"Autism being THE (singular, only) defining trait of a character is patronising"

Autism or any other mental disability can be *A* part of a character, but it shouldn& #39;t be *THE* defining trait of a character.

Autism, in itself, isn& #39;t a personality. https://twitter.com/AnnieCYouTube/status/1308046933299265536">https://twitter.com/AnnieCYou...

People shouldn& #39;t define themselves by these things, or feel they can only relate to a character if they have the same mental disability. It can affect them similarly, but not every autistic person, or anyone who has a mental disability, is the same. (Personality wise)

"If their autism doesn& #39;t affect the story, don& #39;t include it"

This doesn& #39;t contradict what I said, its perfectly fine to have it as *PART* of a character and to use it as a tool to tell the story.

But the argument of "Representation", as I originally pointed out..

..usually disregards this and slaps these labels on them in a patronising attempt to appeal to said group of people.

I said that it was patronising because it leads people to believe that they *should* define themselves by their mental disability..

Given the context of the 2017 criticisms surrounding Theo and Lexi, this is what most people had an issue with.

It was criticism which was commonly misconceived as nothing more than an "Attack".

Brennen& #39;s current point doesn& #39;t help

Maybe "The Defining Trait" wasn& #39;t the right wording. I should probably have said it shouldn& #39;t be used as *THE* unique selling point given we were all arguing over the article.