11/08/2026
What’s the agenda here? ….. because there most certainly is one……is this the start of a movement to stop diagnosing those who would previously have been described as having ‘Asperger Syndrome’ ?….or ….is the argument that the numbers of of those described as ‘Neurotypical’ (a term I do not like) … now so close to being outnumbered by those described as ‘Neurodivergent’ (another term I do not like!) … that a diagnosis of those with a visually ‘subtle’ presentation of autism is now pointless or unnecesssry? Thoughts??
A leading autism researcher just told The Times it's "absolutely absurd" to say Chris Packham is autistic.
Her reasoning? He communicates too well. He's articulate, witty, holds a conversation, reads irony. Therefore, apparently, he can't be autistic.
Chris Packham has spent decades telling us exactly why that logic doesn't hold. In his own words, describing his life before diagnosis at 44: "I've spent 30 years on telly trying to act normal." He's spoken openly about masking — the exhausting, learned performance of appearing "normal" that so many autistic people, especially those diagnosed late, describe as central to their entire lives.
So we have a choice here. Believe a diagnosed autistic man describing his own decades-long lived experience. Or believe a researcher who's decided that fluency in conversation is proof enough to override it.
This is exactly the harm that gets done when "expert opinion" gets used to talk over lived experience instead of alongside it. Masking isn't a myth. It's not a personality quirk. It's a skill built out of necessity by people who spent years being told, in a thousand small ways, that who they naturally were wasn't acceptable.
If a famous, wealthy, well-supported broadcaster with a diagnosis from a clinician can have his own autism publicly questioned on the basis of "but he seems so normal" — imagine what that logic does to a quiet, ordinary, autistic kid trying to get taken seriously by their school.
Tag someone who needs to see this.
