The AutSide Podcast

Cathy and I begin with workload and signal-to-noise, then arrive somewhere deeper: if meaning is already present before words are available, what conditions allow us to step out of the Script Garden with language?
This week, Cathy and I began with workload—specifically, what we actually mean when we reduce it. There is a tendency in education to treat workload as quantity: fewer questions, fewer pages, fewer things to complete. But that is only one part of the load. A student may have ten questions instead of twenty and still be required to hold instructions, formulae, vocabulary, prior knowledge, shifting representations, and the purpose of the task informationally alive all at once. Sometimes the difficulty is not how much work exists. It is how much must remain simultaneously available whilst the work is being done.
That brought us back to signal and noise. If the communicative signal is simply we are leaving at noon, everything surrounding that message may be meaningful in its own right without being relevant to the immediate communication. For me, the difficulty is that I may not yet know which information is signal and which is noise. Until the organising meaning becomes clear, too many things remain alive. The same thing happens in classrooms: teachers can flood a room with language, directions, explanation, context, encouragement, and detail, leaving a student to discover retrospectively what she was actually supposed to do. By the time the signal resolves, the lesson has moved on.
And then the conversation turned towards the question that has been occupying me increasingly this week: what has to happen for meaning to become language? I can watch students manipulate a geometric figure until it reaches the correct position—they know what happened, because their hands can do it—then watch them stop when asked to name the transformation or write the proof. Meaning is present. Language is not yet available. That is the Script Garden problem for me: how do I get from Stage 0 to Stage 1 with a word? A sentence frame cannot solve that merely by existing. Somehow the internal meaning has to connect with the available language.
Cathy brought that question back into relationship. Perhaps our task is not to make a child produce more language but to create the conditions within which language can grow. That distinction matters enormously to me. I increasingly struggle with calling this intervention, because intervention suggests something introduced from outside to alter an existing trajectory. What Cathy described was different: noticing, wondering, attending to movement and scripts, offering natural language models, building safety, and allowing connection itself to become part of the conditions for development. The Script Garden does not grow because somebody keeps demanding flowers. It grows because the conditions permit growth.
Which brought us, unexpectedly but perhaps inevitably, back to evidence. My old forensic world taught me to ask whether an observation can be documented, repeated, and reproduced by somebody somewhere else. Cathy recognised Marge Blanc’s descriptions in the children she already knew; she used the framework in her own practice; parents recognised their children within it; other practitioners have done likewise. That does not answer every question about efficacy, nor does it remove the need for research. But it does leave me increasingly interested in a question beneath the argument about interventions: what architecture are all these people independently encountering? Before we ask whether we can make language happen, perhaps we need to understand what is already happening when meaning becomes language at all.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming apaid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit autside.substack.com/subscribe

I do not use Gemini Notebook because I need it to think for me. I use it because too much thought remains alive at once. Essay, timeline, infographic, podcast—different doors into the same relational whole.
I keep returning to Gemini Notebook because it does something I genuinely need—not because I need it to think for me, but because I need support moving through the world of words once too many of them become alive at the same time. My difficulty is rarely the absence of thought. It is almost embarrassingly the opposite. Sukhareva is there. Peters is there. Prizant, Nelson, Kanner, Shaqaman, contemporary Chinese scholarship, developmental psycholinguistics, the Naysayers, my own nine essays, their citations, the disagreements amongst them, the historical changes in terminology—all of it remains available simultaneously. I know the shape before I know how to walk another person through it. As I wrote in the piece, the expensive part is often moving from that relational whole into the selective, sequential form through which somebody else can encounter it. That is where I require substantial support.
Notebook has become part of that support infrastructure because it gives me several different ways of moving through the same material. I can give it my own articles, research, arguments, and sources, then ask it to help me reorganise what is already there. An infographic lets relationships coexist spatially. A timeline lets chronology become the organising structure. A mind map lets me move amongst relationships without pretending they arrived sequentially. And now there is this podcast—a conversational rendering of the same informational field. None of these replaces the scholarship underneath them. They are different entrances into it. The original experiment was precisely this: could something that exists for me as a large relational whole be made available to somebody else without requiring them first to reproduce my entire journey through thousands of words?
And I rather love what the podcast notices about the actual argument. It begins with the absurdity at its centre: a century of researchers can repeatedly encounter recognisable patterns in autistic language, but those observations become remarkably easy to erase if we search backwards demanding contemporary vocabulary. Sukhareva did not need the term gestalt language processor for the children she observed to be there. Neither did Kanner, Peters, Nelson, or Prizant. Different researchers brought different questions, theories, disciplines, languages, and desired outcomes, but the humans did not vanish between those frameworks. The podcast compresses this beautifully: “The humans didn’t change, just the lexicons did.” That is very close to the historical gestalt I have been trying to make visible—the lexicographers change; we remain.
What becomes especially striking, though, is that the podcast itself eventually turns towards the reason I am using Notebook in the first place. It describes the problem as trying to take a vast web and force it into a single straight piece of string—the researchers, dates, clinical disagreements, frameworks, and relationships all informationally alive together, whilst academic prose demands that I select one thing, then another, then another, paragraph after paragraph. Notebook can hold some of that intermediate organisational labour for me. That matters. My support need does not disappear because I can eventually produce fluent prose. Successful language can conceal an extraordinary amount of machinery. Here, some of that machinery is external, visible, and twenty dollars a month.
Perhaps that is why I find this podcast so delightful. I wrote the research. I followed the citations. I made the historical argument. Then I gave that body of work to a tool that could return it through another doorway—and, listening to two synthetic voices discuss why an autistic researcher might need multiple representational forms to move a relational whole into communicable language, I find the form becoming part of the argument. Essay, infographic, timeline, mind map, podcast: not five different thoughts, but five ways into the same one. Accessibility does not mean finding the single simplified version through which everybody must enter. Sometimes it means allowing the whole to have more than one door.
Here’s the link to the source article with the complete reference list: https://autside.substack.com/p/we-have-been-here-all-along
Let me know what you think.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit autside.substack.com/subscribe

Cathy and I ask what counts as evidence in gestalt language processing—and who gets believed. Across lived experience, families, clinicians, and research, perhaps the evidence was never absent. We were looking for the wrong thing.
Cathy and I began this week with a question that has been following much of my recent writing: what do we actually mean when we say evidence? Not simply whether evidence exists, but who gets to decide what counts as evidence, who is permitted to produce it, and whose observations are allowed into the record. Around gestalt language processing, those questions have become particularly sharp. Again and again, people ask, Where is the evidence? Yet gestalt processors are describing our experiences, parents are describing their children, clinicians have accumulated decades of observation, and researchers across different disciplines and countries have encountered related patterns. At some point, the question begins to change. If all of these people are telling you something is happening, what would you need before you were prepared to believe them?
For me, that question is inseparable from my own life. I am autistic, with substantial language and pragmatic support needs, yet I can sit with Cathy and have this conversation, teach high school, write, research, and speak publicly. Those things can look contradictory only if the support underneath them disappears from view. I remain a gestalt processor. I can take the whole that arrives and disassemble it into increasingly precise language when the conditions and supports allow me to do so. Under enough emotional or informational load, however, I can lose access to that granularity—sentence structures become unavailable, then smaller structures, sometimes until I am relying upon a handful of familiar scripts. That is not regression into some earlier kind of person. It is the same architecture operating with different levels of available support.
This led us towards another way of asking about evidence: what became possible? I came to occupational therapy relatively late, at a time when there were few obvious language services for an autistic adult who already had a career and children. A creative occupational therapist eventually led me towards theatre and improvisation. Where is the randomised controlled trial proving that improv theatre would improve my pragmatic communication? I do not have one. What I have is the life afterwards. Conversation became easier. Teaching became possible. Standing in federal court and being cross-examined about scientific evidence became possible. Refusing something I did not want to do became easier. Eventually, even performing in a musical became possible. Nobody needed me to disappear in order for those things to happen. The evidence is partly in what the support made available.
Cathy brought the same question into her work with children and families. Parents know things because they are there: they see how their children communicate across days and years, what changes when they feel safe, what supports communication, what closes it down, and what becomes possible in relationships where someone is genuinely curious about the person in front of them. Clinicians and educators accumulate another kind of knowledge through repeated encounters. And autistic people bring knowledge from inside the phenomenon itself. None of these perspectives is infallible, but dismissing them because they do not resemble a controlled clinical trial does not make the resulting position more scientific. It simply narrows in advance the kinds of reality science is prepared to notice.
By the end of our conversation, the scale had widened considerably. Gestalt processors are finding one another across countries, cultures, disciplines, languages, and writing systems, and the similarities are difficult to dismiss as an internet fashion. Psycholinguists, philologists, speech and language practitioners, teachers, parents, and gestalt processors may enter through different doors, but we keep encountering pieces of the same problem. That does not mean every claim made about gestalt language processing has been proven, nor that frameworks such as NLA should be exempt from empirical scrutiny. It means something more foundational: evidence does not begin only when somebody designs an intervention study. It begins with noticing, describing, listening, comparing, and asking what changes because this knowledge exists. Cathy and I kept arriving back there. The evidence is distributed amongst us. The harder question may be who has been taught to recognise it.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit autside.substack.com/subscribe

A new school year has left me tending new script gardens. Grammar does not make language context-free. What looks like fluent independence may rest upon scripts, routines, relationships, and a field built first.
Going back to school this year has made something visible to me that competence usually hides. My Learning Centre is gone. I no longer have that stable place where relationships, routines, language, and expectations can accumulate over time. Instead, I move between classrooms, pushing in for 40 minutes here, an hour there, supporting a new caseload across multiple curricula. I know the mathematics. That is not the problem. The problem is that I do not yet have the scripts for these students, these teachers, these rooms, these particular versions of the curriculum. I am tending a new script garden—and, in each new field, I am beginning much closer to the beginning than anyone watching my language from the outside might imagine.
That matters when we talk about gestalt language processing and particularly Stages 4–6. There is a seductive assumption that once someone has grammar, language has become generally available: you have language now, so use it. But language does not exist outside context. Put a student into a new classroom, beside someone they have never met, present unfamiliar mathematical language, and tell them to “turn and talk to your partner about normal distributions,” and what exactly are we measuring when they stare silently at one another? They may understand the mathematics. They may have grammar. What they do not yet have is a script for this. I recognise that because, despite everything I can apparently do with language, I experience the same thing. Stages cannot simply describe something possessed by the person. What is available is partly a property of the field.
Cathy made the connection beautifully from her own work. A child arriving at the Speech Den comes with reports, histories, diagnoses, information from parents—but none of those is the child. Knowing begins in the encounter: noticing, becoming curious, establishing routines, learning one another, planting those first seeds from which something relational can grow. And the gestalt begins long before the child crosses the threshold. It contains the morning, the journey, sleep, medication, home, yesterday, previous classrooms, previous failures, previous experiences of being misunderstood. The behaviour we encounter now is only the visible edge of something already underway. A head on a desk does not inherently mean disengagement. Silence does not inherently mean refusal. The surface does not tell us what produced it.
Yet schools are increasingly being organised as though context were expendable. Larger classes, fewer special education teachers, overloaded caseloads, disappearing Learning Centres, brief push-in services—and then we call the resulting arrangement inclusion. Full inclusion may be presented as pedagogical progress, but increasingly there is an economic reality beneath it: there simply are not enough qualified people to provide the structures we once provided. The terrible contradiction is that we are requiring children to become more context-independent at precisely the moment institutions are becoming less willing or able to provide context.
Perhaps that is also why my own Level 2 diagnosis can appear contradictory from the outside. People can hear me speak for thirty minutes, read what I write, watch me teach mathematics, and reasonably wonder where requiring substantial support for language could possibly be hiding. But perhaps they are looking for support in the wrong place. The support is not necessarily another person standing beside me helping me form a sentence. It is everything that has to become sufficiently organised for language like this to become available—the scripts, histories, searchable information, routines, relationships, technologies, and relational fields that allow the whole to resolve. The fluency is real. So is the infrastructure beneath it.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit autside.substack.com/subscribe

The first days of school build more than routines. They build the relational field that determines who feels safe, what meaning can accumulate, whether an IEP can travel, and what students and teachers can access.
This week’s Sunday Mornings with Jaime & Cathy begins with something apparently mundane: my iPhone informing me that school has started because I am suddenly walking 2.8 miles a day and climbing eight flights of stairs. But underneath that logistical change is a much larger one. For the first time, I am working entirely as a push-in RSP teacher, without the Developmental Maths Learning Centre that previously gave my students and me a stable relational home. I am entering other teachers’ classrooms, learning new territories, new expectations, and new relationships—and I realised sometime during the week that I am at Stage 0. I do not yet have scripts for this. I am beginning again.
That experience changed how I watched the first days of school unfold. We tend to think those opening days are about procedures, expectations, bathroom passes, phones, grading, and where everyone sits. But students are also reading the relational field: Does this teacher see me? Can I be confused here? Who gets protected? Who gets believed? What happens when somebody gets something wrong? In August, the classroom has almost no accumulated history, so every interaction carries enormous architectural weight. A teacher learning a student’s name is data. Ignoring cruelty is data. Receiving help without humiliation is data. The field is being built from tiny samples—and that field will shape what students can subsequently make available for learning.
Then the question turned around on me, because I realised that I am reading those classrooms too. Some teachers immediately create a shared field: we are teachers, these are our students, and the IEP is part of how we think about instruction. In other rooms, the RSP teacher may be physically admitted whilst her function is effectively foreclosed—come in, help the student, but do not alter the lesson, pacing, or existing architecture. That exposes a problem with how we sometimes understand push-in special education. Proximity is not a relational field. Minutes in a room do not necessarily produce specialised instruction, continuity, or access. The deeper question is whether the classroom itself can hold the IEP—whether what we know about a student can leave the PDF, enter third period, survive Tuesday, and still change what happens on Friday.
There is another layer to that field for me. I am a trans woman entering other adults’ classrooms, and there are colleagues who will not use my pronouns or with whom I cannot assume that my humanity will be recognised. So I find myself asking some of the same questions students are asking: Am I safe here? Will this person protect my dignity? How much cognitive capacity must I spend monitoring myself rather than teaching? That matters because relational safety is not something teachers dispense to students from outside the system. We are all inside the field. Power is distributed unequally, but everyone’s capacity is affected by what that field requires them to carry. A student monitoring for humiliation is spending attention that cannot simultaneously go towards algebra; an RSP teacher negotiating whether she is permitted to perform her role is spending capacity that cannot simultaneously go towards instruction.
So the question I am carrying into this school year is no longer simply, How do I become good at push-in? It is: How do I make the field portable? How do I bring enough relational continuity with me that Wednesday is still present when I sit beside a student on Thursday, even though we are now in somebody else’s room? Losing my classroom made me realise that I had partly mistaken the room for the field. The room helped cultivate it, but the field was always the accumulated history of recognition, trust, repair, expectation, and meaning. Inclusion does not happen merely because the door opens. Understanding is not complete because the words arrived. The field has to be able to change, and that change has to accumulate—because tomorrow must inherit something from today. Children cannot build an education entirely out of beginnings. Neither can teachers.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.



This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit autside.substack.com/subscribe