Every time I read another autism article discussing boys and girls, men and women, I ask myself the same question.
Where are people of colour in this conversation?
The latest BBC report focused on research suggesting autistic girls may be underdiagnosed and that diagnosis rates between males and females become much closer by adulthood than previously believed. This is important research, and it is right that attention is being given to women who have historically been overlooked.
What I struggle to understand is why race and ethnicity continue to be left out of these discussions altogether.
When an article talks about boys, who exactly is being discussed? Because boys of colour are boys.
When an article talks about girls, who exactly is being discussed? Because girls of colour are girls.
The problem is that autism research has already shown us what happens when broad categories hide important differences. For decades, autism was largely understood through a narrow model based on observations of white boys. Eventually, researchers realised that many women were being missed because they did not fit that model. That discovery changed the conversation around autism.
What I find concerning is that the same lesson is rarely applied to race and ethnicity.
Research has repeatedly identified differences in autism diagnosis, delayed diagnosis, misdiagnosis and access to services among ethnic minority communities. Black children have been shown to receive other diagnoses before autism is recognised. Researchers have documented differences in referral pathways and access to services.
These are not opinions. These are findings that already exist within the research.
So why do mainstream discussions continue to present boys and girls as though they are single groups with shared experiences?
As someone who was diagnosed autistic in 2021 after spending more than twenty years in the mental health system, this question matters to me personally. During my assessment, I was told that I presented more like a female. At the time, I understood what the psychologist meant – my presentation did not fit the traditional model of male autism that professionals had been trained to recognise.
Looking back, I now think that statement reveals a bigger issue. When professionals refer to traditional male autism, how much of that understanding was developed through studying white males?
If the understanding of autism in women had to evolve because the original model was too narrow, why are we still not asking whether the same is true for people of colour? This is extremely important when we consider masking.
Many autistic people learn to mask their difficulties in order to survive. That is now widely recognised in women. But people of colour still navigate additional pressures linked to systemic racism, stereotypes, expectations and social consequences. If those pressures influence behaviour, communication and self-monitoring, then surely they have the potential to impact autistic masking as well.
Yet this continues to be largely absent from public discussion.
The same question applies to women of colour. If researchers are now telling us that autistic women are harder to identify because many have learned to mask and adapt, then surely we should be asking whether women of colour face additional barriers beyond those already experienced by white women.
Instead, women, men, girls and boys are frequently discussed as though each is one uniform group, despite the fact that real life is far more complex than that.
For me, this is why the conversation matters so much. An autism diagnosis is not a box on a form or an academic debate. It can shape every area of a person’s life, from education and healthcare to employment, relationships and mental wellbeing. We already know autistic people face a significantly higher risk of suicide than the general population. We know that being diagnosed years later than you should have been comes at a cost. We know that spending years being misunderstood comes at a cost. We know that being treated for conditions you do not have, while the underlying cause remains unidentified, comes at a cost. These are not small consequences. They affect real people, real families and, in some cases, whether someone survives long enough to get the answers they needed in the first place.
When lives are literally at risk, leaving groups out of the conversation is not a small mistake. It has real-world consequences.
In 2026, we should be able to openly ask why race and ethnicity continue to receive so little attention within mainstream autism reporting. We should be able to ask why large discussions about autism still manage to overlook people of colour. We should be able to ask why lessons learned from women have not been fully applied elsewhere.
This is not about taking anything away from autistic women. If anything, the experiences of autistic women strengthen the point being made. The autism community spent years challenging the idea that one group could represent everyone, because it became clear that this was wrong. That challenge was necessary; it improved understanding, and it led to positive change. The question is why that same willingness to question and expand our understanding seems to stop when the conversation turns to race and ethnicity.
If we now understand that autistic women were hidden by an incomplete model of autism, why are we still comfortable leaving people of colour out of the conversation?
Because until we answer that question, there is a real risk that history continues to repeat itself.
Research and Further Reading
• Angell, A.M. et al. (2018) A Review of Diagnosis and Service Disparities Among Children With Autism From Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups.
This review found that children from racial and ethnic minority backgrounds are more likely to experience delayed diagnosis, misdiagnosis and reduced access to autism services.
• Mandell, D.S. et al. (2009) Racial/Ethnic Disparities in the Identification of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2861330
This study found that African-American children were significantly more likely to receive another diagnosis before autism was identified.
• Lockwood Estrin, G. et al. (2021) Racial, Ethnic and Sociodemographic Disparities in Diagnosis of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8500365
A major review examining disparities in autism diagnosis and access to support across racial and ethnic groups.
• National Autistic Society – Autism and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Communities.
https://www.autism.org.uk/advice-and-guidance/what-is-autism/autism-and-bame-people
The National Autistic Society acknowledges that people from ethnic minority backgrounds can face additional barriers to diagnosis and support.
• University of Cambridge (2023) Autism Rates Have Increased and Show Differences in Ethnic Minorities and Links to Social Disadvantage.
Research involving more than seven million schoolchildren in England demonstrating differences in autism prevalence across ethnic groups.
• Royal College of Psychiatrists – Suicide and Autism.
Includes evidence showing autistic people face substantially higher suicide risk than the general population, underlining the importance of timely recognition and support.
When autistic and other neurodivergent people of colour are finally invited to the table and encouraged to become doctors, researchers and other professionals related to this field, bringing their lived experiences, society will then finally take an inclusive stand and fully represent race, gender, and ethnicity with the empathy, integrity, and understanding that will serve everyone appropriately. Testing and treatment only works properly when the most accurate people and measures are used. Keep shouting, Dez 🗣.