Have you ever been told, “You don’t look autistic“? Or perhaps you have felt different your entire life, but never fit the standard checklist of symptoms found on Google?
For decades, our understanding of neurodiversity has been viewed through an incredibly narrow lens, one that leaves countless people in the dark.
In my doctoral research, I have come to realise that the way we diagnose and support autism is fundamentally flawed because it ignores intersectionality.
When we view autism only through the eyes of early research, which focused almost exclusively on white boys, we miss the full picture.
If you are a woman, a person of color, have an additional disability, or are part of the LGBTQ+ community, your experience of autism may look completely different from the textbooks.
In this guide, I break down why “looking autistic” is a myth, the hidden dangers of “camouflaging,” and why the path to diagnosis is finally changing.
What is meant by “Intersectionality”?
The term “intersectionality” was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1990 to describe intersectional types of discrimination.
Crenshaw argued that viewing discrimination strictly from a sex-based (sexist) or race-based (racist) perspective fails to capture the reality of a black woman, whose identity exists at the crossroads of these factors.
To ignore how these identities intersect is to ignore a unique, distinct form of discrimination.
When applied to psychology, specifically autism research, this framework reveals significant gaps in our historical and current understanding of neurodivergence.
The Historical “White Male Lens” in Autism
Historically, autism research (and psychology research in general for that matter!) has suffered from a lack of intersecting views. Early pioneers focused almost exclusively on white boys, and the resulting diagnostic criteria reflected those specific presentations.
This created a self-perpetuating cycle:
- Bias in Research: Diagnostic criteria were based on white male behaviors.
- Bias in Diagnosis: Clinicians looked for these specific traits; those who didn’t “look autistic” (i.e., didn’t look like white boys) were disregarded.
- The Feedback Loop: Higher diagnosis rates in white males reinforced the stereotype that autism is a “white male condition,” further marginalizing non-white and non-cis-male individuals.
If you are a person of color or a woman, you might have been told you aren’t autistic simply because you didn’t fit this specific mold. I believe that what we currently know about autism is likely just the “tip of the iceberg.”
Debunking the “Extreme Male Brain”
One of the biggest hurdles for many undiagnosed adults is the “Extreme Male Brain” theory, popularized by researcher Simon Baron-Cohen.
This theory suggested that autistic brains are wired for “systemizing” (a “male” trait) rather than “empathizing” (a “female” trait).
I argue that this outdated idea has caused valid confusion for many. This includes myself, who was late-diagnosed, possibly due to theories like this becoming popularized.
You might think:
“I have empathy and I do not resonate with having a “male brain”, so clearly I can’t be autistic.”
Today, experts are moving away from these rigid boxes. We now understand that:
- Empathy varies: Many autistic people are deeply empathetic.
- Gender is irrelevant: Autism is not a “male” brain structure; it is a human neurotype.
- Diagnosis is rising: As we move past these theories, more women and adults are finally finding answers later in life.
As our understanding expands, more adults who do not fit the male stereotype are being diagnosed.
While some critics argue this represents an “overdiagnosis problem,” it is more accurate to view this as a correction: these individuals have always been autistic, but were missed because they did not fit a narrow, racialized, and gendered stereotype.
The Hidden Cost of Camouflaging
“Camouflaging” or “masking” is the act of hiding autistic traits to fit in or stay safe. While research has finally started to acknowledge that autistic women camouflage, Pearson & Rose (2023) point out a glaring gap: we are still mostly studying white women.
Reasons for camouflaging usually include:
- Avoiding stigma.
- Wanting to stay safe.
- Trying to fit in socially.
However, Pearson & Rose (2023) emphasize that for people of color, camouflaging isn’t just about social awkwardness—it can be a matter of survival.
Is “Unmasking” a Privilege?
The neurodiversity movement often encourages people to “drop the mask” and be their authentic selves. But this advice doesn’t work for everyone.
Consider the intersection of race and disability. Due to dangerous racial stereotypes, an autistic Black man might not have the safety to unmask in public. If his autistic behaviors are misinterpreted as aggression rather than distress, the consequences could be life-threatening.
Key Insight: Unmasking is often a privilege afforded to white people. We must understand that for many, the mask is a necessary shield against a world that is both ableist and racist.
Does Education Deepen the Mask?
My doctoral research is focused on investigating a possible link between higher education and masking. The theory is that the more educated someone is, the more “sophisticated” their camouflage becomes.
If you are a high-achieving professional or student, you might be using intellect to compensate for social differences. This makes your autism harder for outsiders to spot, but it doesn’t mean you aren’t struggling internally.
When you add intersectionality, like being Black, Queer, and Autistic, the mask may become even more complex. You aren’t just navigating neurodivergence; you are navigating multiple layers of identity and discrimination simultaneously.
The question is: do the more intersecting identities you have contribute to deeper or more sophisticated masking?
Moving Toward Authentic Representation
The future of autism research relies on co-production– involving autistic people at every stage of the research process. However, it is not enough if the “autistic voice” included is solely white.
Researchers must strive for co-participation from individuals with diverse, intersecting identities to create a less biased picture of the autistic experience.
Finally, researchers must avoid making sweeping assumptions. Just as the autistic community is not homogenous, neither are the experiences of those with intersecting identities. As the saying goes:
“If you have met one autistic person, then you have met one autistic person.”
This applies equally to intersectional research. We must resist the urge to put individuals into neat, labelled boxes, and instead embrace the complexity of their lived experiences.
Next Steps: Supporting Your Journey
If you suspect you are autistic or want to be a better ally, here are three actionable steps:
- Broaden Your Feed: Follow autistic creators who are people of color, LGBTQ+, or non-speaking. Diversify who you learn from.
- Question Stereotypes: If you catch yourself thinking “they don’t look autistic,” remind yourself that autism has no “look.”
- Seek Intersectional Support: If you are seeking a diagnosis, look for clinicians who specialize in “high-masking” presentations or adult diagnosis.
References
- Chellappa, S. L. (2026). Exploring neurodiversity through an intersectional lens. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 106567.
- Nelson, T., & Lichwa, H. (2025). The lived experiences of masking black Autistic girls in UK education:“before people see the autism, they see my race.”. Educational Psychology in Practice, 41(4), 417-438. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2025.2541211
- Fombonne, E., & Zuckerman, K. E. (2022). Clinical profiles of Black and White children referred for autism diagnosis. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 52(3), 1120-1130.
- Pearson, A., & Rose, K. (2023). Autistic masking. Pavilion Publishing.
