Being Autistic isn’t a tragedy. We’ve been saying this from day one.
But it isn’t a superpower either.
‘Hold on, I thought you were positive about being Autistic?!’
Yes, absolutely, but that’s not the same thing. The ‘superpower’ narrative is just as toxic as the ‘tragedy’ one.
It implies that we have to be exceptional to be acceptable.
It implies that we need to make up for our deficits and struggles.
It implies that we are only worth being included if we work harder than everyone else.
WE DO NOT NEED TO BE EXCEPTIONAL TO BE ACCEPTABLE.
Superpowers are superhuman. They aren’t for people. It is othering, treating us like curiosities (or freaks). ‘Positive’ othering is still othering.
It’s also elitist. It creates a hierarchy among Disabled people – those with superpowers (“twice exceptional”, “high-functioning”) and those who are deemed worthless to capitalist society (“intellectually disabled”, “low-functioning”).
High- and low-functioning are related toxic narratives.
“High-functioning” is an excuse to deny accommodations. “Low-functioning” is an excuse to deny agency (AND accommodations). Neither concept benefits Disabled people.
Being Autistic is not a tragedy.
Being Autistic is not a superpower, either.
We do not need to be exceptional to be acceptable.
So can we not celebrate Autistic people’s strengths then? Of course we can! We are AUsome!
Just don’t use our strengths as a condition for being included. Don’t use them to exclude those who are not deemed “productive” according to our narrow capitalist understanding.
We need to broaden our perspective of what a strength is, what intelligence is, what community is. And we cannot make a person’s dignity depend on any of it.
Instead of making Autistic people bend over backwards to ‘compensate for their deficits’, we need to work on our deficits as a society to truly include all people.
Autistic people don’t need a special power to justify existing. A more honest framing is simply this: autistic brains process the world differently, and that difference brings both genuine strengths and genuine struggles, the same as any other way of being human. Naming both, without ranking them against each other, is far more respectful than either “tragedy” or “superpower.”
When autism is only discussed in terms of exceptional talent, autistic people who don’t have a standout skill, or who need significant support, are quietly left out of the story. Real inclusion doesn’t depend on being remarkable. It’s a basic right, owed to every autistic person regardless of ability or achievement.
Isn’t it positive to highlight autistic strengths?
Highlighting real strengths is fine. The problem is turning that into a condition for acceptance, implying autistic people are only worthy of inclusion if they’re exceptional at something.
What language works better than “superpower” or “tragedy”?
Plain, accurate language: autism as a natural difference with both strengths and challenges, described honestly and without needing to sell it as either inspiring or pitiable.
None of this means autistic strengths shouldn’t be discussed. Pattern recognition, deep focus, honesty and creativity are real and worth naming. The difference is context: naming a strength as one part of a whole person is very different from using it to justify why that person deserves inclusion in the first place. Inclusion shouldn’t be conditional on talent at all.
Instead of asking “what can autistic people offer that makes them worth including,” a more honest question is “what does an equal, accessible world for autistic people actually look like.” That question doesn’t require anyone to prove their worth first.
Occasional, genuinely useful emails: new guides, articles and tools. Unsubscribe anytime.
