# data[].attributes.body
Although I do not really love the idea of labeling different groups because they can be problematic. I do agree with the author that if there were subgroups, it would help perhaps distribute funding to different programs that support all people who are diagnosed with ASD. Like other people said, no group should be prioritized over other and all groups should be advocated for equally.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the author when they stated "if the label profound autism leads to a better life outcome for this group, I’m all for it". If there is a group that is being left out of certain opportunities and access support, I think it could be beneficial to label these individuals due to their situations. However, I believe labels are very personal and if the autistic community does not prefer to be split into subdivisions, then those individuals should be the ones who have the final say. If these individuals are not physically capable of speaking for themselves on the topic then reaching out to other autistic individuals to advocate for them could be a possibility.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought that it was particularly interesting to hear from a person that agrees that perhaps 'profound autism' may be useful to term to help get specialized services to those who may suffer to greater or less degrees. While I agree that using high and low functioning terms may be problematic, I agree that there is a need to begin distinguishing between groups (though perhaps nonspecific). If we do the same thing for depression and anxiety, should it be a negative thing in the realm of autism as well?
-Alex B

# data[].attributes.body
I don't really love this word, however I think it is important to have potentially a classification in terms of reflecting what an Autistic person needs. Not every person's experience as Autistic is the same, so I don't think it's fine to treat everyone with Autism as if they are just under the umbrella of "Autism" in general. However, I think classifications are important in helping individuals receive medical help and support in the ways they need. I feel like there just needs to be more work and research put in to how to better classify the different experiences and needs of Autistic people, and maybe to create a system which focuses more on the individual and their specific needs versus just using more general classifications that might not reflect someone's needs as greatly.

# data[].attributes.body
The article was really interesting because it mentions how subgroups can be created within the Autism community and it was surprising to hear how people with "profound" autism are not considered to be a part of the overall ASD population. It makes me question how would these people feel about this situation and how it would impact them.

# data[].attributes.body
The main takeaway that I had from this article is that having "profound autism" as a label for all individuals with Autism who are most in need of support is unfair to the subgroups within Autism. The author wrote that these subgroups who also might need specialized help may be excluded from the support that they actually need. I agree and believe that everyone with Autism should be met with the support that they need whether or not they fall under "profoundly autistic".

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout my time reading, I thought about the phrase "if you met one person with autism, you met one person with autism." What does "profound autism" mean specifically if differences in weaknesses and strengths play out differently, especially taking into account those with savant skills? I appreciate that the author looked at both sides of subgrouping and what that can entail for autistic community.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought this article did a great job of exploring the range that exists in ASD populations. Establishing how some needs are hidden, does a great job of validating the effects of intersectionality since autism looks different for everyone. I also think that the idea of "profound"ness is through the lens of a ableist world. However I do think that it could benefit the public and autistic individuals if there was more well-known categories or classifications of autistic people. This way people can choose how to identify themselves, and establish their needs to others.

# data[].attributes.body
Robison poses such an interesting question in his last line: "What would you do to start us on a path toward better outcomes for that group"? It makes my initial reaction to the word "profound" have much more context in applied settings. ASD is not a one-size-fits-all model, it should be addressed on a basis that can offer the greatest support to its embedded subgroups.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like just with any sensitive topic this gives rise to lots of opinions! The argument that is brought into play is by members in the neurodiversity community who object to categorizing autism into so-called function levels. Defining a tiny subset of a wider group can lead to prejudice, but it can also provide the groundwork for specialized support. I understand where the different sides are coming from, but why would it be wrong to present more support to those who need it? The issue comes more with the labeling and subsetting groups, one way to combat this might be to involve the autism community in the choice? Honestly, this is kind of a tough one but I'm always to the option that can help a larger range of people with more success!

# data[].attributes.body
It was interesting to read the idea about "profound autism." I agree with the author that that term would be better to use instead of labeling autism in terms of levels of functionality because, as we've learned, autism is on a spectrum and cannot always be constrained to groups. However, "profound," although having a good intention, still seems a bit ambiguous.

# data[].attributes.body
At first I would not agree that creating subgroups for people with Autism is a good idea. However, after reading how creating the term profound Autism can help increase funding for specific individuals with greater needs due to their level of the disability, I think it would not be much of a damaging label. It is important to make sure that it is up to each person to decide if they want to use this label.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that there has become a lot of discussion in the community on whether to use subgroups or not when defining ASD. The author made a good point about funding and how it is given to the majority populations, and how this is impacting those considered to have 'profound autism'. The advocacy for a subgroup may help gain necessary resources, recognition, and support. However, I think it was important that the article highlighted that the term does not specify what areas of needs are considered 'profound' as individuals with ASD are characterized by many strengths and challenges. The removable of particular subgroups/diagnosis into Autism Spectrum Disorder has helped us capture the idea that Autism is a spectrum and labeling a subset could create further challenges for other 'groups'.

# data[].attributes.body
I definitely agree with the author that there are two sides to whether we should label a subset of the autistic community with a more specific name. I believe these arguments and debates are necessary to see what is beneficial to autistic people and advocate for their rights. Ultimately, we want to create a more inclusive and accommodating environment, even though the way we do it may be divisive in the short term .

# data[].attributes.body
It was very interesting to read how there can be subgroups because of profound autism. However there is some opposition to subgroups which is totally understandable, but there are some benefits. I think the benefits out weigh the cons, but again I do not know much about ASD.

# data[].attributes.body
I liked how the author of the article highlighted the pros and cons of creating a new subgroup within ASD; in doing so it made the article more informative and less opinion-based. I personally am all in favor of people getting the treatment they need, but am hesitant in subscribing to the idea that this division will be the best option to accomplish that goal.

# data[].attributes.headline
I do not believe that there should be subgroups within the spectrum because it can be harmful to individuals who identify with autism. It could create conversations amongst the community pertaining to ideas such as "Well I am 'more' autistic" or "I have it worse or better  because I am 'profound'". This could become damaging to self esteem especially. However, I do agree with the author that the spectrum could sometimes overlook individual challenges that make access and services harder for some autistic individuals. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I do not believe that there should be subgroups within the spectrum because it can be harmful to individuals who identify with autism. It could create conversations amongst the community pertaining to ideas such as "Well I am 'more' autistic" or "I have it worse or better  because I am 'profound'". This could become damaging to self esteem especially. However, I do agree with the author that the spectrum could sometimes overlook individual challenges that make access and services harder for some autistic individuals. 

# data[].attributes.body
Discussion 1B

# data[].attributes.headline
Dis 1B - I like how the article mentions that autism does not come and go. A lot of the times I think people don't understand that people live with ASD throughout their everyday life and its not something that you can just leave home or use it for ones convenience.  Furthermore I think creating subgroups is contextual, like the author mentions there is pro's and cons to it.

# data[].attributes.subject
Dis 1B - I like how the article mentions that autism does not come and go. A lot of the times I think people don't understand that people live with ASD throughout their everyday life and its not something that you can just leave home or use it for ones convenience.  Furthermore I think creating subgroups is contextual, like the author mentions there is pro's and cons to it.

# data[].attributes.body
The article, in the simplest form, was an overview of how Autism is addressed and whether or not there are subgroups to label after so. I really liked that Robison not only explained his argument but let us, the readers, see the other side of the argument as well.

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with the article that labeling subgroups may lead to discrimination of those who are considered "profoundly" autistic, however This made me wonder if autistic individuals who are not considered profound will be seen differently by society?

# data[].attributes.body
I thought that the article highlighted a very interesting way to characterize people with 'profound' autism. Rather than trying to say that certain skills are more valuable/necessary than other (such as language), the author took a holistic approach to assess whether someone has 'profound' autism. I really appreciated the angle that the author took because with such a complex disorder, like autism, we can't try to form a hierarchy in terms of skills, especially since many autistic individuals have savant skills which make it very difficult to rank.

# data[].attributes.body
I appreciate how Robison considers both sides of the argument and favored whatever best supports the autistic community. I also appreciate his realism that these labels affect funding and the allocation of resources.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not think there should be subgroups. The article mentions that there are many autistic people who are unable to work and be self-supported, yet have no apparent disability. I also do not think it is fair that students who are profoundly autistic are set apart from the overall ASD population. It is a bit confusing since profoundly autistic people are not the only ones who need extra support.

# data[].attributes.body
Profound autistic people are the minorities of a minority group. It's my first time to know this term, and they may need more positive attention and help.

# data[].attributes.body
I like how this article did not focus on whether which one was right or wrong. It validated both sides. Labels could cause a lot of division among the autism community, but like the author said it could potentially spark a conversation for more specialized support for specific people! I still do not think I like the label but I see how some people could see the benefits of it.

# data[].attributes.body
This article highlights how autistic people feel with the subdivisions and how they may be more harmful than helpful. By characterizing autistic people based on their abilities does not mean they are any better or less. For instance when they mention how just because an autistic person is non-verbal does not mean they do not communicate at all (they have their own methods of communication). Hence, if autism needs to be subdivided perhaps the usage of more positive terms may be helpful, rather than so negative.

# data[].attributes.body
The desire and goal for those with autism, including those that would fall into the 'profound' category, to be independent deserves to be seriously considered. I can understand both perspectives on creating what could be construed as a divisive subgroup, but I think the article makes a great point about securing research funding. The NIH has limited funding, so creating subgroups can ensure that allocations are fairly distributed across them. If having that label can help secure research funding and higher quality resources that will meet the needs of profoundly autistic individuals, then I think it makes sense to introduce it from a research perspective

# data[].attributes.body
I thought this article had a very interesting point of view on how to address Autistic individuals and separate them. The article suggests labelling Autistic individuals into subgroups and labelling them as profound autistic individuals. Personally, I feel like the term isn't necessarily bad but it's also not the best. I think it would really depend on how the criteria for a diagnosis of profound autism would is developed in my opinion. I definitely see the author's point of view because I think they just want under supported Autistic individuals that do not always fit into Autistic labeling criteria.

# data[].attributes.body
Something that stood out to me in the article is the line "we tend to fund programs that give the greatest benefit to the largest population... [but it] excludes small subgroups with specialized needs." This makes a very strong case for why subgroups of autism could be beneficial to all members of the autistic community. With subgroups, each individual is met with the best support that is specialized for them. Not only do people with different needs get what they need, but is streamlines processes and is easier for the people who are providing support. They can focus on one specialty of support and not make individuals feel like they are receiving more or less help based on their abilities. I think that there should be multiple subgroups based on different needs and placing an emphasis on not "ranking" autistic individuals based on their abilities but just differentiating between different needs would be highly beneficial to this movement

# data[].attributes.body
The article proposed having benefits to creating labels under the umbrella of autism in order to get certain populations more help for their needs. This is really interesting since, as much as it could help, it could also hurt other individuals who are autistic. It is concerning about where the threshold will be drawn for the label of 'profound autism' since there will always be individuals who are right below the threshold or right above it who are most effected. The new label would also be determined by researchers or clinicians instead of the autistic people themselves, which could also be detrimental. I am honestly still a bit wary of having the label of 'profound autism' and would want to see where the boundaries are for the definition.

# data[].attributes.body
The author makes a good point when he discusses how most funding is given to the programs that benefit the majority of the population. If funding is given to the majority, the small subgroups are left out and this creates more division and less supports for some individuals. Introducing the Profound subgroup is conflicting to me because it means that support may be given to the Profound population and thus the rest of the autistic community may miss out.

# data[].attributes.headline
What many who do not fully understand about ASD is the very existence of these subgroups, which I'm glad to see the article mention. Its important to recognize that each subgroup must be met with the same level of concern,care, and support from education and public health sectors. While I do appreciate the need for subgroups, having too many could and does tend to create complications when it comes to determine who "deserves " which types of assistance that could be offered. 

# data[].attributes.subject
What many who do not fully understand about ASD is the very existence of these subgroups, which I'm glad to see the article mention. Its important to recognize that each subgroup must be met with the same level of concern,care, and support from education and public health sectors. While I do appreciate the need for subgroups, having too many could and does tend to create complications when it comes to determine who "deserves " which types of assistance that could be offered. 

# data[].attributes.body
I found it very interesting to read how labeling autistic people as being certain levels of autistic could be harmful. Since those on the autism spectrum vary in their needs and abilities, how can a ranking or categorizing of these people be made? Is it helpful for meeting autistics' needs to subdivide this spectrum?

# data[].attributes.body
I thought higher support needs was already being used to delineate between categories of autistic presentation?

# data[].attributes.body
I think this article presents good points for both sides. I keep thinking back to the quote “If you've met one autistic person, you've met one autistic person”. I think this is true and that autism is far more complex than a few different categories or levels. However, it is important that those with specialized needs get what they need. The needs of one autistic person can be very different than another. I am wondering if there would be a way to get people the help and support they need without making them a certain level or subgroup. Maybe on a case by case basis? I don’t think terms such as profound autism are the answer to getting support to those who are in need.

# data[].attributes.body
The point that they made was very interesting because of the outcome with labeling "profound autism." On one hand, it can help others by aiding people that have profound autism. However, this can also stray away from the whole community of people that need this aid. There's a gray area between the two, and one solution will not be the end all be all. How can we outweigh the pros and cons?

# data[].attributes.body
I thought the article was very interesting. I liked how the author, to a certain extent, acknowledged the different sides of the argument that was being made. I think that it is very difficult to determine whether there should be subgroups of autism because something like this could benefit a lot of people by getting them specialized help but at the same time there is the risk that something like this can do more harm than good.

# data[].attributes.body
The term "profound autism" attempts to bring more attention to the greater challenges faced by individuals with more severe symptoms. By highlighting these individuals, it will give more support services and help to them. However, a negative outcome could be the label associated with profound autism as it can signal to others that they are more different than just autism. I think that the idea of profound autism can help individuals with more needs, but maybe a different term could be more beneficial.

# data[].attributes.body
Overall, I do not have a preference on whether there should be a subgroup name. I can see both sides of the argument. The main argument is that is can easier for people with profound autism better support but I also feel like they do not need to be classified a profound in order for people to be providing them with better support.

# data[].attributes.body
I think in many ways this can be helpful, people with certain needs get the help that is adequate for them. However, I am wondering if this can be done even when not in subgroups ? I also think help should be provided, but I am aware of the negatives to subgroups.

# data[].attributes.body
I understand both sides of the argument in this article. However in the end I believe the most important and top priority is to provide autistic individuals with whatever necessity, care, and assistance they require to make their lives easier. Not only easier but allow them a chance to learn and eventually become independent. While this does have connotations of creating subgroups within the autistic communities and begins to differentiate who has more or less needs. The real question is do we want to value what peoples idea of the autistic community is/redefine the meaning of spectrum or do we want to provide the necessary help people deserve. Who is to see that one is 'profoundly autistic'?

# data[].attributes.body
Similar to what is mentioned in the article, I can see both sides to the argument. I understand how using a separate term might make it seem like they are dividing a certain group and putting a sort of spotlight on them. However, if using this term allows for more awareness of the needs of the population I think it can be beneficial to address what can be implemented to provide the necessary resources.

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the Psychology Today article, I feel conflicted over the use of profound autism language. The argument that it may help those Autistic individuals get the support they need and for funding to be given was very convincing. Perhaps distinguishing such individuals by their support needs rather than creating a subgroup would be beneficial. It is challenging to create a subgroup or even to distinguish individuals within the Autism spectrum as it seems there will be inevitable cutoffs or boundaries that seem arbitrary. I'm curious about what criteria goes into defining Profound Autism.

# data[].attributes.body
Because autism exists on a wide spectrum, I think the classification of smaller subgroups of autism could potentially be beneficial in terms of giving them a voice, especially in the field of research. In the end, I think if there can be more advancements made through research by adopting a new "label," maybe it should be done

# data[].attributes.body
I think it's interesting how this article sheds light on the fact that Autistic people need more positive attention in order to get more resources and funding. I feel like they should be given funding regardless of how their group is represented, since many of them need funding to live.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, I do not like the use of this term. I think that it does put a sort of boundary between those that have the capacity to live independent lives and those that do not (a main distinction the author made, though certainly not the only one). Once we get into this distinction, the understanding of what autism is and where on the spectrum one falls becomes quite muddy. I think that we are better off to focus on autism as the spectrum that it is currently understood to be. I think that if we do this and spend time and funding toward addressing ALL levels of the spectrum, overtime resources will be better for those even on the higher end.

# data[].attributes.body
This was a very interesting article. But I wondered if profound autism is used, who determines who does or does not qualify as someone with profound autism? Is it autistic people or researchers?

# data[].attributes.headline
I thought that it was a really interesting article. I personally do not think that there should be subgroups of autism and labels such as profoundly autistic. I think that family members, doctors, or people themselves should be able to reach out and get help when they personally agree upon it. It may do harm to label groups of people, when everyone has different circumstances and different needs. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I thought that it was a really interesting article. I personally do not think that there should be subgroups of autism and labels such as profoundly autistic. I think that family members, doctors, or people themselves should be able to reach out and get help when they personally agree upon it. It may do harm to label groups of people, when everyone has different circumstances and different needs. 

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the point made about how labeling subgroups might help the NIH better allocate funding to groups that need it is a really good point. In our readings it was mentioned that researchers sometimes are biased towards working with Autistic people who have higher IQs. I think in a similar way, government funding might be easily biased towards those same populations. By creating subgroups, maybe we can draw more attention to the communities that can really benefit from better programs because the NIH can no longer ignore populations that need help under the pretense that they're helping everyone.

# data[].attributes.body
I thought this article made a really interesting point in that even though labels are inherently judgemental and can lead to divides, they may be neccesary to get the attention and resources to all groups not just the majority. It makes me wonder how you weigh the outcomes -- is it perhaps better to accept the unfortuante labels to get a greater reward of resources? Or is it not worth the discriminatory divide?