“Females are not autistic enough”: Aston University academic hosts talk on new book exploring female autism

May 21, 2025

4 min

Gina Rippon


Professor Gina Rippon signs a copy of The Lost Girls of Autism for talk attendee Dr Georgie Agar


  • Professor Gina Rippon’s new book, The Lost Girls of Autism, investigates why autism was thought to be a male condition for so long
  • She gave a public talk at Aston University on 6 May 2025 exploring the central themes of the book
  • Women and girls with autism have long been overlooked as they are better at masking and camouflaging so ‘fail’ standard tests.


Autism in women and girls has been overlooked for decades, and Gina Rippon, professor emeritus of cognitive neuroimaging at Aston University Institute of Health and Neurodevelopment (IHN), has given a talk about her new book on the topic at Aston University.


The book, The Lost Girls of Autism, was released on 3 April 2025, coinciding with Autism Acceptance Month, with the subtitle ‘How Science Failed Autistic Women and the New Research that’s Changing the Story’.


Autism is characterised by a number of now well-known traits, including social awkwardness, extreme obsessions, and unusual movements and coping mechanisms known as ‘stimming’. It was (allegedly) first described in the 1940s separately by Austrian psychiatrists Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger. Originally identified as a rare developmental condition, since the 1980s, there has been an 800% increase in diagnoses, leading to concerns about an ‘autism epidemic’. There is a strong and enduring belief that it is a condition much more prevalent in males.


Professor Rippon described her research as “looking at how brains get to be different and what that means for the owners of those brains”. This includes looking at the functions of different areas of the brain using scanners.


During research into a number of brain conditions and diseases with obvious differences between the sexes, including how the disease progresses, such as Alzheimer’s in women, or prevalence in one particular sex, such as Parkinson’s in men, Professor Rippon also became interested in autism, also assumed to be largely a condition in males. However, during a research review, she found that many autism studies made no reference to sex differences. Amalgamated data from autism studies found that 80% of participants were male, and 25% of testing centres only tested males with autism. By only looking at males, Professor Rippon explained, the notion that autism is a male disorder became self-fulfilling.


This does not just refer to scientific research. Even now, boys are ten times more likely to be referred for assessment for autism and twice as likely to be diagnosed than girls, even when they have exactly the same traits. 80% of autistic females have received multiple wrong diagnoses, including borderline personality disorder, social anxiety or obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). But why? The reason is the unchallenged belief that ‘autism is a “boy” thing’ causing a male spotlight problem in all aspects of the autism story. It could also be that females with autism express the condition differently.


Professor Rippon said:


“This took me back to [my previous book] The Gendered Brain when I was looking at the very clear view of what males should be like and what females should be like. If you look at the autistic population you have this clear idea that males are like this, but females, er, not so much? Females have poor social skills, but not as poor, or obsessive interests, but not as obsessive, so the trouble with females, is that they are not autistic enough.”


The gold standard tests for autism are the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and the Autism Diagnostic Interview (ADI) tests. Professor Rippon believes these are heavily biased towards how the condition manifests itself in males, such as social awkwardness or extreme obsessions. For example, parents may well be asked if their son has an unusual interest in weather patterns or train timetables, but they are not asked if their daughter has an unusual interest in Barbie dolls, because dolls are seen as socially acceptable.


Research has shown that females with autism are more likely to ‘camouflage’ their symptoms, watching how ‘normal people’ behave, even practising social interactions, so they appear more normal. They are also more likely to ‘mask’ symptoms behind a persona, such as the ‘class clown’ or ‘star athlete’, in an effort to fit in. Autistic females describe this behaviour as a ‘survival strategy’ to avoid being spotted as different.


It is also the case that girls are more likely to have sensory processing problems, such as aversion to strong smells, which can be enough to affect their day-to-day lives. This has only recently been added to the diagnostic criteria for autism. If the camouflaging or masking collapses, rates of other conditions such as disordered eating or anorexia, self-harm and gender dysphoria are disproportionately high, and it is these which will become identified as the underlying difficulty, rather than autism itself.


Professor Rippon said:


“The next stage should be asking why this group of individuals persists in hiding their autism, especially when autism has been defined as a lack of interest in social connection. There’s what I call the ‘born to be mild’ effect, where little girls are trained to socialise more, to behave, not to make a fuss, if you feel uncomfortable, don’t tell anyone else about it. There’s a lovely comment from one late-diagnosed female who rues the fact that she was so well behaved and wishes that she had just burned more cars so that someone would have spotted her carefully camouflaged distress!”


The final slide in the presentation covered what Professor Rippon called “an ironic footnote”. While Leo Kanner and Hans Asperger are described as the fathers of autism, writing in the 1940s, it was in fact a Soviet female psychiatrist, Grunya Sukhareva, writing in the 1920s, who first described autism, even clearly examining the differences in the condition between boys and girls. Why her research was ignored for so long is unclear, but the male spotlight problem may well have been avoided.


For more information about The Lost Girls of Autism, visit https://www.panmacmillan.com/authors/gina-rippon/the-lost-girls-of-autism/9781035011629.

Connect with:
Gina Rippon

Gina Rippon

Professor Emeritus of Cognitive Neuroimaging

Professor Rippon uses brain-imaging techniques to study sex/gender issues in neurotypical and autistic populations.

Cognitive NeuroimagingElectroencephalographyMagnetoencephalographyPsychophysiologyNeuroscience
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Aston University

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease featured image

3 min

Major trial shows increasing bone density fails to cut fracture risk in brittle bone disease

An international clinical trial involving Aston University researchers has challenged long held assumptions about how brittle bone disease is treated in adults, after finding that substantially increasing bone density did not reduce the risk of fractures. The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), examined whether a two stage treatment using the bone building drug teriparatide followed by the bone preserving drug zoledronic acid could reduce fractures in adults with osteogenesis imperfecta, often referred to as brittle bone disease, a rare genetic condition that causes bones to break easily throughout life. Researchers followed 349 adults treated at 27 specialist centres across the UK and Europe. While the treatment led to clear increases in bone density in the spine and hip, fracture rates were no lower than among patients receiving standard care, suggesting that bone quality may matter more than bone density alone in preventing fractures in people with the condition. The findings underline a key distinction between brittle bone disease and more common bone conditions such as osteoporosis, where increasing bone density is known to reduce fracture risk. In osteogenesis imperfecta, the study suggests that bones can become denser without becoming less likely to break, indicating that the underlying quality and structure of bone tissue may play a greater role in fracture risk than density alone. Dr Zaki Hassan Smith, an endocrinologist at Aston Medical School who contributed to the research, said: “This study shows that in osteogenesis imperfecta, simply increasing bone density doesn’t necessarily translate into fewer fractures. That’s important, because it tells us that the disease is more complex than what we see on a scan. The findings help shift the focus towards understanding bone quality and how bones behave in real life, which is essential if we are to develop more effective treatments that genuinely reduce harm for patients.” Osteogenesis imperfecta is a genetic condition that affects collagen, leaving bones fragile and prone to fracture throughout life. There is currently no licensed treatment specifically approved to prevent fractures in adults with the condition, and patients often experience repeated fractures, chronic pain and long term disability. The trial tested a sequential treatment strategy commonly used in osteoporosis, where a bone building drug is followed by a treatment designed to preserve gains in bone strength. Although this approach successfully increased bone density in people with osteogenesis imperfecta, it did not reduce fracture rates, suggesting that treatment strategies effective in osteoporosis may not directly translate to rare bone diseases. Researchers did observe improvements in some quality of life measures among participants receiving the treatment, including reduced pain interference and improved mobility. However, fracture prevention remained unchanged, reinforcing the need for new approaches that target the fundamental properties of bone in osteogenesis imperfecta rather than density alone. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh and funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Aston University contributed clinical and academic expertise through Aston Medical School as part of the large international collaboration, which involved specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The study was led by the University of Edinburgh, with Aston University contributing clinical and academic expertise as part of a wider international collaboration involving multiple specialist centres across the UK and Europe. The research was funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Researchers say the findings provide important guidance for future research, helping to steer efforts towards treatments that focus on bone quality, strength and resilience in everyday life. They also highlight the value of large scale clinical trials in rare diseases, where learning what does not reduce harm is an essential step towards better care. The paper, Teriparatide Plus Zoledronic Acid for Osteogenesis Imperfecta, is published in JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2026.6889

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink featured image

3 min

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit featured image

2 min

Aston University economists say Prime Minister can reduce UK trade vulnerability with China visit

Greenland episode exposed UK’s lack of effective response to economic coercion from allies Research shows tariff retaliation would have cost the average UK household up to £324 per year Economists say China visit is “portfolio risk management” – diversification reduces vulnerability. The Prime Minister’s visit to China – the first by a British PM since 2018 – is an opportunity to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to economic coercion, according to new research from Aston University. A policy paper from Aston Business School’s Centre for Business Prosperity analyses the January 2026 Greenland tariff episode, when President Trump threatened and then withdrew tariffs on eight European countries. The researchers found that the UK had no good options: retaliation would have made Britain worse off, while absorbing the tariffs left Europe without credible deterrence. Director of the centre for business prosperity, Professor Jun Du, said: “The Greenland episode was a wake-up call. When your principal security ally threatens economic coercion, the old assumptions about who is safe and who is dangerous no longer hold. “The PM’s China visit should be framed as portfolio risk management – building diversified trading relationships that reduce the UK’s exposure to any single partner. Just as investors don’t put all their money in one stock, countries shouldn’t put all their trade into one basket. A UK with multiple strong partnerships is harder to pressure, whether the pressure comes from Washington or Beijing.” The research found that coordinated UK–EU tariff retaliation would have cost British households up to £324 per year – the worst outcome modelled. But the authors argue that Europe has untapped leverage elsewhere: the US runs a €148 billion annual services surplus with the EU, and mutual investment exceeds €5.3 trillion. Associate professor of economics and co-author, Dr Oleksandr Shepotylo, said: “Tariff retaliation fails because it hurts consumers and distorts the economy – the retaliator suffers similarly to the target. But Europe has cards it isn’t playing. Services, investment screening, and regulatory access are pressure points where Europe can respond effectively.” UK exports to China fell by 10.4% in the year to Q2 2025, with goods exports down 23.1% – the sharpest decline among major trading partners. The researchers argue that this closes off the UK’s largest alternative market at precisely the moment US reliability is in question. The paper identifies three priorities for UK policy: Recognise the permanent incentives behind US tariffs. US tariff revenue hit $264 billion in 2025. Trade negotiations alone cannot resolve revenue-driven policy. Build UK–EU coordination on non-tariff instruments. Services, investment, procurement, and regulation offer leverage that tariffs do not. Treat China engagement as portfolio risk management. Concentration in any single market creates vulnerability. Diversification is not about picking sides – it’s about resilience. Professor Du added: “The question for the Prime Minister is whether to use this breathing space to build resilience – or wait for the next Greenland.” To read the policy paper in full, click on this link:

View all posts