- Share via
I always knew I was different, long before I knew I was autistic. As a child, I was relentlessly curious, fascinated by patterns and drawn to mathematics with its abstract rules and perfect logic. Rules gave me structure, and I treated them as absolute. Math was predictable; people were another story. They were like a puzzle that I couldn’t solve.
I struggled to connect with so-called normal children but didn’t know why. My interests were different from theirs, as was my sarcastic sense of humor. Eventually, I made friends with the other kids who were too quirky to be cool. When my family moved twice during my childhood in small-town Colorado, these disruptions made it harder to adapt. New environments brought new challenges, and new bullies. I often felt like I was the butt of a joke but never knew the punchline. I grew disengaged from school, even as I excelled academically.
I finally learned I was autistic in my 30s. At the height of the pandemic, I discovered a first-hand account from autistic mathematician Michael Ortiz. Reading it felt like looking in a mirror. This launched me into self-discovery and, ultimately, a formal diagnosis. Understanding my autistic brain reframed everything; my childhood suddenly made sense. I only wish I’d known decades earlier.
I had already learned to navigate the world the hard way. Social cues never came naturally, and empathy for me was grounded in logic rather than instinct. Rejection taught me social expectations. Cruelty taught me kindness. Misunderstandings taught me clearer communication. I had built a family, a community of friends and a career as a mathematics professor. As a quirky kid from the middle of nowhere, raised by parents who never went to college, I was checking the societally expected boxes for success.
Despite what some people say, autism is not a tragedy. Many autistic people lead perfectly normal — even exceptionally productive — lives.
Now, autism is back in the national spotlight, reviving long-debunked myths about vaccines and Tylenol. But it isn’t the misinformation that troubles me the most. It’s hearing people talk about autistic lives without including us. It’s the subtext that the world would be better off without autistic people in it. It’s a conversation that wants to erase disabled people like me.
History warns us about walking down this path. The eugenics movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries branded disabled people, immigrants and queer folks as a “menace to the future,” and claimed that progress and prosperity demanded the elimination of these so-called burdens to society. The result was forced sterilizations, institutionalization and physical abuse. This was a playbook that was used across the world, including in the U.S., Canada, Sweden, Japan and throughout Nazi Germany. We should be horrified by this chain of logic, and we should never repeat these mistakes of the past.
Unfortunately, the disability community knows this pattern far too well. Deaf people, too, have been treated as a problem to be solved, whether through eugenicist policies or medical advancements. Shallow talk about medical innovations isn’t a matter of progress; it is the erasure of a diverse group of people with their own art, culture and language. Fortunately, the community has pushed back and given us the powerful idea of “deaf gain” — insisting that difference is not only valid but valuable.
I see it in my own life. Disability comes with challenges, but it also produces strengths. My autistic traits — persistence, attention to detail and comfort with structure — also help me thrive in academia. Good science demands relentless focus and a willingness to look for meaning where others won’t.
Some of history’s greatest mathematicians showed similar traits. Isaac Newton, who gave us calculus and gravity, lived rigidly according to his routines. He famously stuck a needle in his own eye to study the effect of pressure on his vision. He had few friends, no lover, and feuded bitterly with peers. He dedicated his life to the pursuit of knowledge, and the world was forever changed because of it. While he was isolated and misunderstood during his time, his behaviors fit what many behavioral scientists now recognize as autism. He didn’t overcome his neurodivergence; it was precisely what made him one of history’s greatest thinkers.
Many brilliant mathematicians exhibited the same obsessive focus, unusual routines and social struggles. This includes Kurt Godel, one of the greatest logicians, and Alan Turing, the father of computer science. Whether they would meet today’s diagnostic criteria misses the point. The world benefits when people think differently, and difference always brings both challenges and gifts. People like them have improved the world for all of us, even if we don’t see it.
There isn’t a singular autistic life experience. And to be clear, while autistic people navigate the social world differently from others, it doesn’t mean we are incapable of forming meaningful social relationships or of being extroverted or even charming to others. Many famous entertainers — Dan Aykroyd, Anthony Hopkins and Sia — have been open about their own experiences as autistic people. The world is a better place with autistic people in it.
When people talk about eliminating autism, what they are really debating is whether people like me should exist. But difference is not a defect. We belong here.
Daniel L. Reinholz is a professor of mathematics and statistics at San Diego State University and the author of “Equity Learning Communities.”
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The author presents autism not as a tragedy but as a form of neurodivergence that comes with both challenges and distinctive strengths, arguing that autistic traits like persistence, attention to detail, and comfort with structure can be assets in academic and professional settings. The article emphasizes that many autistic people lead productive and meaningful lives, forming deep social relationships and making significant contributions to their fields.
Contemporary discussions about eliminating autism are framed as a form of erasure that questions whether neurodivergent people should exist at all, echoing dangerous historical patterns. The author draws parallels to eugenics movements of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which branded disabled people as burdens to society and led to forced sterilizations, institutionalization, and abuse across the United States, Canada, Sweden, Japan, and Nazi Germany.
Historical figures in mathematics and science, including Isaac Newton, Kurt Gödel, and Alan Turing, exhibited traits now recognized as autistic, and their neurodivergence was integral to rather than separate from their groundbreaking contributions. The article argues that these thinkers didn’t succeed despite their differences but precisely because of how their minds worked differently, demonstrating that humanity benefits when people think in diverse ways.
The problematic nature of excluding autistic voices from conversations about autism itself reflects broader patterns of marginalization. Drawing on the Deaf community’s concept of “deaf gain,” which reframes difference as valuable rather than deficient, the article insists that neurodivergent perspectives and cultures deserve recognition and celebration rather than elimination.
Different views on the topic
Research in STEM education reveals that current accommodations systems place substantial burdens on disabled students themselves, who must navigate complex institutional processes to secure support while often facing stigma that discourages disclosure of their disabilities[2]. This institutional approach, grounded in a medical model that focuses on individual deficits rather than structural barriers, may inadequately serve students who don’t know what accommodations exist, don’t identify as disabled, or lack resources for self-advocacy, potentially exacerbating inequities within the disability community itself[1][2].
Within disability studies and advocacy communities, there are ongoing debates about language preferences, with person-first language (such as “person with autism”) widely adopted in institutional contexts to emphasize personhood separate from disability, particularly for individuals with medical diagnoses[2]. This contrasts with identity-first language preferred by many cultural disability communities who view their identity as embedded within disability culture, reflecting different conceptualizations of how disability relates to individual identity.
Academic research emphasizes that even well-intentioned educational reforms, such as active learning techniques in STEM, can create new accessibility challenges without careful attention to disability justice, as the complexities of social interactions in small groups may further marginalize students who already faced barriers in traditional lecture formats[1][2]. Studies document that ableism functions as a structural and systemic issue requiring fundamental reimagining of institutional practices, rather than simply providing individual accommodations within existing systems that remain fundamentally inaccessible[1].