Ahh, diagnosing autism.
I'm not the only one chewing on the issue (see previous post) on account of Michael Savage's savage remarks about autistic children. Juliet Lapidos demystifies the issue at Slate Magazine - "How Do You Diagnose Autism?Michael Savage thinks doctors are getting it wrong."
So some of you may get stuck on the whole "there is no biological test for autism" thing.
We can argue about this for every listing in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the bible of officially recognized psychological disorders.
Sure, some folks feel the need to question any diagnosis not confirmed by biological tests. But hey, this is psychology, where we go on behavioral manifestations. Human behavior can't be reduced to biology. Despite the current trend of finding brain abnormalities for psychological disorders. The absence of biological markers doesn't invalidate diagnoses. It does mean, however, that some are subject to question and interpretation. All I'm saying - let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.