The Risk of Being Born: How Autistics Make Meaning of the Neuro-Majority’s Quest to Erase Us
Once again, another headline has emerged suggesting that autism might be linked to external risks—in this case, the COVID-19 pandemic. The article, discussing a study on children born during the pandemic, speculates whether exposure to the virus in the womb might increase the ‘likelihood’ of autism. This is yet another example in a long line of research that seeks to identify external ‘causes’ of autism, as if autism is a negative outcome that should be prevented at all costs. These types of studies often focus on environmental factors like vaccines, prenatal stress, a lack of fish oil, or, in this case, a global health crisis.
Such research perpetuates a deeply troubling narrative: autism is seen as undesirable, something to be avoided, a “risk” rather than a part of human diversity. For autistic individuals, seeing our existence framed in these terms is not only hurtful but indicative of a society that views us as problems to be solved before we are even born. The Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF) provides a lens through which we can understand the impact of these narratives. Through this framework, it becomes clear that the message being sent is that society sees autistic people as ‘mistakes,’ and this ongoing quest to prevent autism shapes how we, as autistics, interpret and make meaning of the world around us.
Power: The Neuro-Majority’s Control Over Research and Narratives
The PTMF offers a valuable lens for understanding how the neuro-majority wields its institutional power to control the narrative around autism. In this case, power refers to the ability of dominant groups—researchers, policymakers, and funding bodies—to shape societal views on autism by directing resources toward studies that treat it as something to be prevented. This power dynamic ensures that research continues to focus on identifying potential ‘causes’ of autism, reinforcing the idea that our existence is something to be feared, and that preventing future autistic births is a desirable goal.
The study on pandemic-born children is a prime example of this. It follows a well-worn path of research that links autism to external threats like vaccines, prenatal stress, and now, the COVID-19 pandemic. These studies often frame autism as a negative outcome of these external factors, presenting it as something to be avoided at all costs. Other research has done the same, perpetuating the notion that autism is inherently undesirable and ignoring the lived experiences of autistic people. Autistic voices (like mine), which offer alternative perspectives, are frequently sidelined in favor of narratives that pathologise our existence.
This exclusion of autistic individuals from decision-making processes around research funding and priorities is a key aspect of the power dynamic at play. As a small minority in society, autistic people have little influence over the studies that are conducted about us, and this lack of representation results in research that often disregards our needs and perspectives. Instead of studies that focus on improving the lives of autistic people, the priority seems to be finding ways to prevent us from existing in the first place. This reinforces the harmful narrative that autism is a pathology rather than a valid identity, one that should be supported rather than eradicated.
Threat: Autism as a “Risk”
The constant framing of autism as a “risk” is a pervasive issue that fuels fear and stigma around autistics. Studies like the one on pandemic-born children often treat autism as a negative outcome, suggesting that external factors—whether vaccines, pandemics, or prenatal stress—could lead to an increased “risk” of autism. This type of research consistently positions autism as something to be feared, presenting it as an unfortunate consequence rather than an inherent part of human diversity. When autism is framed as a risk, the underlying message is clear: autism is undesirable, a condition to be avoided or mitigated.
This “risk” narrative has far-reaching consequences, both for how autistic people are perceived and how we perceive ourselves. When society is constantly told that autism is a problem, something to be “prevented,” it creates a sense of dread around our existence. Headlines and studies that suggest our lives are the result of something gone wrong reinforce the idea that being autistic is inherently flawed. This has a direct impact on how we are treated within society, often leading to exclusion, marginalisation, and the assumption that we are less capable or valuable. These fear-driven narratives shape public perception and further entrench stigma, making it harder for autistic individuals to be seen as fully human and deserving of respect.
From the perspective of the PTMF, this constant messaging around autism as a “risk” threatens our sense of self, worth, and place in the world. When we are repeatedly told that our existence is a result of undesirable circumstances, it reinforces societal rejection and undermines our confidence in our own identity. Autistic people already face significant barriers in accessing education, employment, and healthcare, and this type of framing only adds to the psychological and social burden we carry. Instead of viewing autism as a difference to be embraced, society continues to treat it as a threat, making it all the more difficult for us to find acceptance and belonging.
Meaning: The Messages Autistic People Receive
For autistic individuals, the meaning we derive from studies like the one linking autism to pandemic conditions is often profoundly negative. According to the PTMF, meaning is how individuals make sense of the world and their experiences within it. When we, as autistics, see our existence framed as a “risk” or an unfortunate outcome of societal stress, the message we receive is clear: society views us as mistakes. The constant suggestion that autism is the result of something gone wrong creates a narrative in which our very existence is an anomaly that should have been prevented.
This relentless quest to connect autism to undesirable causes reinforces the fear of our existence. When the majority of research dollars are spent looking for ways to prevent autistic births, rather than supporting autistic people, it becomes increasingly clear that society wishes we were never born in the first place. For many autistic people, especially those navigating these messages at a young age, this leads to a deep internal conflict. We are forced to constantly justify our right to exist without the label of “defective” hanging over us. It’s not just that autism is misunderstood or stigmatised—it’s that our existence is framed as something to be avoided, reinforcing the belief that society would rather we didn’t exist at all.
This messaging takes a heavy cognitive and emotional toll on autistics. The narrative that we are burdens, mistakes, or the result of unfortunate circumstances affects how we see ourselves, especially for younger autistics who are still forming their identity. As they struggle to understand their place in a world that views their existence as a problem, it can lead to feelings of alienation, low self-worth, and isolation. The meaning we make from these studies is that our lives are seen as less valuable, and that the world is constantly trying to figure out how to prevent more people like us from being born. This is a devastating message to internalise, and it perpetuates a cycle where autistic people must fight not only for acceptance, but for the right to simply exist without being viewed as inherently flawed.
Rejection of the “Risk” Framework: The Buckland Review and Real Solutions
The stark contrast between research that frames autism as a “risk” and studies that offer real solutions for autistic individuals is glaring. Whilst articles like the one on pandemic-born children focus on whether autism is linked to undesirable causes, meaningful research—such as the UK’s Buckland Review—takes a completely different approach. The Buckland Review offers tangible recommendations for improving the lives of autistic people by addressing critical issues like employment, accommodation, and social support. Instead of framing autism as a condition to be feared or prevented, the Review centres on helping autistic individuals thrive in a world that often marginalises them.
Yet, research that seeks to genuinely support autistic people is frequently underfunded or ignored. Autism research dollars are disproportionately spent on finding causes, treatments, or methods of prevention rather than on improving the quality of life for autistics who are already here. This imbalance in research priorities reflects society’s desire to control autism, to “fix” or eliminate it before it even manifests. It suggests that resources are better spent figuring out how to prevent autistic people from being born, rather than ensuring that those of us who are born can lead fulfilling lives. The Buckland Review provides a roadmap for this, offering solutions that would have immediate and lasting impacts on autistic individuals. Yet, these recommendations remain sidelined, whilst speculative studies on causation continue to receive funding.
From the perspective of the PTMF, this focus on ‘preventing autism’ rather than supporting autistic people reveals the neuro-majority’s desire to maintain control over what it means to be “normal” and who is allowed to thrive. The neuro-majority’s power rests in their ability to dictate research priorities and, by extension, societal attitudes towards autism. By continuously funding studies that pathologise autism, they prevent real progress from being made in creating a more inclusive world. This begs the question: when will the US, Canada, and other countries follow in the footsteps of the Buckland Review and invest in research that actually improves the lives of autistic people? The need for such a shift in focus is urgent, yet it remains overlooked in favour of studies that ultimately seek to erase us, rather than support us.
Final thoughts …
The real risk isn't autism itself; it’s the systemic neglect of autistic people that continues to persist. Studies like the one on pandemic-born children don’t reflect a genuine desire to support autistic individuals but rather the neuro-majority’s fear of difference. The constant quest to link autism to external threats only reinforces the narrative that our existence is a problem to be solved, rather than a life to be supported. Instead of focusing on causes or preventive measures, research priorities must shift toward helping autistic people thrive—by addressing real-world issues like employment, accommodation, and access to meaningful support systems.
It’s time for change. We need to invest in solutions that improve the lives of autistic individuals already living in this world, not ones that seek to prevent us from being born. As the PTMF reminds us, the meaning we make from these studies is that we’re not seen as worthy of support, only as risks to be avoided. We deserve better. I invite researchers to take a look at LinkedIn, where countless autistic adults struggle to find meaningful work that can support their quest for independent living. This is the real crisis—one that demands attention and funding, rather than another study on how to prevent our existence.