Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s sweeping claim that autistic people will “never” achieve basic life milestones has exposed how broken our understanding of the autism spectrum really is.
At a Glance
- RFK Jr. sparked outrage by claiming autistic people cannot hold jobs, use toilets independently, or form relationships
- The controversy highlights how the current autism spectrum classification is too broad to be meaningful
- Many experts advocate returning to more specific diagnostic terms rather than lumping diverse conditions under one label
- Studies show that disclosure of autism diagnosis can actually encourage supportive environments
- Parents of severely affected children argue that functioning labels remain important for addressing vastly different support needs
RFK Jr.’s Foot-in-Mouth Moment Exposes a Real Problem
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. set off a firestorm last week with his sweeping proclamation about autistic individuals. According to Kennedy, people with autism “will never pay taxes, they’ll never hold a job, they’ll never play baseball, they’ll never write a poem, they’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted.” The backlash was swift and fierce, with countless examples of successful autistic individuals proving his blanket statement absurdly wrong. But beneath this controversy lies a genuine issue that deserves attention: our current autism classification system is fundamentally flawed.
As The Federalist recounted, “Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. raised a ruckus last week when he proclaimed that autistic people ‘will never pay taxes, they’ll never hold a job, they’ll never play baseball, they’ll never write a poem, they’ll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted’.”
To be fair to Kennedy, his ham-fisted statement does highlight the absurdity of using a single term – “autism” – to describe conditions with wildly different manifestations and outcomes. When the DSM-5 eliminated Asperger’s syndrome and other distinct diagnoses in 2013, lumping everything under “Autism Spectrum Disorder” with severity levels 1-3, they created massive confusion. The result? A term so broad that it’s essentially meaningless, like describing both a paper cut and terminal cancer simply as “medical conditions.”
I asked Grok3 why do people refuse to acknowledge profound autism.
People may hesitate to acknowledge profound autism due to a mix of social, psychological, and cultural factors. The term "profound autism" refers to individuals with significant intellectual and communication…
— Age of Autism (@AgeofAutism) April 20, 2025
The Great Autism Classification Disaster
Remember when Asperger’s was a distinct diagnosis? Those were clearer days for discussing different conditions. The psychiatric establishment has since removed this distinction, likely influenced by Hans Asperger’s troubling Nazi connections. Now, we’re stuck with vague “level 1-3” classifications that confuse everyone outside the clinical world.
Imagine if all cancers were grouped this way: “You have level 1 cancer, while your neighbor has level 3.” It sounds absurd, yet this is how we talk about autism now. The push to unify everything under a single spectrum has created confusion, forcing us to explain functioning levels that can mean different things to different people.
Parents on the Front Lines Know Better
While debates about labeling theory and stigma continue, parents of severely affected children recognize the need for clear distinctions. One autistic adult with a level 3 autistic child notes, “He requires 24/7 care while I can live independently,” highlighting the differences between high-functioning individuals and those needing lifelong care.
Interestingly, research shows that disclosing an autism diagnosis can foster supportive environments. A study published in ScienceDirect found that university students were more open to peers identified as having autism, indicating that specific labels can enhance understanding instead of reinforcing stigma, but only when they reflect a person’s true abilities and challenges.
Criticism of over-generalizations like Kennedy’s is warranted, but we should focus on restoring precise diagnostic language to reflect the diversity within the autism community. This will help address individual needs more effectively and move past conversations that misinterpret a single label for varied experiences.
