Mental Health Professionals: What Autistic Clients Want You to Know

26/08/2025

Let's Talk About Bi-Communication (And Why Your Therapy Training Might Need An Update)

Mental health professionals - this one's for you.

Ever had an autistic client who seems "resistant" or "non-responsive" in sessions? Before you reach for your intervention toolkit, let's chat about something called bi-communication and why that "difficult" client might actually be trying to tell you something important.

What The Heck Is Bi-Communication?

Simple: communication happens between people, not within them. When things go pear-shaped in session, it's not just about your client's "deficits" it's about how two different neuro types are trying to connect.

Think of it like this: You're speaking iPhone, they're speaking Android. Both works perfectly fine, but they need a translator app to sync up properly.

That autistic client who:

Takes ages to answer your questions? They might be processing at a different speed

Doesn't make eye contact? Could be listening better without it

Goes off on tangents about their special interest. They're actually trying to connect with you through what matters to them

Seems "flat" or unemotional? Could be alexithymia where they might be feeling everything but can't name it.

These aren't problems to fix. They're communication styles to understand and work with.

So How Do We Actually Engage Differently?

Meet Them Where They Are:

If they process slowly, slow down your pace
If eye contact is uncomfortable, look slightly to the side
If they stim during session, see it as self-regulation (not distraction)
If they communicate better through writing, hand them a pen

Check Your Own Assumptions:

"Good therapy" doesn't have to look like neurotypical therapy
Silence isn't resistance - it might be processing time
Direct communication isn't rude - it's efficient and honest
Their "obsessions" might be the key to building rapport

Build Bridges, End Barriers:

Ask "How do you communicate best?" instead of assuming
Offer multiple ways to express themselves (talking, writing, drawing, moving)
Let them teach you about their interests, it's relationship building gold
Adjust your therapy room environment (lighting, noise, seating options)

The Reality Check

Traditional therapy training teaches us to work on people. Neurodiversity-affirming practice means working with them. It's collaborative, not corrective.
Your autistic clients aren't broken versions of neurotypical people. They're autistic people who deserve therapy that actually works for their brains, not against them.

Working With Kids & Teens? Get The Intel First

When your client is under 18, you need to become a bit of a detective. But here's the twist, don't just ask the adults in the room.

Who to ask (and in what order):

The young person themselves. Start here! They're the expert on their own experience
Parents/caregivers. But ask about what works at home, not what's "wrong"
Teachers/support workers. Focus on successful strategies, not behavior reports
Previous therapists. What actually helped vs. what was just documented

What information actually matters:

How do they communicate when they're relaxed and happy?
What environments help them focus vs. shut down?
What topics get them engaged and talking?
How do they show distress (might not look like crying)?
What sensory stuff helps or hinders communication?
When do they communicate best, time of day, activity, setting?

Red flag questions to avoid:

"What are their problem behaviors?"
"How can we make them more compliant?"
"What's wrong with their communication?"

Instead try: "Tell me about a time communication went really well" or "What helps them feel most understood?"

Remember: Kids and teens are still figuring out their own communication style. Your job isn't to fix it - it's to help them understand it and advocate for what they need.

Bottom Line
Bi-communication means taking responsibility for 50% of every interaction. If communication isn't working, look at the system, not just the individual. Sometimes the most therapeutic thing you can do is change how you show up, not how they do.

What communication adaptations have you discovered work best with your autistic clients? And parents/teachers - what gems have you learned about what works? Share your wins in the comments - we're all learning here! 👇

23/08/2025

The Gatekeeping Problem: When Communities Eat Their Own

I've worked in advocacy spaces for twenty five years. First in domestic violence services, and the last 12 years in neurodivergent communities. What I've learned is deeply unsettling: some of the most toxic, exclusionary behavior doesn't come from outside opponents, it comes from within our own movements.

The DV Sector: A Cautionary Tale

During my time coordinating Queensland's largest funded men's behaviour change program, I witnessed something that should have been impossible. A sector dedicated to ending power, control, and abuse was itself riddled with workplace bullying and power struggles.

Workers would attack colleagues who had different, but equally qualified, researched, evidence-based approaches to getting positive outcomes. The irony was staggering. People who spent their days teaching about respectful relationships were engaging in professional character assassination against anyone who dared to have a different methodology.

The breaking point came when I was invited to speak at a university research meeting. I was there specifically because of my expertise and experience. Yet I was literally spat on by another worker who disagreed with my approach.

That's when I realized something crucial: when communities become more invested in ideological purity than in achieving their stated goals, they become dangerous places for their own members.

Welcome to Neurodivergent Gatekeeping

Fast forward to my involvement in neurodivergent communities, and I'm seeing the same toxic patterns emerge.

Recently, I offered some professional insights based on my lived experience as someone who is AuDHD, combined with my qualifications in neurodiversity work. The response? A masterclass in passive-aggressive gatekeeping.

It started with the classic qualifier: *"Tone: Gentle and Kind"* - which, let's be honest, is the online equivalent of "no offense, but..." What followed was anything but gentle:

*"It's important to have a solid understanding of the basics before offering training. It's also important that training in this area comes from those with lived experience."*

The assumption was clear: I must be neurotypical, therefore unqualified to speak.

When I clarified that I'm AuDHD with relevant qualifications and experience, did that change the tone? Of course not:

*"I'm attempting to be helpful here because you seem to be moving in a helpful direction but incorrect language use flags ND-Lite to those of us immersed in the space."*

Oh darling, you are trying to be everything apart from helpful.

The Hierarchy of Authenticity

What's happening here is the creation of an authenticity hierarchy. There are the "real" advocates (those who use the right language, hold the approved opinions, and never question the orthodoxy) and everyone else who gets labeled as "ND-Lite" or worse.

This gatekeeping serves several functions:
- It creates in-groups and out-groups
- It silences different perspectives
- It maintains power structures within the community
- It drives away people who might contribute valuable insights

But most insidiously, it replicates the very exclusionary practices these communities claim to fight against.

The Fear Behind the Gatekeeping

I think much of this behavior is fear-driven. When you've fought hard for recognition, acceptance, and resources, any deviation from the approved narrative feels threatening. There's a scarcity mentality that says: "If we're not all saying exactly the same thing, we'll lose credibility."

But here's the problem with that logic: real movements are strengthened by diversity of thought and approach. When we demand lockstep conformity, we create brittle, fragile advocacy that can't withstand scrutiny or adapt to new information.

The "With Us or Against Us" Trap

I know we autistic people are well-known for our black-and-white thinking. But the "you're either with us or against us" mentality isn't just unhelpful, it's actively harmful to our cause.

When we can't tolerate respectful disagreement within our own ranks, we:
- Lose valuable perspectives
- Drive away potential allies
- Create echo chambers that become disconnected from reality
- Model the same exclusionary behavior we criticize in others

Questions Worth Asking

Why are people so threatened by respectful inquiry and difference of opinion?

Why is the default assumption that someone with different language or approaches is "obviously ignorant and should go away"?

What are we so afraid of losing that we can't engage in good-faith dialogue with people who share our basic goals?

The Cost of Eating Our Own

Every time we attack someone within our community for having a slightly different approach, we:
- Lose expertise and experience
- Demonstrate that we're not actually interested in diversity and inclusion
- Replicate harmful power dynamics
- Weaken our overall movement

The DV sector's infighting didn't make services better for women escaping violence or men who are wanting to change. The neurodivergent community's gatekeeping won't make life better for neurodivergent people.

A Different Way Forward

What if instead of immediately attacking different perspectives, we got curious about them?

What if we assumed that people with lived experience and relevant qualifications might have something valuable to offer, even if their language or approach differs from ours?

What if we recognized that movements are strengthened by intellectual diversity, not weakened by it?

What if we spent less energy policing each other and more energy actually advocating for the changes we want to see?

The Real Enemy

The real threat to neurodivergent people isn't someone who says "person with autism" instead of "autistic person." It's not someone who brings different professional expertise to advocacy work.

The real threats are:
- Systemic discrimination
- Lack of appropriate services and supports
- Employment barriers
- Educational exclusion
- Social stigma

These are the battles worth fighting. These are the hills worth dying on.

Moving Beyond Gatekeeping

Every community needs standards and boundaries. But there's a difference between maintaining quality and creating exclusive clubs that prioritize ideological purity over real-world impact.

If we want acceptance and inclusion from the broader world, maybe we should start by practicing it within our own communities.

Maybe we should value expertise wherever it comes from, celebrate different approaches to shared goals, and save our fighting energy for the people who actually oppose our rights and dignity.

Maybe we should remember that our strength lies not in our uniformity, but in our collective commitment to making life better for neurodivergent people.

And maybe, just maybe, we should stop eating our own.

Have you experienced gatekeeping in advocacy communities? How do we balance maintaining standards with staying open to different perspectives? I'd love to hear your thoughts, and yes, different respectful viewpoints are welcome here, as is genuine curiosity.

22/08/2025

How do you show up for your clients? 🤔

Let's talk about something crucial, that moment when you're sitting across from a new client whose care plan lists depression, anxiety, loneliness, sleep issues, or eating concerns.

But what if there's more to the story?

With so many people (especially women) going undiagnosed or misdiagnosed, how are we creating space for broader conversations about neurodivergence?

I'm not talking about armchair diagnosing, absolutely not. I'm talking about showing up with genuine curiosity about their lived experience.

Some questions I've been reflecting on:

How do I explore what "doing life" actually feels like for this person?
What am I noticing beyond what's written on the care plan?
How can I create safety for clients to share experiences they might not even have words for yet?

The reality is assumptions are not just poor practice; they can be so harmful. Even those of us deeply immersed in this work can fall into this trap.
So how do we stay curious? How do we hold space for the possibility that what we're seeing might be the tip of the iceberg?

I'd love to hear from fellow clinicians:

What does your exploration process look like? How do you balance professional boundaries with genuine curiosity about your client's neurotype?

Let's support each other in doing this work with the depth and nuance our clients deserve.

21/08/2025