I think your making a very large number of questionable assumptions, and that they're making it hard for you to set reasonable tactical objectives.. An example we discussed earlier is "understanding vs acceptance".
Understanding is better, but can be difficult or impossible to achieve. Acceptance is better, and much easier to achieve (it can even be forced in many cases, like people who dislike each other working together).
We can talk more about this if you like, but FWIW I've been deliberately avoiding the "why" so far.
I'd have to check back for the details, but earlier I suspected your kids are caught by an unfortunate dynamic between you and your ex, and wondered if you'd forgotten that deep down,
kids view their home life as normal.
If that's somewhat correct:
1. In general, that can't easily be "reset" in an adult
2. I don't think have o do that to get what you
need right now
Note that the full version of the semantic content (2) is heavy going at
best. Letting go of
everything in the past is easier on
everyone.
:
:
Some comments on the words for ASD:
If you go back into the past, Autists were mostly considered to be people who couldn't take care of themselves. There used to be IQ caps on the definitions - IIRC originally "Aspies" were max IQ 80, but ok at speaking (might be wrong on the details, but the general point is correct).
For context, IQ 80 is "not smart enough to be worth recruiting" in the US army (minimum these days is 84).
Your parents generation probably still assume "Autism" = need to be in permanent care.
People generally view "Aspie" as being much less serious, and not necessarily accompanied by low IQ - now even less so (thanks Elon!
Earlier US DSMs (certainly DSM 4) didn't treat it quite that way, but they ran into some problems:
* ASD is defined by
behavioral "symptoms" (compare with Covid, where they can look for a virus. Or Psychopathy: the
potential can be usefully measured via brainscans (actual expression requires more, but the scans are useful)).
* There's a
huge amount of variation in people that are diagnosed with ASD
So the earlier "slice and dice" approach
looks better than DSM-5, but wasn't actually successful IRL.
DSM-5, went with a simpler identification process, and less slice and dice" with what they called ASD. The 1/2/3 split is pragmatic - it's based on how much care is needed (1 is little/none (so no payments from the state), 3 is a lot).
Explaining this mess to your parents generation is probably a waste of energy.
Along the way, a depressingly small number of people considered something obvious, and actually did some work (not much I think) on it:
Clearly if you can apply a name like "ASD" it's reasonable to assume that everyone in the category must have something in common.
Not in a way that can be split out into clean sub-categories though (that's what DSM-4 assumed and it didn't work well). But the existence of a larger category (ASD) implies there should be a common subset linking everything within it
That seems to have been the idea with BAP, though other sources present it as "sub-clinical versions of ASD traits, which is different. I only looked at one source for this, and it had the "may have A, may have B, ..." formulation, and "fixation on objects/interests", which isn't consistent with "common to almost everyone diagnosed with ASD" viewpoint.
Either way (or both), AFAIK it's not in the medical mainstream (it's not even on wikipedia), which means it might currently be in the hands of the "snake oil specialists". But the principle is sound, and it
doesn't seem easy to misuse/abuse.
(unlike ABA, which looks ok, and may be in some situations - but when used with ASD kids it lends itself to poor implementation, with bad results for the victims).