I was looking to confirm a few suspicions, and got a diagnosis, celebration! To finally get an external stamp of what class one is playing in the great game of life.. The certainty reduced confusion. But after some time passed, I found that my mental models were better before I passed through and learning about from the authorities surrounding it than after. Truthfully, some things have to be experienced directly to be described. The describers looking from outside will never catch up. Harmful falsehoods will spread, primarily I find it laughingly absurd that autistic people should lack a theory of mind and that this is a "common notion". Some are realising it's bollocks, I found this paper (own submission): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39252690

But I guess, to play devils advocate, some sorts of people are too infrequent to contribute to a body of knowledge (and may not always be able to, or realise there is a difference) about their own type of being, most experts will be an outsider looking in and can't always get it exactly right. And I would've said the same thing about 99% of the population, if we flipped the pancake and the studied did the studying. I've genuinely asked myself, the same concept, don't they understand others? They can't put themselves in our heads? They can't because we're too infrequent and there's scarcely an opportunity to even find out there's a whole different island of experiencing life, and economically what is rare is expensive to accommodate, I certainly if I was born with a normal brain wouldn't stop in my tracks and analyse my neural functions and assume it could be different and weigh that in when reading other people, going to the low level sensory layers and philosophising if that was this other way how would I act and so on, it's too distracting, rare and expensive to think about I know lol.

This may seem like a lot of rambling about a barely related issue, but it's important because despite being 1% of people, autistic people have a very high compared suicide rate, suffering and so on. Generalising, meaning that the common knowledge psychological (or other fields concerning social stuff) concepts as created by the "normal experts" let's say, for all sorts of mental states or genetic or physical conditions not described by someone directly experiencing it themselves, this "common knowledge" may through it's authority and eventual long tail of flaws invite epistemic injustice and "othering". I only mentioned the example I've recently been bickering about to myself lol, I know just as little about eventual other epistemic injustices.