Talk:Autism and LGBT identities

Section on popular culture?
@User:Bangalamania, I thought I'd run this by you before adding it to the page. I started to put together a section I'd tentatively title "In popular culture." So far, I have it focused on two characters, one of which is confirmed as autistic and another with headcannon she is autistic (implied by the show's creator and voice actor). The List of autistic fictional characters isn't really of help here, as its very limited on the information which is provided there. Do you think this section would be a good fit for the page? If not, that's totally fine, and I could try incorporating it somewhere into Autism spectrum disorders in the media, or the "Media Portayals" section of the "Societal and cultural aspects of autism" page. In any case, I'll try to add to and improve the page, as I'm autistic myself and am still figuring out where I fit in the LGBTQ umbrella. --Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: Moved section (which was below) to main page at Autism and LGBT identities --Historyday01 (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh wow, that looks good! I'm unsure whether this page or the others you mentioned would be more appropriate: Personally I think it should be included on the Autism spectrum disorders in the media, with an "In popular culture" summary here and another summary at Societal and cultural aspects of autism. Sorry if that seems repetitive!
 * But I'm no expert on this either, so please take what I say with a pinch of salt. Like you, I'm just an autistic LGBTQ person, and that was my main motivation in making this article. Plus I had heard about the link between the two beforehand and was surprised it wasn't mentioned while gender dysphoria was. (P.S., don't worry too much about where you are on the LGBTQ+ umbrella. It's all a spectrum, and I feel like none of us really know where we are a lot of the time... or that might be just me!) –Bangalamania (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's great to hear. I wouldn't mind adding it to Autism spectrum disorders in the media, a summary on Societal and cultural aspects of autism, and a "In popular culture" summary here. Yeah, I've been editing here seriously since Nov. 2019 and I'm not an expert either! Definitely a good motivation for making this article! There's definitely a link, for sure. I'll respond to your small-text comment in a post on your talk page, just to keep this more focused on the page you created. But, thanks for your comments!Historyday01 (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Editing since April 2018 on this account, although I have edited previously (I no longer use my old accounts as I was being harassed, long story there). And no problem, any time! As I say, I think "... in the media" article should be the main article for media portrayals, and this article mainly focus on the actual science behind any link, hopefully expanded by someone who knows more about that side of things (I have left a note about this page at WikiProject Medicine). I had considered making the article more inclusive of gender identity too and merging some trans content here from Conditions comorbid to autism spectrum disorders but decided against it. –Bangalamania (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that does sound like a good idea. I hope the page can be expanded too. As I said earlier, I'll try to add some more and what I can in the next couple days. I'm still trying to update all the entries for the list of animated series with LGBTQ characters, and improve them, removing some, but that is a very long process. I haven't got to the point that I've been harassed on my account yet, but I have definitely come across my share of unsavory people from time to time.Historyday01 (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello! Hope you don't mind if I pop in here :) I think it would make sense to expand this page to cover the crossover between autism and LGBTQ identities in general (which is actually what I expected to see before I took a second look at the title), given that sexual orientation/gender identity are often grouped together, and there's room for expansion on coverage of both. I don't know what it would be called in that case... "Autism and LGBTQ identities" doesn't sound quite right. If so, the Conditions comorbid to autism spectrum disorders section could be copied over, and a "see also" link added to that section of that article. (But it's also fine if you wanted this article to be focused solely on sexual orientation! Something to discuss.)
 * As for the "in pop culture" section, I actually think it would be best to just have it here. The portrayal of LGBTQ autistic characters doesn't seem to as wide/covered/notable a thing as either LGBTQ characters or autistic characters; it's simply an intersection. It's not big enough yet that you could say "there's this wide pattern of many autistic characters being LGBTQ and here's some analysis of it." I think it fits really well on this page, given that this is about said intersection, but I don't think it's notable enough to warrant a mention on either of those pages (these two). Perhaps a section link could be included in the "see also" section of those articles, though. Aerin17 (t • c) 03:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of something along those lines. "Autism and LGBTQ identities" sounds like a good title to me (I was considering something similar before I chose this) and would allow us to copy that section over.
 * And that's fair enough! You've convinced me that it would be best to have the section here. Although I do think that it warrants a mention on the two pages we've mentioned here (like a sentence or two at least). If not, a "See also" link would definitely be good. –Bangalamania (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Aerin17, I don't mind if you pop in here. I do think there is definitely room for expansion of coverage, for sure. I think Conditions comorbid to autism spectrum disorders could be copied over, and a "see also" link added to that article. I can also agree that the portrayal of LGBTQ autistic characters doesn't seem to as wide/covered/notable as you put it, and I'll see if can find more than two examples, as someone might declare its "undue weight" or something if there are only two examples. Bangalamania, I would also support the renaming of the page, but I'd say it should be "Autism and LGBT identities" since there was a whole kerfuffle a while back when I tried to change some pages to using "LGBTQ" rather than "LGBT" and the consensus, from what I understand, still appears to be "LGBT." I think that it could be mentioned somewhat on those other two pages, but a "see also" link could also work. Historyday01 (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've gone ahead and moved the page to "Autism and LGBT identities" and copied over the gender dysphoria section, since there seems to be consensus here. (If I miscalculated, feel free to change it back or whatever.) I'll wait on the pop culture section but we could probably go ahead with that too! Aerin17 (t • c) 19:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Aerin17, that was a right decision. I am debating whether I want to add a section about groups on this subject, and statements, like from the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network (here and here), articles in HuffPost (here and here), mention in a APA article, a post on the Asperger / Autism Network site (proposes/shares the term "gendervague," which is on Wiktionary, which refers to "a specifically neurodivergent experience of trans/gender identity"), a post by the charity "Ambitious About Autism" titled "Celebrating LGBT and neurodiversity", and a post on Disabled Arts Online by an autistic trans woman, along with scattered sections in the Spectrum and Atlantic pieces already in the article, on LGBTQ people in the autistic community. But, what should it be called? I'm still not sure. Anyway, I'll work on the section on pop culture next.Historyday01 (talk) 23:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this article should be renamed
I think this article should be renamed to Autism and LGBT. Just to make it easier to type and find in the search results.CycoMa (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That phrasing sounds kind of weird to me. I think of LGBT as an adjective, not a noun, so it doesn't sound quite right. It would make sense as a redirect, though, even if the article isn't renamed. For comparison, I went looking to see what other articles we have with similar kinds of names: Religion and LGBT people, LGBT in the United States, Education and the LGBT community, Healthcare and the LGBT community, etc... there seems to be a decent amount of variation, which doesn't particularly help the making of a decision. I don't feel particularly strongly either way, so I'll wait to see what other people think. Aerin17 (t • c) 21:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think naming it "Autism and LGBT" would be too clunky and confusing. I wouldn't mind that it as a redirect, though. I kinda like the current name.Historyday01 (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Confirmation of a source?
"Sexuality and Gender Issues in Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder" doi:10.1016/j.psc.2020.11.009 is linked in many occasions, however the source is not available to myself or the general public. With the many other sources in this document with shaky legitimacy, I think it would be best to review how legitimate this source is. If anyone is able to find a free version of this source, or confirm 100% the legitimacy of the article, please do so or let me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustralianBro (talk • contribs) 10:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that this source is "legit" in the sense that it is a peer reviewed article from The Psychiatric clinics of North America, it's hard to be more legit than that.  Grey joy talk 10:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There were many other articles on this article that used information that while peer reviewed, contained major flaws, such as >2x as many women as there were men, without anything in the article to compensate for that fact. This also is compounded by other sources in this article saying that women are more likely to be LGBT if they are autistic. That is a clear example of a peer reviewed article that has issues, and so being able to properly confirm this source through further analysis should be required in my opinion. AustralianBro (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately no free copy of this article exists, and I am not about to distribute it around for free. Feel free to contact one of the author's for a copy, the writers are usually pretty keen to share their findings. If you want to be more specific about your concerns in regard to this article I can take another look at it.  Grey joy talk 10:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have put more specific concerns in another section AustralianBro (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I might have missed it, but I didn't see this source listed in your below list?  Grey joy talk 13:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Major Changes to the Article Required
Ok, the amount of misinformation or incorrectly cited sources in this article is astonishing. I'll go through them one by one.

1. Sexuality in a community based sample of adults with autism spectrum disorder doi:10.1016/j.rasd.2011.06.003

This reference has massive evidence of bias. The female sample size is ~4x that of men, meaning this source is inherently flawed and should be discredited.

2. Sexual Orientation in Autism Spectrum Disorder doi:10.1002/aur.1892

Another article with over double the female sample size compared to men, and the information they give says 69.7% of autistic people are non-heterosexual, and 30.3% of non-autistic people are non-heterosexual. Those values are incredibly suspicious, and seem to have been designed purposely instead of going off true data. Not to mention the 69.7% value disagrees with almost every other source.

This item has reached a resolution

3. Sexuality in adolescent boys with autism spectrum disorder: self-reported behaviours and attitudes doi:10.1007/s10803-014-2226-3

The place it is linked in the article doesn't fit with this source, and in fact the source claims the opposite of what was said in the article

This item has reached a resolution

4. "Straight Sex is Complicated Enough!": The Lived Experiences of Autistics Who are Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Asexual, or Other Sexual Orientations doi:10.1007/s10803-020-04696-w

This source not only has a very small sample size compared to the population, but the source also allows those that had self-diagnosed to participate. Self-diagnosis is not an adequate variable for a study making claims about people with ASD

This item has reached a resolution

5. "Unseen Attraction" Book

This is an entire section, but in the section about popular culture, "Unseen Attraction" is listed to have a character with autism, however the only available sources for this were reviews of the book, where only the reviewers claimed the character was "possibly autistic". This entire section should be removed.

This item has reached a resolution

6. Broad Autism Phenotypic Traits and the Relationship to Sexual Orientation and Sexual Behavior https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3556-3

It is debatable if this should ever be on this page, as people with BAP are not autistic. While it talks about autistic traits, those are not the same as being autistic. I vote for this part being removed.

'''7. Are Autism Spectrum Disorder and Asexuality Connected? doi:10.1007/s10508-021-02177-4'''

This source was used to say studies on the link between autism and LGBT people are rare, however the source does not say this in any capacity, and only says the link between autism and asexuality has not been researched in depth.

This item has reached a resolution

8. "Autistic people may generally experience physical intimacy differently"

The source this claim was attached to claimed this in one line, where the sources were shaky at best. This is also irrelevant to the article, as physical intimacy and sexuality are two different things.

This item has reached a resolution

9. "A 2020 review that included the topic of autism and sexual orientation in academic literature said it was a "common theme" for autistic individuals to express questioning their sexuality"

While the article DOES claim this, it uses the same sources in point 8, and so is shaky information at best. It is also a personal opinion of the authors, as none of the sources that referenced make that claim.

This item has reached a resolution

10. https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/review-disfigured-amanda-leduc-fairy-tales-disability

This article was used to claim a character was autistic and queer. While this article does say they are autistic, there is no claim of queerness in the article. A further line claims they are queer, this time with no reference at all

This item has reached a resolution

11. Xan West's 2019 novella, "Their Troublesome Crush", and the 2020 book, "Tenderness"

Hoo boy, this one. Firstly, one of the sources just does not work. These literature, while they do have autistic and LGBT characters, seems to be designed to perpetuate harmful stereotypes for both LGBT and autistic people. They ticks every minority box that exists, and genuinely seem to be designed to cause people to have a negative perception of LGBT and Autistic people. I would say these sources should be removed purely because they are harmful and not at all accurate to real autistic people. If this does stay in the article, it should be noted that both are harmful sources.

12. https://bookriot.com/queer-romance-novellas/

This is an article that just lists many apparently queer stories. This source seems untrustworthy, as all official online descriptions of the book from the publisher make no mention of any queer identity for the characters, only that one is autistic.

This item has reached a resolution

13. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOFJHXBGDoc

This is the source for the Entrapta sexuality claim. This is only a offhanded comment in the stream, and no information has been given in an official capacity. Source should be removed.

This item has reached a resolution

14. Increased gender variance in autism spectrum disorders and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0285-3

This source is once again incredibly biased. This study was conducted specifically on those 6-18 although that is never mentioned in the abstract (not biased, just misleading), with a significant number of males compared to females, it had a flawed method where not only did the parent decide, but the child was also not required to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The values also disagree with most other sources.

This item has reached a resolution

15. Autism Spectrum Disorders in Gender Dysphoric Children and Adolescents doi:10.1007/s10803-010-0935-9

Not only is the number of individuals very small, but the study includes both those with GID and those with GID-NOS, even though GID-NOS is not a gender dysphoria diagnosis, meaning the reported data is not factual.

This item has reached a resolution

I hope someone reviews these so misinformation isn't continued to be spread. I haven't even looked at the gender identity section yet, however the claims it makes seem suspicious. Will update once I have reviewed. I will also be removing the sources I know to have no reason to be in the article, such as 3 and 7. AustralianBro (talk) 11:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)00:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)Historyday01 (talk)
 * In regards to points 1, 2, 14, these are considered to be reliable sources by Wikipedia. Just because you are of the opinion that they are flawed does not make it so. Points 10, 12 and 13 I tend to agree with.  Grey joy talk 13:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have changed the article to have 10, 12, and 13 applied.
 * As for 14, I would say the application of the source in this article is misleading, as it was used to say being transgender was more common in autistic children, however the study does not base their data on an actual diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and so should not be used as such. 1 and 2 are also very blatantly outliers, as their numbers do not line up with any newer sources (which is a reason for deletion), and their methods were flawed and sample numbers were not equal. Other newer sources also claim in increased amount of LGBT and Autism correlation in females, so that source also destroys the validity of both these sources, and so they should be removed. AustralianBro (talk) 13:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I will tend to defend the point about Entrapta, but only because it was said by the series creator, so I'd say it has some weight. That's why I'd argue it makes sense to keep it. Anyway, we shouldn't be super strict when it comes to information for the pop culture section, in that I feel if we are too strict it may be hard to find additional characters to add. I have heard there is an autistic character in Dead End: Paranormal Park, seemingly according to the show's creator, although it isn't confirmed the character is LGBTQ, and I wouldn't add anything unless it is confirmed. The creator, is, in fact, autistic himself and is gay too, so if there is something more definite that can perhaps it can be added to the page. Historyday01 (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We need to be strict on who we add, because this page is based on facts, not on feelings. I absolutely hate the owl house because I feel like it tokenises and overplays the importance of these identities, but both things are confirmed by the creator, so the character begrudgingly stays in. And you already said that character is not gay, and there has been zero reason to even suspect that (the creator having an identity is not a reason to suspect something), so there is no chance in adding him. AustralianBro (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh huh, you are gonna have to put your feelings about The Owl House aside here. Anyway, as I said before, I'd argue that Entrapta should say because it was said by the show's creator, not just some random storyboarder, so it has that authority. In terms of Dead End, I think it is a possibility that that character is LGBTQ, considering that the protagonist is a trans man after all. But, again, I wouldn't add that unless it is confirmed he is part of the LGBTQ community. Historyday01 (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as I guessed, lo and behold, there will be a neurodivirgent character, Norma, in Dead End, who is autistic (also see here), and seemingly bisexual (see here and here, or generally queer as a reviewer of the trailer wrote. In any case, I'll wait until more information is out before adding it. Historyday01 (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Greyjoy here. You have not given sufficient reason to disregard those sources, which notably seem to agree with each other about rough proportions. Looking at 'Sexual Orientation in Autism Spectrum Disorder', I see that the data suggests a slim majority of male autistic people are heterosexual. So you're right to be cautious about using the headline figure without accounting for gender differences, but you haven't made a persuasive case for ignoring these papers outright.
 * In light of this, the claim in the article that 'the majority of autistic people are heterosexual' is not adequately backed up by reputable sources, and should be removed (again). Oolong (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with removing that claim. Historyday01 (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Far more sources have evidence against this claim. I have explained this before in my removal of the source, as well as my arguments in this very thread. So I'll just copy-paste it here. Please do not add this claim again
 * "1 and 2 are also very blatantly outliers, as their numbers do not line up with any newer sources (which is a reason for deletion), and their methods were flawed and sample numbers were not equal. Other newer sources also claim in increased amount of LGBT and Autism correlation in females, so that source also destroys the validity of both these sources, and so they should be removed."
 * "Undid revision 1090430799 by Greyjoy (talk) As stated by the reliable sources page on Wikipedia, older sources that conflict with new information should be removed, which is what is true about 1, as all future research found the number to be inconsistent, yet far less. 2 is a very similar source with a female bias, shown to be a significant variable by sources from 2021 that state females are more likely to be LGBT, skewing the results of 2"
 * To further explain, the fact that there was more than double females to males is enough to remove it on it's own, as it becomes such a clear example of P-Shifting the data to suit the answer wanted. The survey was also conducted online, with no checks on whether the participants had an actual diagnosis. As stated, the female autistic population has been shown to be more likely to be LGBT according to newer sources. Newer sources are almost always preferred according to WP:AGE MATTERS, so ignoring the bountiful number of sources stating the claim that being autistic does not make you significantly more likely to be LGBT, giving specific and far more reasonable numbers in the single digit range, you are blatantly ignoring the very rules of Wikipedia. Again, please do not add this incorrect claim again. AustralianBro (talk) 06:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * you say newer sources are preferred and yet you added sources from when before the modern diagnostic methods for either of the topics here? Transcleanupgal (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * also, if that's true, then state those sources. Transcleanupgal (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please do not spam replies. Just make one reply, and edit them if you need to. Also they are clearly stated in the article, but since you didn't read them:
 * https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-4788-7_27:
 * "Research suggests that compared to the general population, individuals with ASD are more likely to be members of a sexual minority (i.e., homosexual, bisexual, and asexual) but the majority express heterosexual orientations."
 * This source is clear enough in what is says, the majority are heterosexual. Saying queer people are the majority is incorrect.
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11195-018-9534-z:
 * "78% of people with high-functioning ASD and 67% of neurotypical respondents reported heterosexual orientation"
 * "[Source] showed that heterosexual orientation was lower in ASD patients than in control group (M = 14.45 and M = 20.59 respectively), and lesbian and gay male sexual orinentation was higher (M = 4.71 and M = 1.16)."
 * This source even references two conflicting arguments in the same paragraph, showing that the levels that are even reported are very inconsistent. One that says there are more heterosexual people with ASD, the other says they are slightly higher than neurotypical people.
 * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0193953X20300812
 * "Others have observed increased sexual diversity in females with ASD, yet similar proportions (5%–10%) of same sex attraction and experience between males with and without ASD"
 * While this is solely on the basis of males, females have been shown by other sources to be more likely to be LGBT. There were other sources in the study that contradicted these, but they had methodological problems that discredit them in my mind. One had results based on answers by parents and not the children themselves, one still showed the majority to be heterosexual, one didn't have the percentages even add up to 50% and the standard deviation was nearing the double digits, and the rest have a significant bias of female participants, which is an issue as stated above. It is fair if these sources are discredited from both sides however, since completely removing females is even worse than having a very large majority of them.
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/aur.2604
 * There is no quote from this one, but the main point in that 63.03% of autistic participants answered yes to being heterosexual. While this is less than the 83.08% of non-autistic individuals, it is still the majority. I will also mention that the study does have a bit less than double the females to males, but this is nowhere near the insane degree that most other sources had, where there was a nearly 4:1 imblanance.
 * I have spent many hours on this research just double checking all the claims and ensuring the methodology or results don't have any glaring flaws. Hopefully you can see now that claiming the majority of people who are ASD are also LGBT is not accurate and the source that claims this, and any sources that get their information from that article, should not be referenced. AustralianBro (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you for the sources, now, how do we implement this into the article. Transcleanupgal (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The implementation is just ensuring that claims about autistic individuals being majority LGBT are not added and are removed if others add them. While there is a trend that they are more likely to be LGBT, it is not a majority, and claims about it being "significantly" larger should be removed, since many studies show only a small increase, and the sources are very inconsistent with their numbers. There is a reason we have the "not all sources may be reliable" tag and a few sentences about how inconsistent the numbers are. AustralianBro (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have again removed the assertion that most autistic people are straight, contradicted by at least two peer-reviewed papers that you have not given convincing reason to diregard. It really just doesn't need to be there.
 * I have also restored 'Autistic people are significantly more likely to be non-heterosexual' because there is widespread agreement on this among published sources. To take one example:
 * '“Most of the data that we’re seeing is that [the LGB rate] is two to three times higher,” says clinical psychologist Eileen T. Crehan, Ph.D., an assistant professor at Tufts University. But larger studies need to be done before the true rate is known, she says.'
 * Can you be more specific about which studies contradict the finding that autistic people are siginificantly less likely to be straight, if you believe that this is controversial? Thanks! Oolong (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MEDRS, material sourced to review articles should not be changed simply on the basis of primary sources. I'm also not seeing here where most autistic people being heterosexual is even contradicted. "Two to three times higher" does not in itself constitute a majority, since many estimates of non-heterosexual orientation are around 10%. Crossroads -talk- 19:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I mostly accept your points, but per MEDRS, sources should really also be up to date. The review cited is nine years old, in a rapidly developing field. The claim being made is contradicted by more than one, more up to date study; I argue that is sufficient to cast it in doubt, but I'm not set on this. It would certainly be better to cite a more up-to-date review paper, instead, even though these are not biomedical claims, so MEDRS really doesn't apply.
 * You seem to have mistaken what is specifically being claimed here: removing the assertion that the majority of autistic people are heterosexual is not the same as claiming the opposite!
 * "Two to three times higher" constitutes significantly higher; nobody has suggested that constitutes a majority. Note that this review for example found significantly higher rates still (but no, not a majority). Oolong (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * But if that is what the review source says, then that is what we should be saying. If more recent reviews contradict what is stated then feel free to present them, but we shouldn't water it down based on single studies which can have methodological problems and which we as editors are not supposed to be interpreting (leaving that for review writers). 9 years old doesn't seem that old, either. Crossroads -talk- 23:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence from 8, I can see how it is awkward being in the article and perhaps only rather tangentially related. I am pretty sure I am the person who added it there although I'm not certain. --Chillabit (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Great to hear. Would you consider removing 9 as well, since it has the same issues as 8? AustralianBro (talk) 11:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoroughness. I am a 60-year-old woman who identifies both as high-functioning / level-1 autistic and as queer, among other things not relevant to this discussion. 68.198.85.24 (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A note for 14: while I agree with most of your points there, one does not need dysphoria to be trans, in fact, due to this, studies that don't require a GD diagnosis should be prioritized over ones that do require one, due to them having a more accurate idea of trans people in general. Transcleanupgal (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is just blatantly incorrect. If you are to produce a claim about those who are trans in a scientific sense, they must be officially diagnosed. Otherwise, those who self-diagnose may be incorrect and detransition (like myself and many, many others), and can ruin entire datasets. This is not uncommon and the idea that those without a gender dysphoria diagnosis should be *preferred* to ones with it is insane. Do not let your personal biases cloud the foundation of truth this website is built on. AustralianBro (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "If one is to produce a claim about those who are homosexual in a scientific sense, they must be officially diagnosed" - a parody of this attitude. People are trans independent of the diagnosis, and may detransition or be incorrect with or without it. Even the APA/DSM explicitly state that being trans and having gender dysphoria are not the same thing. Gender dysphoria as a diagnosis was only created a decade ago to allow trans people to transition within the medical system without diagnosing them as trans and pathologizing them, since a decade ago the official diagnosis was gender identity disorder, which explicitly made being trans the diagnosis. Similar but better than the US case, the ICD-11 stopped classifying "transsexualism" as a diagnosable mental health issue and listed "gender incongruence" as a sexual health condition to help people transition.
 * In short, there is nothing inherently more scientific about being "diagnosed", there is no set diagnosis of being trans anyways, and there is no evidence that not requiring a diagnosis may ruin datasets: do not let your personal biases cloud the foundation of truth this website is built on TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * also the regret rate is like, what, 3% at max? I'm starting to suspect all that @AustralianBro has done was discredit trans positive sources and replace them with transphobic ones, supported by the fact that they've nearly only have edited this page. This is not concrete however and I don't believe any action is warented yet, other than reverting to remove those claims. Transcleanupgal (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While that was definitely an interesting read, those were all people who went through with surgery. This doesn't include desisters or those who didn't have a GD diagnosis. Not that those studies and result aren't valid, but they don't show the whole story.
 * Outside of that, I am going to respond to the person above and you at the same time, since I don't want this page to be filled up with another paragraph of irrelevance from them. First off, homosexuality is incredibly different to gender identity, that should be clear. But the purpose of these studies is for finding the prevalence of transgender people in the autistic community. A transgender person would be able to get that GD diagnosis, since you can't change your gender without feeling a disconnection between your body and self, which is what GD is diagnosing. So if we include those without a GD diagnosis, mistakes are bound to happen more often than an official diagnosis, and the data won't be truly representative. If that isn't understood, then there is no point trying to explain it further.
 * Also I have only removed sources with methodological problems or ones that are outdated in comparison to newer data. I do not believe any of the sources I have added are "transphobic" in the data they show, even if some of the people who do them are not respectful. I have not touched any of the sources that are genuinely well designed studies and show some of the stronger results, and if I was transphobic I would have just tried to remove the section completely. AustralianBro (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The main difference is in the 70's being gay was depathologized while it took another 5 decades for trans people to start receiving the same. One could've argued back then that self-diagnosed gays are more likely to be wrong than those officially confirmed to be gay by a therapist so only "diagnosed" gays should be counted in studies about gay people. WP:MEDRS state that being trans != having a GD diagnosis. Pretty explicitly, the whole point of the GD diagnosis as opposed to GID is the psychiatric community no longer considers it ethical or their place to "diagnose" someone as trans. The GD diagnosis itself is not used globally, so the data won't be representative. So, if we include those without a GD diagnosis, mistakes are bound to happen more often than an official diagnosis is purely your opinion and not supported by any evidence, so there is no point trying to explain it further. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A gender dysphoria diagnosis is not required in many places these days. WPATH SOC does not require that. That's one reason why the informed consent model exists for access to HRT. Gender dysphoria may be considered a mental disorder if there is clinically significant distress, but that is not the same thing as being transgender. Being trans is not a disorder. Hist9600 (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

New source for claim?
On 11:23, 31 May 2022‎, I made an edit that removed a claim in an article, with no source attached, and the claim being irrelevant to the results the study found. The claim was "Studies on ASD and LGBT identities are limited because most studies are done with children and not adults." Anecdotally, I believe the claim to be true, however without a source the claim should not be in the articles. If anyone finds a source with a similar claim and evidence to back it up, then it should be added back into the article. AustralianBro (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, although I would say that people had worked a lot on this article before you came along with your edits, so I tend to side with those edits. I would also like to ask that you not revert any edits I've made until there is a further consensus here. That way, an edit war can be avoided. Historyday01 (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

But if the work done is not good, then it should not be allowed to stay up. If something exists without a source, it shouldn’t be on here. AustralianBro (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but I'd say the section on characters who are autistic, and are part of the LGBTQ community, should remain. Making it too narrow doesn't help anyone. Historyday01 (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: GWSS 1101 Introduction to Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies
— Assignment last updated by Librarygirl13 (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Scholarly review article
Here is a recent review article and secondary news article, which may be useful for improving this article. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I have added this study. Hist9600 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)



Recent reversals
, could you explain what exactly is the issue with this addition? The study looks fine to me. Antiok 1pie (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This study is based on the idea of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD), which is a known fringe / pseudoscientific concept. The study may be better suited for the article on rapid-onset gender dysphoria, where editors can also provide feedback of where it might fit in. Hist9600 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Translation
Hi folks! Just a little note here that I've translated this page to Dutch: Autisme en LHBT-identiteiten. Thank you all here for the countless hours of work that were put into creating this awesome page! Mx.Alba (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh now this is just... Weird. My Dutch translation of this page was nominated for removal because it's "not encyclopedic" and a "work in progress" that needs improvement. I thought you people here would be as confused as I am...
 * https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Te_beoordelen_pagina%27s/Toegevoegd_20230504#Autisme_en_LHBT-identiteiten
 * Mx. Alba (they/she) (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That is strange. It is just as valid a page as this one. There are MANY pages on here which are a work in progress, so I don't see that as a problem, or even a reason for removal. Historyday01 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hopefully more people can look at this issue, and sanity will prevail. It seems bizarre to me that an article with so many notes and references, containing much of the latest details from studies about the overlap between these two groups, would be dismissed as an "essay". That seems completely illogical, as though the person had no idea what they were reading. But in any case, thanks for your efforts on this. Hist9600 (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Merge Autigender here?
I propose merging Autigender into Autism and LGBT identities. Autigender is a stub with some potential notability issues that would better fit here. It could be added as a new section without issue.

Pinging people who seem to have worked on that page, although most of them are IPs... Autigender: {ping|Roundish|MikutoH}

Because autigender is a recent article and there's been recent edit activity I wanted to allow for discussion, so... here goes. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak support. The sources I added were only some of the ones I found, but at the same time they honestly didn't have that much coverage. I can see autigender staying as a stub. I'm unsure if it would fit into this article though. It seems like it might, but the article cannot be copy-pasted into here, and needs to be rewritten. Autigender is a stub and will probably work better as a section instead, but I can also see it being split into multiple sections with its information scattered across the "Autistic people can struggle to infer social expectations" bit and "Autigender" being mentioned briefly as a fringe term. I really can't decide if that outcome should be avoided or not; the article could still be expanded. As of its situation now, I guess so? is pretty much my stance. -- ( Roundish   ⋆  t ) 22:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unsure. This article is already sort of an amalgamation of different things. When I consider the medical / scientific elements in this article, then I think that labels like autigender seem out of place, having no strong basis in medical science. However, this article also covers the intersection of LGBT identities and autism in pop culture, which is also quite different in terms of the type of content. Maybe there is a gap in this article in covering how autistic people may have different subjective experiences of gender and sexuality, and how those experiences may lend themselves to new labels such as autigender? In that sense, I think that maybe the content could be merged in a way that could enhance the larger article. Looking at autigender more broadly, there are also other terms such as gendervague that are very similar to autigender, and there is also the label neuroqueer. Maybe when considering autigender, we can look more broadly at these type of labels, why they exist, and how the labels and experiences they describe fit into the larger scope of the article here? Hist9600 (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was also thinking about how this article is very medically focused with statistics, but it's a flaw on both parts: Autigender has poor sourcing and little evidence for its claims and Autism and LGBT identities has little of the "social aspect" that this kind of article tends to have. Every LGBT overview article tends to have history, media coverage, and cultural sections, which might be hard to find for something this specific but there you go. -- ( Roundish  ⋆  t ) 02:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, although I don't want to get into the details too much here, I think this article has in the past relied a bit too much on primary medical sources, and it should be relying more on the latest consensus views as in systematic reviews, etc., when possible. So it may require some cleanup, and may become more well-rounded in the future. Hist9600 (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * After screening the article & sources I support this view. It's time for an update based on secondary sources.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. When mentioning autigender, use Wiktionary entry as well (autigender). MikutoH (talk) 02:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. I believe that a proper article autigender would contain a lot of duplicate material to a revised version of this article. Happy to collaborate on merging & improving this article.--TempusTacet (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay! What do you think is the best way to go about doing it? I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia and it was suggested that simply adding it as a section was not the best. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that for now it can be a sub-section of the section on gender identity. However, I believe that the best way forward would be to agree on a rough structure for the article so that we can start to revise it without creating duplicate work or painting ourselves into a corner. What do you think?--TempusTacet (talk) 05:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That makes sense! SomeoneDreaming (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Great. Would you like to make a first suggestion? (Perhaps in a new section on this talk page?)--TempusTacet (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. A "Representations" section or something of the sort, with information on the Autistic Pride Flag could be warranted, since the latter is barely covered yet has a degree of notability.  Frzzl  talk  · contribs   09:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I see the value of a Representations section (although calling it Autigender might be better), but how is the autistic pride flag related to LGBT identities? As far as I am aware, it is a flag meant to represent autism in the same way the bisexual pride flag represents bisexuality and unrelated to the LGBT community. A mention in the See Also section is warranted. ( Roundish  ⋆  t ) 14:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I also don't think that the flag should be covered here as it is not specifically related to LGBT identities in autistic people. It is already mentioned in Autism_spectrum and it can be described in more detail in Autism rights movement or perhaps Autistic Pride Day.--TempusTacet (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. I believe it lacks required notability and would, as SomeoneDreaming said it "would contain a lot of duplicate material to a revised version of this article." --FranzSebastianvH (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Structure for the future
Hi! In the above section, we are talking about restructuring the article as we are merging content into it. Right now it's somewhat disjointed. So what do we think this article could look like in the future?

I think the current top-level division between sexual orientation and gender identity makes a lot of sense, but some of the subheads are unclear. "Autism and sexual orientation" --> the subheads "autistic population" and "autistic people by gender" could probably be combined? Sex education seems like a separate issue. In the gender identity section, I'm not sure what the difference is between "overlapping demographics" and "overlapping traits."

I think the autigender stuff would maybe go best under the gender identification section?

Adding some information on asexuality and aromanticism in the autistic community would also be good; I'll work on finding sources in the next few days.

SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * For the gender identity section, I agree that combining those two sections would be good. That's something I've been meaning to do, but it would probably also involve consolidating some of the content and removing some statements relying too much on primary sources, that aren't adding anything that is not already covered better, and to the same effect, in secondary sources like review studies.
 * For sexual orientation, I don't see any reason why those two sections could not be combined, with content similarly consolidated favoring mainstream secondary sources when possible. Hist9600 (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good plan! I agree that Autigender belongs under the gender identity section.
 * I'll start by making a couple of edits based on what the DSM-5 (as a source of mainstream consensus) has to say about the topic and I'll think about a way to refer to Sex and gender differences in autism as a related article without duplicating its content here.--TempusTacet (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The contents of the DSM often reflect old and sometimes out-of-date information, compared to modern review studies. Not sure if there is anything about the overlap between autism and gender dysphoria, or autism and sexual orientation. Hist9600 (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out, I'm aware of these issues with the DSM. I have a copy of the DSM-5 Text Revision published in 2022 and you would probably be surprised how current the information is. Autism is (by DSM standards) extensively discussed in the entry for gender dysphoria, both with regard to the difficulties of distinguishing autistic thinking about/perception of gender roles from gender dysphoria and the high prevalence of gender dysphoria/gender diversity in autistic people and vice versa. It's not a lot of information but I believe that as it reflects a majority consensus the DSM is a strong source.--TempusTacet (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a subsection of gender identity dedicated to nonbinary gender would allow for the autigender merge as well as other autistic-adjacent nonbinary identities to be discussed (agender is not uncommon for autistic people). &mdash;siro&chi;o 09:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * yeah, that's a great idea! do you have any sources in mind for it? if not, I can take a look. Starting the section now with the autigender merge. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a good idea and see that the article has already been merged. I've moved up the subsection within the section on gender identity to appear prior to the section on gender dysphoria, immediately following the subsection on gender identity. As we move more towards secondary sources and away from describing individual studies, perhaps the first two subsections could become a single one.--TempusTacet (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a small paragraph and new source to the nonbinary section. &mdash;siro&chi;o 21:35, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

The Owl House
Yes it's true that she is canonically neurodivergent, but Luz is never specifically mentioned to be autistic. Therefore, I'm not certain if she should stay on this page. Also she is specifically bisexual.

Amadeus1928 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I think a previous version of the page mentioned her more, but the line "The Owl House is the only Disney Channel series with an openly LGBTQ+ protagonist, Luz Noceda, who has an autistic infinity symbol on her laptop" doesn't even provide a source. And the Luz Noceda page mentions she is neurodivergent, so removing her from this page would be fine, and nothing would be lost. Historyday01 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. I will go ahead and do that right now.
 * Amadeus1928 (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Changing the page name
@User:Panamitsu, I appreciate your efforts in editing this page, but your page name change was done without any discussion. I would argue that your changed name is too awkward and weird, and think it wouldn't help users. People can have LGBTQ identities. I'm not sure why you would sat that the title "suggests that it is about gender identities" as I never got that impression. In any case, there should be discussion on here before making such a bold page name change. Historyday01 (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Contradiction
The article says that most research indicates that most autistic people are straight, but in the following sentence says that studies into autism and sexuality suggests that autistic people have a higher degree of gay or bi feelings than non-autistic individuals. 2A00:23C4:AA1D:4A01:6597:FB5D:DD93:FE7B (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Not really a contradiction. For example, autistic people as a group are more likely to be LGBT. But that does not mean that most are LGBT. Hist9600 (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * But that's a contradiction? If most aren't then by definition, as a group we're not likely to be. --2A00:23C4:AA1D:4A01:1192:5661:C0B8:DE90 (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It is saying that autistic people as a group are more likely to be LGBT than the rest of the population (e.g. neurotypical people). Nobody is saying that the majority are LGBT. Hist9600 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @2A00:23C4:AA1D:4A01:6597:FB5D:DD93:FE7B I agree with the comments -- "more likely" and "majority" have two distinct meanings — Panamitsu (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Well if most aren't then how does anyone know whether or not they're more likely to be? As a person with Asperger's syndrome myself, it strikes me as a political attempt to shoehorn so-called LGBT (the T isn't a sexual orientation so it shouldn't actually even be in there) into everything. --2A00:23C4:AA1D:4A01:F82A:69E9:610E:35DA (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "More likely" does not imply "majority". Hist9600 (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well if there isn't a majority THEN HOW COULD ANYONE KNOW THAT THEY'RE MORE LIKELY? It's a complete non-sequitur! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:AA1D:4A01:9D08:61D4:4068:9912 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The same way that 30% likely is more than 10% likely. That's how math works. Hist9600 (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)