Myths can be good - transmitting essential truths of a culture from generation to generation. Myths can also be bad. Stereotypes are one example of bad uses of myth. A stereotype is an over-generalized belief about a particular category of people. Stereotypes are generalized because one assumes that the stereotype is true for each individual person in the category.
The biggest myth is the autistic community revolves around "functioning labels." I'd like to spend a little time to dispel the myth of "functionality."
In describing an autistic person, you may have seen labels applied such as "high-functioning" or "low-functioning." As with many other concepts that come from Eugenics, this binary label assignment implies a certain "worth" as regards another human being. It's usually associated with productivity / activity. "Can this autistic person go to work in an office environment and be productive?" Yes / No? If no, then the person is labeled as "low functioning." The label assumes so much and makes no accommodation for what the person may want / choose to do - as opposed to what "able society" chooses for them to do.
"In reality, high-functioning & low functioning are not real labels, having no definition, no skill set lists, and no diagnostic criteria. Yet these words are often used to determine opportunities that will be denied or extended to an autistic and in assigning the correct amount of personal responsibility and blame to an autistic for the way his autism plays out in everyday life." - Judy Endow (source)
Many times when I disclose that I am autistic, the first reaction that I receive is oriented around the perception that I seem so "high-functioning." People are not at all meaning to be rude, but rather, just trying to understand what they think is important about me. Why should my "functionality" be an issue? The truth is more complex. At my age, I understand myself better and given modern technology, can accommodate my needs more efficiently. I'm better supported now, so I seem "high functioning." This was certainly not the case when I was younger. When I was younger, I utilized a "high functioning mask" to hide in plain sight within the neuro-typical world. (see: https://www.spectrumnews.org/features/deep-dive/costs-camouflaging-autism/)
Let's examine functionality via a different lens, before circling back to autism. If you are "a coffee drinker" or a "cigarette smoker," you will likely have different levels of functionality depending upon the time of day - in relation to your internal levels of caffein / nicotine. You will find so many memes about a person needing coffee to function in the morning. If you have a smoker as a co-worker, they often will break from work with greater frequency to maintain their internal nicotine levels. Without doing so, they're not all that "functional."
Society accepts the morning coffee / smoke idea as "normal." Whole industries are oriented around providing "addicts" with their "fix." It can take 20 minutes to get through the drive-through at my local coffee house some mornings - so I'm told. I make my coffee at home.
What autistic people have realized, myself included, is that the more we can "pass" for neurotypical, the more opportunities we will get in life. In order to pass, we often "mask" our autism in public. This can be quite exhausting (see the above link on the "cost" of masking).
Back to "functioning labels."
What does level of functioning mean in autism research?
If you have access to research libraries, you can find a ton of research on autism. More often than not, neurotypical researchers will use functioning labels in describing the subjects of their study. In autism research, autistics' level of functioning is most often judged according to scores on specific tests of IQ (e.g., Wechsler - https://wechsleriqtest.com) or developmental level (Mullen, Bayley, sometimes the Vineland) at a specific time. (here's a good example of the administration of the Mullen Scales of Early Learning assessment and functional labels: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550495/)
In terms of IQ, the reported threshold dividing "high" from "low" functioning ranges from 50 to 90; the actual range might be even greater. Those are IQ or IQ-type scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. So the threshold, the line dividing "high" from "low" functioning in autism research, is almost three standard deviations wide. Fall into that impressive span, and you may be high or you may be low functioning, depending on who you ask.
If 90 is the threshold, then about 25% of the entire population (autistic, non-autistic, everyone) is low-functioning. If the more common threshold of 85 is chosen, then about 16% of everyone is low-functioning.
70 is often considered the threshold for "competency" in the courts (source: https://www.wispd.org/attachments/article/235/Litigating%20Competency%20of%20the%20Mentally%20Retarded.pdf)
But what does an IQ test actually measure? Is an IQ test, or other such test, fit for purpose in evaluating a human being in terms of the total picture of that human? A traditional IQ test quizzes individuals in subjects like reading comprehension, limits, series, and mathematical knowledge, but they don't test for subjects that include mechanics, social skills, or creativity. Someone who gains a high score on IQ testing won't automatically enjoy a high degree of success in her life. (source)
It's also important to note that IQ tests themselves come from the Eugenics movement (1900's) and were used judge people for sterilization. Ethnocentrics and eugenicists, who viewed intelligence and other social behaviors as being determined by biology and race, latched onto IQ tests. As such, large segments of today's society reject these tests as a legacy of a rather hateful time. Other legacies of the eugenicists' use of statistics can be seen in the Body Mass Index - which, like the IQ test, is rather subjective and thus has no basis in actual science (http://wiki.dickinson.edu/index.php/Statistics_and_Eugenics).
Besides, how does one who is non-verbal take a test that is verbally oriented?
Back to labels.
Do labels help the autistic person? Of course not. Labels are not for those who labeled. Thus, Functioning labels are useless for the autistic person.
There are many more problems with functioning labels and they start at home. If parents or family members refer to autistic children as “low-functioning” because doctors and other “experts” labeled the children as “severe”, expectations for those children will be always low. The autistic community's question to parents is this: "wouldn’t you prefer that your children be treated with respect and have equal opportunities in life?" Of course you would. Why? Because YOU set the tone for how your children will be treated. Autistic people say “no” to pity / tragedy memes and “yes” to the presumption of competence.
To finish up this topic, I encourage you to head over to https://www.wretchesandjabberers.org for an amazing story - Wretches & Jabberers. In Wretches & Jabberers, two autistic men embark on a global quest to change attitudes about disability and intelligence. Determined to put a new face on autism, Tracy Thresher, 42, and Larry Bissonnette, 52, travel to Sri Lanka, Japan and Finland. At each stop, they dissect public attitudes about autism and issue a hopeful challenge to reconsider competency and the future. It will change your mind about "functionality."
Thanks for reading this far. I hope I have caused you to reconsider using functional labels in describing people in general - not just in describing autistic people. Have a great day.