxted, Surrey, the only state-funded residential school for girls with special needs in the UK.
She suggested the coincidence may be related to autistic girls’ passionate need to fit into a (or any) community and that, in an eating disorder unit, these girls could well be slavishly copying the behaviours around them.
She wryly commented that if an autistic girl was admitted to an anorexia clinic, characteristic levels of perfectionism could drive her to be the ‘best’ anorexic there was, copying each and every manifestation of the condition, and competing for the kudos attached to the need for more extreme interventions, such as intubation.
All in all, then, autistic women could be said to pay a high price for ‘putting on their best normal’, as one described it to me. For their sake, it is high time we deconstruct the elaborate camouflages that have allowed autistic girls to ‘fly beneath the radar’, hiding in plain sight.
- Dr Gina Rippon is Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Neuroimaging at Aston University
- Adapted from The Lost Girls Of Autism by Gina Rippon (Macmillan, £22), to be published on April 3. © Gina Rippon 2025. To order a copy for £19.80 (offer valid to 05/04/25; UK P&P free on orders over £25) go to www.mailshop.co.uk/books or call 020 3176 2937.
