When Advocacy Collides: Autism, Gender, Women, and the Push of Inclusion
Women's Rights are Gender Critical and Autism Advocacy is Neuro Critical - TRAs stand back!
There has since been an update on this situation, you can read about here . Autisme-og Aspergersforinengen have released a response to a Gender Consultation, and it’s superb!
In recent weeks, a Danish autism organisation named Autisme-og Aspergerforeningen (Autism and Aspergers Association) has faced backlash over a leaflet addressing how autistic individuals experience gender. Intended as a resource on autism-specific experiences of gender discomfort, the leaflet has been criticised as transphobic for not centering transgender narratives. The controversy highlights a growing tension in advocacy: when groups try to focus on their unique experiences, they risk being labelled as exclusionary or harmful to others.
A member of the organisation cried out "Have we as autistic people lost the right to talk about ourselves in every aspect of our lived lives?"
This dynamic bears striking similarities to the ongoing clash between women’s rights advocates and transgender activists. Just as women discussing issues specific to their sex are often accused of transphobia, autistic advocates are now being met with similar accusations when focusing on autism-related gender challenges. This raises the question: How can advocacy movements champion their own causes without being overshadowed - or vilified - by intersecting identities?
Autism and Gender: The Focus of the Debate
The leaflet, published by an autism organisation, sought to shed light on how autistic people experience gender. It explored themes such as sensory discomfort during puberty, challenges with societal gender roles, and a sense of alienation from traditional norms. Importantly, it avoided explicitly framing these experiences through the lens of transgender or LGBT+ identities, aiming instead to provide a focused look at autism-specific issues.
Critics, however, were quick to respond, accusing the organisation of spreading anti-trans rhetoric by omission. Transgender advocates argued that by not centering transgender narratives, the leaflet implicitly downplayed or excluded trans experiences. Calls for the leaflet’s removal - and even apologies - quickly followed, alongside demands that future materials be co-created with transgender advocacy groups.
“You made a folder on transgenderism. And a pretty problematic one at that. Whether you are aware of it or not, it’s being used as a weapon against trans and nonbinary people.”
“It's you who have stepped on the nails. You can’t create a folder about “gender identity” without it implicitly being transgender… You would know all this if you had taken transgender people for advice. I totally agree with the criticism directed towards you and intend to resign from the association, unless you withdraw this folder.”
“If you want occupational peace, then at a minimum you should withdraw the folder immediately and publish an apology for an unfortunate formulated folder, which is being used as a weapon against a marginalised group of people. Whether it was your intention or not, that's what happened.”
“Start by retracting the folder, remove it from your website. Only then can you have peace of mind to prepare a new folder in collaboration with LGBT, which both groups can benefit from.”
“Instead of playing the victim, maybe you should just take responsibility and acknowledge that the folder is poorly formulated if the intention was to talk about autigender and that it is causing damage now in the hands of anti-trans people. That you have fooled yourselves so cruel and regret the harm you have done to nonbinary and trans people, especially to those who are autistic.
There's no hate campaign against you, you're being held responsible for a folder that infantilises autistic people and used for misinformation about trans and nonbinary people.
You are the ones who wrote a folder full of anti-trans rhetoric. Either it was intentional or it was accidental. But no matter what, there's anti-trans rhetoric”
This sentiment reflects a broader tension in advocacy spaces: the demand that materials addressing gender identity explicitly affirm transgender narratives to avoid being co-opted by anti-trans groups. Critics argue that failing to do so allows harmful rhetoric to spread unchecked, even if unintentionally.
When advocacy for specific groups - like women or autistic individuals - is reframed or overshadowed by trans activism, it fundamentally shifts the focus away from the original intent of the advocacy. This isn’t just about inclusion; it’s about erasure of the very narratives that these movements are trying to highlight.
The insistence that materials or discussions about women’s rights or autism advocacy explicitly affirm transgender narratives isn’t just a call for inclusion - it’s a demand that these groups centre a narrative that isn’t their own. This fundamentally alters the purpose of the advocacy, often to the detriment of the people it was initially intended to support.
The organisation defended itself, emphasising that the leaflet was not about transgender experiences but about autistic individuals’ unique challenges. One representative stated:
“Autistic people can experience extreme gender discomfort without being transgender. Our goal is that there can be room for everyone, but we will never be able to include everyone in a single leaflet.”
The Issue of Co-Opting Narratives
Women’s rights and autism advocacy have increasingly found themselves in this position. Advocacy spaces created to address sex-based discrimination or autism-specific issues are being co-opted and reframed to prioritise gender identity discussions. For example:
In Women’s Advocacy:
Women’s shelters are pushed to prioritise gender identity over biological sex, even though the original purpose was to address the unique vulnerabilities of biological women.
Conversations about the gender pay gap, reproductive rights, and other sex-based issues are often reframed to be about “people with uteruses” or “assigned female at birth,” diluting the focus on women.
In Autism Advocacy:
Discussions about how autism uniquely affects gender perceptions - such as discomfort with puberty or rigid social norms - are overshadowed by demands to centre transgender experiences.
Resources meant to address autistic-specific issues are labelled transphobic if they don’t prioritise the transgender narrative, even when that wasn’t their intent.
This co-opting isn’t merely a misstep - it’s a systemic issue that forces advocacy groups to shift their priorities. It effectively buries the needs of the people being advocated for, silencing their voices in favour of a different agenda.
The Double Standard in Advocacy Spaces
What makes this dynamic particularly frustrating for many women’s and autism advocates is the double standard it reveals. While trans activism demands inclusion and affirmation in every discussion about sex and gender, the same courtesy isn’t extended in reverse. Women and autistic individuals are not allowed to define their advocacy around their specific needs without being accused of exclusion or harm.
For instance:
Women’s Advocacy: When women speak about sex-based rights, they are often labelled as “anti-trans” for not including trans-identified males experiences in their narrative. Yet, when trans-identified males discuss their needs, there is no similar expectation to prioritise women’s issues.
Autism Advocacy: Autistic advocates who focus on autism-specific challenges with gender are accused of enabling anti-trans rhetoric. Yet, materials centred solely on transgender autistic individuals are not criticised for excluding broader autistic experiences.
This asymmetry leaves women and autistic people feeling not just marginalised but also pressured to sacrifice their advocacy spaces entirely.
Reclaiming Advocacy for the Intended Purpose
The insistence that advocacy spaces for women or autistic people must adapt their narratives to align with trans activism misses the fundamental purpose of these movements: to address the needs of the people they were created for.
Women’s Advocacy Needs Space for Sex-Based Discussions:
Issues like menstruation, pregnancy, and sex-based violence are realities that only biological women face. These are not “exclusionary” topics - they are specific to the group the advocacy was created for.
Centering these issues doesn’t deny the existence or struggles of trans individuals; it simply recognises the unique challenges women face.
Autism Advocacy Needs Space for Autism-Specific Issues:
Gender discomfort in autism may stem from sensory sensitivities, rigid thinking patterns, or societal expectations - not from gender dysphoria. These experiences are not trans-specific, and it is important to address them without reframing them through a transgender lens.
Allowing autistic people to discuss their unique experiences of gender discomfort does not harm transgender individuals; it simply acknowledges that their needs are different.
The Cost of Compromising Narratives
The demand to reshape advocacy narratives to align with trans activism risks erasing the very identities these movements were created to support. Women and autistic people are not just being asked to include trans voices - they are being asked to centre them, often at the expense of their own needs and issues.
This isn’t inclusion; it’s a form of erasure that prioritises one group over another. Advocacy movements must resist this pressure and reclaim their narratives.
True inclusion doesn’t require subordinating one group’s needs to another—it requires creating space for all voices to be heard, without overshadowing or silencing those who are already marginalised. Women’s rights and autism advocacy deserve the same respect and autonomy to define their own priorities as any other movement. Only by honouring these boundaries can we achieve genuine solidarity and progress.
Parallels to the Women’s Rights Debate
This controversy echoes the tensions seen in women’s rights movements, where advocates focusing on sex-specific issues are often accused of transphobia. For example:
- Women’s shelters designed to protect survivors of domestic abuse have faced criticism for defining their services around biological sex rather than gender identity.
- Efforts to discuss female-specific health issues, such as pregnancy, menstruation, or menopause, have been labelled exclusionary for not incorporating gender-neutral language or centering nonbinary perspectives.
- Even conversations about systemic disadvantages facing women - like women’s sports, the gender pay gap or reproductive rights - are sometimes reframed as insufficiently inclusive.
In both cases, the accusation of transphobia stems from a perceived exclusion of transgender individuals. Yet, advocates argue that their focus is not about exclusion but about addressing issues that are unique to their group - whether that’s women or autistic individuals.
Identity Politics and the Struggle for Focus
The underlying tension in both cases is clear: intersecting identities create competing demands for advocacy spaces. Women’s advocates and autistic advocates alike argue that their ability to address their own issues is being overshadowed by external narratives.
Autistic individuals experience gender discomfort in ways that are often unrelated to transgender identity and may not align with traditional transgender experiences of gender dysphoria. Similarly, women’s experiences of sex-based discrimination and biological realities differ fundamentally from those of trans-identified males, whose struggles are rooted in gender identity.
Yet, in both cases, the focus on these distinctions is often labelled as harmful, with critics demanding that transgender narratives be centered in all discussions about gender. This has left both groups feeling alienated from their own advocacy spaces.
Advocates Speak Out
Supporters of the autism organisation argue that we should be able to have unbiased discussions and information, and that these accusations of transphobia highlight a troubling trend: the erasure of marginalised groups’ autonomy in discussing their own experiences. As one commenter put it:
“Not everything is about trans. Women’s rights are not about trans - it’s about women. Autism advocacy is not about trans - it’s about autistics.”
“Seeing material about gender identity that is not biased - either one way or the other - is welcome. Maybe it could be welcomed from all sides. In appreciation of this opening up for everyone to maybe start talking about (and researching) gender identity without the partout being pro-trans/pro-gender or anti-trans/anti-gender. And that's where we're going - that it becomes legitimate and balanced for everyone, that gender identity is something individuals can investigate - without it having to be pro one or the other.
Seen in that light, this folder might do something quite unique - stands unbiased in the transgender question. And focusing on what the association stands for and therefore pro = autism and aspergers. It deserves recognition”
A critic who had made numerous comments against the leaflet admits the leaflet doesn’t contain transphobia
“I must admit honestly, I also had doubts whether your leaflet was pro- or anti-trans, because it could easily be interpreted either way.”
(Yet they were still insistent the leaflet be removed and that they should make a new one centering trans and collaborate with trans people to make it! - Never mind the fact that autistic people made this leaflet for autistic people *rolls eyes*)
Followed by a level-headed response from another commenter
“How does a demand that all material related to gender identity should be pro-trans leave space to openly and curiously investigate one's gender identity - without it being biased?”
“Try to read the folder with autistic glasses and refrain from letting anything other than autism speak into it.”
“It's not all autistic people who feel like transgenders- It is also in the interest of transgenders that the children and young people who just feel different because of their autism are not interpreted as transgenders. It is at least in their own interest not to be given medicine that makes it worse.”
“Everyone has a gender identity. The word is not ‘owned’ by transgender or nonbinary people. It must be possible to explore gender identity from the specific point of view of autists and Aspergers - without claiming it should be pro-trans or anti-trans.”
“Do you think transgenders are the only ones with a gender identity? Is this why you're saying that the Autism and Aspergers Association can't create a gender identity leaflet without it being about transgenders? With what right should transgenders now decide on other interest groups' communication?”
If those who advocate for respecting diverse gender identities genuinely value different experiences, then they must also respect the ways autistic individuals experience or interpret gender - even if those interpretations challenge or diverge from mainstream trans narratives. Dismissing the perspectives in the leaflet appears hypocritical if the core argument of respecting "all identities" is selective. If the experiences outlined in the leaflet are grounded in how autistic people process or relate to gender, then discounting those voices undermines the inclusivity that is often championed in gender identity discussions. This tension might indicate that the discourse is less about inclusivity and more about enforcing a particular narrative.
Now, I don’t believe everyone has a gender identity. I don’t believe in gender identities at all, but I do respect people’s rights to believe gender as more than the socially constructed stereotypes we put onto the sexes, as regressive as that is to do. So, I think some of the commenters raise a point that trans people don’t ‘own’ gender.
Navigating a Path Forward
The question remains: How can advocacy movements address their unique needs without being labelled exclusionary?
Advocacy groups should be allowed to define their own priorities without being forced to centre external narratives.
The tension between autism advocacy and transgender narratives mirrors a broader challenge in identity politics: balancing the need for inclusivity with the right of marginalised groups to self-advocate. Just as women’s rights movements struggle to focus on sex-based issues without being accused of transphobia, autistic individuals now face similar hurdles when discussing their own experiences with gender and identity.
It’s time to push back!
*
Would you would like to take part in the Gender Critical Autistic Voices Interviews I am currently conducting? Join the narrative on Autism and Gender here
This conflict between transactivists and all other interest groups arises from the extreme and essential narcissism of gender cult believers.
Because the notion of "gender identity" is so flimsy and superficial -- and artificial -- once removed from its biologically sexed origin, its supremacy must be forcibly rammed home by gender cult warriors: by downgrading or negating the validity of any other interest group.
Perceived conflicting interest groups must be deemed "transphobic" on a kneejerk basis should they dare to centre their own interests.
And I disagree that "Everyone has a gender identity". As a woman I cannot have a "gender identity" because it has been stolen from me by LARPing men.
Excellent piece, thank you, I'm always surprised that more of the charities supporting autistic people aren't concerned about gender identity ideology as it is having such a huge affect on the lives of autistic people . I looked at https://genderkit.org.uk/ the other day, it seems a perfect instruction manual for the autistic mind to, it's not surprising they fall for the trans rhetoric. My grown up son, who has many autistic traits, has completely fallen for the being assigned wrong at birth and having a gender identity as an explanation, yet gender identity is just a list of regressive stereotypes and is curtailing autistic people's natural quirkyness into a series of rules.