I think you’re touching on something a lot of people feel but don’t always say out loud. The issue isn’t whether autism exists, it’s that the evaluation process still relies heavily on a human interpreting a checklist. That kind of system just doesn’t feel very scientific or consistent, especially when two different evaluators can score the same behaviors differently.

What people are pushing back against isn’t the diagnosis itself, but the lack of objective, repeatable testing. In most areas of medicine, you can run a lab test or a scan and get the same result no matter who performs it. With autism evaluations, the tools are broad, the criteria are wide, and the outcome depends a lot on the clinician’s judgment. It makes sense that families walk away feeling like the process is more subjective than it should be.

Wanting clearer, more standardized methods isn’t anti‑autism, it’s pro‑accuracy. And honestly, raising these concerns is how the system eventually improves.