#snautism

The Diagnostic Criteria

Let's begin, as we did in the sister post, with the diagnostic criteria. I'll draw from both the DSM-5 and the ICD-11 as we go along, but I'll stick to using the DSM-5 as the outline to this speculative Snautism post just because it's a little more structured.

As a reminder, according to the DSM-5, the features of autism include the following, divided into 2 main categories and 3 separate criteria, which I've colour coded here for no particular reason at all:

Category A: Autistic social communication and social interaction. Category B: Repetitive patterns of Behaviours (stimming, sameness, special interests, and sensory sensitivities). Criterion C: Symptoms must be present since childhood. Criterion D: Degree to which autism affects daily functioning. Criterion E: Traits not better explained by intellectual disability.

To fulfil the DSM-5 criteria for autism, you need to fulfill all three As (per the DSM-5-TR), two Bs, as well as fit C, D & E.

See the screenshots from the DSM-5 for a little more detail on Category A and B, or visit PDF page 88 onwards of the DSM-5 yourself:

Let us then begin with A1 and A3, collapsed here into one category because the examples I wanted to run through in depth speak to both: challenges with social-emotional reciprocity (e.g. engaging in small talk, social gatherings, socialising with people rather than interacting for a purpose) and in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships (which is largely self-explanatory). I have also included the equivalent parts of the ICD-11 below for each category.

Category A1 & A3: "Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity" & "Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships"

Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, ranging, for example, from abnormal social approach and failure of normal back-and-forth conversation; to reduced sharing of interests, emotions, or affect; to failure to initiate or respond to social interactions.; Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships, ranging, for example, from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit various social contexts; to difficulties in sharing imaginative play or in making friends; to absence of interest in peers (DSM-5). Persistent deficits in initiating and sustaining social communication and reciprocal social interactions that are outside the expected range of typical functioning given the individual’s age and level of intellectual development. Specific manifestations of these deficits vary according to chronological age, verbal and intellectual ability, and disorder severity. Manifestations may include limitations in the following: Understanding of, interest in, or inappropriate responses to the verbal or non-verbal social communications of others. Understanding and use of language in social contexts and ability to initiate and sustain reciprocal social conversations. Social awareness, leading to behaviour that is not appropriately modulated according to the social context. Ability to imagine and respond to the feelings, emotional states, and attitudes of others. Mutual sharing of interests. Ability to make and sustain typical peer relationships. (ICD-11)

Familiar, Not Friendly: Snape and Social-Emotional Reciprocity

The whole thought process for this meta started with this section from a reblog on the original post, which I think deserved a little more nuance and depth than it was originally given:

I did not say "autistic people can’t have any strong, long-term relationships". I analyzed that Snape demonstrates the ability to maintain, coordinate, and manipulate complex social relationships intentionally and effectively (with Slytherin students, colleagues, as a spy), which does not resemble the "persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction (Criterion A)" at a level that causes functional impairment.

As I've already discussed in the other essay, Snape's students don't really count when we're considering his ability to maintain relationships with peers. Obviously, OP claimed that Snape was more than capable of maintaining, coordinating, and manipulating complex social relationships intentionally and effectively with the other Hogwarts staff.

I do have to question this a little bit though, because what little we see of his adult relationships makes it a little challenging to assess his capability or preference for maintaining social relationships for a number of reasons; he lives, works, and dines practically all year with the other staff, so there is not much opportunity for those relationships to end even if they are strained; there is much more opportunity for them to develop shared understanding through time and proximity (i.e. perhaps the other professors were unsure of him to start, but then they get used to him or his "quirks"); and in the interest of professionalism they would all have to be at least cordial. Plus, Snape's position as a spy - or, in the earlier years, waiting until Voldemort would return so he could resume his role as spy - may also have led him to keep those relationships more superficial than they might otherwise have been.

That's not to say he couldn't have formed friendships under those conditions, and astute readers among us will be keen to remind me that the interactions between McGonagall and Snape suggest that they were friends with a thriving Quidditch rivalry:

"we’ll be out of the running for the eighth year in a row, as Professor Snape was kind enough to remind me only last night""I’ve become accustomed to seeing the Quidditch Cup in my study, boys, and I really don’t want to have to hand it over to Professor Snape" "Flattened in that last match by Slytherin, I couldn’t look Severus Snape in the face for weeks. . . ."

There is also one other firm glimpse into Snape's relationship with McGonagall: when she returns from St Mungo's, and Snape seen expressing apparently genuine relief at her return:

That's not really my interpretation of this scene, though, and I have a lot of thoughts about it. But we'll stick a pin in that for now, because Snape's chipperness in this moment is probably enough for its own meta, and this one (as of editing) is already rather long.

But one (friendly) rivalry does not demonstrate a wider pattern of maintaining relationships - and as I've speculated before, none of the other staff intuitively seem particularly close or even friendly with Snape, and I actually think he seems to be a bit of an outsider. Perhaps the most straightforward argument in favour of this view is that upon learning about Dumbledore's death, McGonagall says this:

“Snape,” repeated McGonagall faintly, falling into the chair. “We all wondered… but he trusted… always… Snape… I can’t believe it…”

We all wondered - though whether they all wondered whether Snape had ever truly been trustworthy, had ever switched sides, whether Dumbledore had been wrong to trust him, or why Dumbledore ever trusted him in the first place, is perhaps down to reader interpretation. I suspect it's a little of everything.

Still, this suggests that all of the staff were uncertain about Snape, and had been certainly at least since the second war had started (if not before). And to me this is fascinating, because the Hogwarts staff had been living, dining, and working alongside Snape for around fifteen years at this point, excluding only some of the holidays, and none of them seemed to suggest that they didn't think Snape capable of killing someone (bar Hagrid). To me this suggests that they can't have been that close to Snape. If they were, someone might've considered something was up when Snape killed Dumbledore, because they trusted Snape and felt as though they knew him - or because, at the very least, they had spent a significant amount of time with him.

But perhaps they didn't spend a significant amount of time with him - or, perhaps, that time was not particularly... close? Meaningful? Intimate? Friendly, even? Perhaps outside of mealtimes and the occasional staff meeting, they hardly spoke with Snape at all.

I mentioned in the other essay that when considering Snape's ability to maintain relationships we should consider how well he interacts in a friendly, reciprocal manner with the other professors, asking questions like whether or not he enjoys social gatherings, how he acts when he's there, and whether he would prefer conversations focused on the exchange of information rather than social pleasantries. Although we don't see much of the staff's down-time in private, I think we can start to ponder the answers to some of those questions from the fleeting information that we do have.

Aside from the aforementioned Quidditch rivalry, Snape is rarely, to my memory, mentioned to be chatting or speaking to anyone else in just a friendly manner - that is, he rarely speaks to anyone if it does not relate to work or his other duties. McGonagall intends to speak to Snape about Draco's behaviour in PS. Lupin speaks to Snape about the werewolf essay and his potion. Dumbledore speaks to Snape to move Harry's detention in HBP (and about various spying escapades). Slughorn also attempts to speak to Snape to move Harry's detention - with much less success.

But contrast those examples with the interactions of the other professors. I searched all of the books for all of the 'lesser-seen' professors: Sinistra, Flitwick, Sprout, Madam Hooch, Trelawney, and Madam Pomfrey, as well as a cursory sort of glance over Snape, Dumbledore, and McGonagall - to get an overview on how those staff members are implied to interact. The mentions of their relationships and interactions behind the scenes are fleeting - but see if you can spot who's missing:

McGonagall and Flitwick are seen together putting up the Christmas decorations in PS. Around the same time, Dumbledore is seen laughing at a cracker joke Flitwick told him. Hooch and Flitwick check Harry's broom together (PoA). We see McGonagall talking to Dumbledore at dinner a few times. McGonagall and Sprout "exchange a significant glance" when Umbridge gives her speech (OotP). Sinistra is seen talking to Sprout in GoF, and Professor Grubbly-Plank is described as "chatting" to Professor Sinistra in OotP. Dumbledore once says Madam Pomfrey complimented his new earmuffs (PS). We see McGonagall, Flitwick, and Hagrid (joined by Fudge and Madame Rosmerta) meet for drinks in The Three Broomsticks (PoA). Slughorn is seen in conversation with Sprout, where Sprout speaks to Slughorn "warmly". McGonagall told Lupin about Harry's grim-in-the-tea-leaves fiasco with Trelawney. At the Yule Ball, Dumbledore dances with Sprout. "Moody" dances with Sinistra. Pomfrey wanted to resign in protest when McGonagall was Stunned in OotP. We see Hagrid "getting redder and redder in the face as he called for more wine, finally kissing Professor McGonagall on the cheek, who, to Harry’s amazement, giggled and blushed, her top hat lopsided" one Christmas feast. McGonagall told Flitwick about Harry's special permission to join the Quidditch team in PS, and Flitwick seems thrilled to hear it. Sprout and Madam Pomfrey seem to chat a bit, having discussed work-related issues like the Mandrakes and the Petrified students in CoS (obviously); later in the series you could argue that Sprout grows Bubotubers partly for Madam Pomfrey's benefit, since Sprout and Pomfrey have evidently discussed more trivial things like the challenge of students resorting to extreme lengths to rid themselves of acne - and that Pomfrey had to re-attach Eloise Midgen's nose (GoF). All of the professors knew Lupin was a werewolf, though I believe it's implied that only "certain professors" (guess who?) had a problem with it; Lupin is even seen chatting "animatedly" with Flitwick. When Ron was accidentally poisoned in HBP Slughorn was obviously there, then "ran for help, McGonagall and Madam Pomfrey turned up", and later in the evening Harry told Dumbledore (who is currently with Ron's parents), McGonagall, Madam Pomfrey, Hermione, and Ginny. Still, when Hagrid arrives, he says it was Sprout who told him what had happened, not anyone who had been involved so far - so the staff must have been speaking in the meantime. When the staff can no longer speak safely in the staffroom thanks to Umbridge, it is only Flitwick, McGonagall, and Sprout who are named as being "huddled together" to speak in the halls - despite being the other Head of House, Snape is noticeably absent.

Whether this is something we as readers pick up on consciously or subconsciously, Snape only very rarely gets to share 'moments' with the other staff - at least that I could find. He doesn't share jokes, or chat, or dance, or go out socialising with the other professors - or anyone else that we know of, for that matter.

🎶 Magic moments🎶

Well, there is one other occasion where Snape is explicitly mentioned to be speaking with someone, perhaps in a casual sense. It's his very first introduction, in fact: following Harry's Sorting, Snape is talking with Professor Quirrell over dinner. However, it seems Quirrell is not having a good time:

"No wonder he’s looking so nervous, that’s Professor Snape."

Yes, Snape can be intimidating, and a little rude, and Quirrell appears (or is pretending) to be terrified of many things, so perhaps it hardly speaks to Snape's ability to hold a friendly conversation or to his general demeanour with the other staff - but it is also one of the few examples that we have. Quirrell himself also offers a little more insight into the staff's opinion of Snape. I'm speaking, of course, of the occasion when Snape decided to referee the Quidditch match, and Quirrell later tells Harry:

"Yes, Severus does seem the type [to try to kill a student], doesn’t he?" "All the other teachers thought Snape was trying to stop Gryffindor from winning, he did make himself unpopular."

The first quote might speak to how the other staff view Snape, or it might just be Quirrell's own opinion not shared by the others. Now, we could also argue that that second quote could go either way; perhaps Snape was popular in the first place and later became unpopular, or it's more a turn of phrase and some/all of the other professors readily believed Snape would go so far as to try to cheat in front of a massive crowd of students and his peers. Personally I assume it's probably the latter. As we've already seen, only a few years later all of the teachers also readily thought Snape capable of murdering Dumbledore in cold blood - and to get from believing one to the other, you can only assume that there were some baby steps along the way.

@starcrossedkayla also pointed out to me that Snape could easily have explained to the other teachers why he was so keen to referee the match (i.e. Harry was potentially in danger) - but perhaps Dumbledore told Snape not to tell anyone else, as he is wont to do. This complicates the picture - but, at the very least, I think Snape could've come up with some excuse. He could reasonably have said something vague to the effect of "last time, a student was in danger", since he sprints towards students in danger as a general rule. He could've made this excuse even if he didn't want to wrongly insinuate he liked Harry, or reveal he wanted to protect him in any way, or reveal that Harry was even in ongoing danger. Perhaps he did make up an excuse - in which case the other teachers perhaps didn't believe him, which also doesn't speak to there being much warmth in those relationships. So, Snape either accidentally made himself unpopular (didn't realise; did it unintentionally) or he did it on purpose (did realise, did it intentionally) or didn't explain himself (didn't care either way, pehaps). Or, something I've just considered was that the other teachers didn't say anything to him personally, or he wasn't there to hear it, so he didn't know he was any more unpopular than usual. All of these interpretations suggest to me a distinct lack of care, regard, and closeness in the relationships in his place of work.

Even Trelawney is shown to have her closer moments with the other staff, despite their differences. Many on the staff, I think, consider her a superstitious fraud, and a bit of an overdramatic liar. McGonagall has to actively stop herself from talking smack about a colleague in class in PoA after Harry's first divination lesson, and is rude enough to Trelawney during the PoA Christmas lunch that Dumbledore has to gently intervene. But, all of that aside, when Trelawney is almost kicked out of Hogwarts by Umbridge, it is McGonagall who first comforts her (of her own volition):

[McGonagall was] patting her firmly on the back while withdrawing a large handkerchief from within her robes. “There, there, Sibyll . . . Calm down. . . . Blow your nose on this. . . . It’s not as bad as you think, now. . . . You are not going to have to leave Hogwarts. . . .”

She then escorts Trelawney back to her room (on Dumbledore's orders). Sprout "came hurrying forward out of the crowd and grabbed Professor Trelawney’s other arm. Together they guided her past Umbridge and up the marble stairs", as Flitwick gathered her luggage to follow them.

But where is Snape? Well, Snape was there, in the crowd of people who'd gathered to see what all the fuss was about. He'd been with Harry when they heard Trelawney scream, and they went to see what was happening at about the same time. Yet again, he is the only Head of House and 'main character professor' not to show up - and we don't even hear about what he's doing. It's as though he's vanished amongst the crowd. Perhaps this is because he resents Trelawney or has some other complicated feelings about the Prophecy, or perhaps he doesn't like her outright, or perhaps he's too awkward to want to get involved - but whatever the reason, he is once again conspicuous by his absence.

There is also one other "behind the scenes" interaction with Snape that can be inferred: at some stage, he must have discussed the Duelling Club with Lockhart, revealing that he knew "a tiny bit" (read: probably a significant amount) about duelling - but that hardly counts, because nobody can escape a conversation with Lockhart, who pops up periodically throughout CoS just to bother the other professors, and it's quite clear that Snape doesn't like him and that Lockhart is too self-involved to care for other people anyway.

It's actually because of Lockhart that Snape does get one 'moment' with the other staff - and it is the moment that OP mentioned, when Snape 'coordinated' with the other professors to corner Lockhart in CoS:

But, again, I'm not so sure I view it that way. Snape doesn't really "coordinate" anything, but initiates it - and the others jump on board because they share a common enemy. The other teachers respecting Snape professionally (especially in contrast to Lockhart), and sharing a goal with him (to get Lockhart out of the way so that the adults can work in peace), doesn't necessarily make them friends or mean that they get along in general - just like it didn't for Trelawney.

(Staff)room for one more?

The aforementioned scene takes place in the staffroom in the books, so let's take a look at some more interactions there. Just before the very same incident with Lockhart, we also get a brief glimpse of a very tense staffroom during CoS, as Harry and Ron have snuck inside around the time Ginny has been taken. As this passage is lacking in much detail, there's not too much to infer about staff relationships - but in my opinion we can still make the argument that Snape is slightly apart from the other professors, in more ways than one. First, he is decidedly less openly emotional than the others, revealing very little about how he feels, gripping the back of a chair and asking one rather pragmatic question:

Some of them were looking puzzled, others downright scared.

Professor Flitwick let out a squeal. Professor Sprout clapped her hands over her mouth. Snape gripped the back of a chair very hard and said, “How can you be sure?” “The Heir of Slytherin,” said Professor McGonagall, who was very white, “left another message. Right underneath the first one. ‘Her skeleton will lie in the Chamber forever.’” Professor Flitwick burst into tears. “Who is it?” said Madam Hooch, who had sunk, weak-kneed, into a chair. “Which student?”

We can also assume that Snape is one of the few who did not take a seat with the others, as I imagine it's difficult to grasp the back of a chair from a seated position and there is no mention of him rising to step forward:

“Who is it?” said Madam Hooch, who had sunk, weak-kneed, into a chair. “Which student?”The teachers rose and left, one by one.

Snape gripped the back of a chair very hard and said, “How can you be sure?” Snape stepped forward.

...subtly reinforcing his physical and emotional separation from the rest of the group. It may also be worth noting at this stage that Snape was at no point mentioned to be involved with the making of the Mandrake draught despite the fact that Snape very much thought he was going to be involved in the making of the Mandrake draught. Once again, he is not present in those discussions or mentions.

Keeping on the theme of the staffroom, the next time we see it in PoA, Snape is sat in there alone. He leaves when Lupin and the class enter, presumably since he doesn't like Lupin, he doesn't like Harry, and he has no interest in watching the class banish a Boggart. This tells us basically nothing, since we knew all of that already - but I do think it's relevant to this essay that Snape was comfortably sat there alone, apparently with no immediate plans to leave, and only left when others arrived. It's not the only time it happens. Bouncing back to PS, Hermione is sent to hover outside the staffroom to ensure that Snape doesn't leave - but, when she gets there, Snape is already leaving:

‘Snape came out and asked me what I was doing, so I said I was waiting for Flitwick, and Snape went to get him, and I’ve only just got away. I don’t know where Snape went.’

A few things to note here. In this chapter, Snape hadn't long gone to the staffroom in the first place; he went only a few minutes beforehand, after a conversation with Harry. Snape and Flitwick were both in the staffroom when Hermione waited outside (having almost immediately followed him), but Snape was already on his way out - which was how he found Hermione. It's post-exams, there's possibly no more lessons, and he may even have some time to put up his feet. Snape also presumably has no more lessons to prepare for, with summer coming, and Flitwick certainly seemed to plan on staying in the staffroom if we judge the amount of time he was talking: Flitwick talked to Hermione for long enough that it took most of the time it took Harry and Ron to get up to the third floor from outside the castle (staircase obstacles presumably slowing them slightly), then get told off by McGonagall, and make their way to the Gryffindor common room in the tower, and Hermione then also has to make her way back from the staffroom up to Gryffindor tower, and Hermione "only just got away" before returning to the common room. We've not even reached a point in the books where Voldemort is back yet, so Snape has roughly the same number of demands on him as the other professors. Sure, he might've had something else to do, or he'd just left something in there and hadn't planned on staying - but in the very few glimpses we get of the staffroom, it's the not the only time Snape leaves when someone else is in there.

Coincidentally, I used to find myself scheduling my breaks in an old job for when nobody else was in the staffroom, so I could avoid small talk. If we were to read Snape as autistic, perhaps this is his goal - to sit in peace without the threat of socialising.

But there's one other thing I noticed which was a little different to the one other instance where we get a snippet of typical staffroom life. Snape "went to get" Flitwick, which perhaps suggests they were not sat closely, or together in conversation, which is fine since Snape was on his way out... but the next time Harry goes to the staffroom, and greets different professors, it's a very different story.

In OotP, Harry goes to the staffroom with Hedwig as her wing is injured. In contrast to Snape going and getting Flitwick and then leaving, McGonagall is close enough that Harry can hear her approach from the other side of the door, and Grubbly-Plank is close enough to her to overhear Harry speaking and join the conversation without even needing to be invited:

McGonagall and Grubbly-Plank seem to be hanging out together prior to this, with Grubbly-Plank smoking a pipe and holding a newspaper (so we can assume they might go there to relax, chat, etc, between or after lessons). Grubbly-Plank stands at McGonagall's shoulder (instead of leaving like Snape does), and they stay side-by-side in the doorway until Grubbly-Plank has spoken to Harry and taken Hedwig. It's a much more friendly-feeling interaction. I can practically sense them commenting on the day's news before Harry even reaches the staffroom door, which is a rather different picture to Snape heading for the staffroom and almost immediately leaving it again despite seemingly having nowhere in particular to be.

The one other time we see Snape in the staffroom (in PS), Harry is attempting to get his book back, which Snape had earlier confiscated. Harry specifically went to the staffroom in the hopes that other teachers would be there:

Harry had an idea that Snape wouldn’t refuse if there were other teachers listening.

But other teachers are not there - there is only Filch, who is certainly a member of staff - though not a particularly well-respected one, even among the other teachers. For example, Hagrid calls Filch an "old git", and a "sneakin' Squib"; McGonagall calls him a "blithering idiot"; and Slughorn suggests he'll be reporting Filch for being more concerned with mess than security. I can't imagine the other staff are any more tender towards him - perhaps with the exception of Dumbledore.

I also think it's safe to say that this is not a social call. Snape's leg is "mangled". Maybe he went to the staffroom at that time in the evening either because it was closer than the infirmary or his own dungeon quarters, or because he didn't want to encounter any students, or because at that point in the evening it was likely to be empty, or for whatever reason he did not want to go to the Hospital Wing. I wouldn't even be surprised if Snape ran into Filch in the corridors in this scene, rather than intentionally meeting him there. I would also argue that this is not a typical representation of the staffroom, owing to the fact that this was the only year (that we know of) where a member of staff was bitten so badly by the security measures that his leg was still bloody and mangled about a week after the incident - yet he still refuses to engage with the other teaching staff to help him. (There is also no evidence that he went to the hospital wing in PoA for his head wound, because Fudge comments on it and later Snape storms away).

So, what does all of this suggest about Snape?

Okay, so perhaps I have to eat my own words. I started this section by arguing that "what little we see of his adult relationships makes it a little challenging to assess his capability or preference for maintaining social relationships for a number of reasons; he lives, works, and dines practically all year with the other staff, so there is not much opportunity for those relationships to end even if they are strained" and "there is much more opportunity for them to develop shared understanding through time and proximity".

But I think I was wrong.

What little we see collectively indicates that Snape was not a master of maintaining long-term relationships with his colleagues at all. Perhaps outside of his friendly rivalry with McGonagall, those small glimpses might seem to suggest that he had no particular relationship beyond the professional with the other teachers to speak of. In all the time he spent working with these people, in all of the examples of staff life we see scattered throughout the books, Snape is largely absent from the little 'moments' which might suggest they were on good terms, or even friends - and, as we already know, in the end the other staff only trusted Snape for as long as Dumbledore was alive to vouch for him.

Returning to OP's main point, then: in my opinion we can argue either that Snape was a master manipulator because he managed to come across as untrustworthy for fifteen years such that his cover was intact when the time came, or we can argue that he was certainly capable of maintaining long-term, reciprocal social relationships with the other staff - but I'm not sure that we can do both. The evidence (to me) suggests that Snape was not close at all with most of the other staff, even before he 'defected', killed Dumbledore, and supposedly returned to the Death Eaters. We also have no way of knowing whether that was even an intentional choice he took to prepare himself for spying or whether it was the result of his sparkling personality alone.

With that in mind, it becomes worth asking how Snape navigates social environments - or, apparently, whether he navigates them at all.

Snape would rather go to a library than to a party

Aside from the day-to-day, where it seems that Snape does not spend significant amounts of time with his colleagues, nor does he share (m)any 'moments' with them, Snape also has a habit of going missing from major social events - at least when compared to the rest of the 'main' staff. In only six years he twice misses the Sorting Ceremony, and misses the practically once-in-a-lifetime Yule Ball. And yes, I'm well aware this is for plot reasons - but within the story itself, several times Snape really just ups and leaves some of the most important events in the school's calendar.

Outside of the 'main' staff who go on quests and errands (like Hagrid recruiting the giants, and Dumbledore's side quests in HBP), and lesser-featured staff like Trelawney (who rarely leaves her tower), Snape is one of the most prominent members of staff we see to miss any event despite literally being right there in the castle. Yes, McGonagall and Dumbledore miss a part of the welcome feast in CoS (thanks to Snape), but in CoS, Snape was the one who must have excused himself from dinner much sooner to search the grounds, and he may even have missed the majority of the ceremony before he found Harry and Ron. He only returns to the feast on Dumbledore's orders, just in time for dessert.

You might be thinking (like me) that finding a missing student is the sort of responsibility that ought to have fallen to the student's Head of House (looking at you, McGonagall). Granted, McGonagall is also deputy headmistress, and she often oversees the Sorting Ceremony, so perhaps she is otherwise occupied. However, McGonagall is also implied to miss the Sorting Ceremony altogether in PoA as she is with Harry and Hermione in her office, following Harry's first experience with a Dementor - and this year it's Flitwick who comes out of the hall carrying the Sorting Hat. As McGonagall clearly can leave the Sorting ceremony to check on her students' wellbeing, and she is directly responsible for Harry's wellbeing as Head of Gryffindor, and later in the series she is also a member of the Order and literally Dumbledore's right-hand woman, it did make me wonder why she wouldn't do so when Harry was late or absent in CoS and HBP. Even if she could not leave the Great Hall - say, if the Sorting had already begun by the time anyone noticed - then, logically, the task should fall to a member of staff who doesn't represent an entire House of their own and/or who is a trusted member of the Order - perhaps someone like Hagrid.

Snape again misses the Sorting to meet with Harry and Tonks in HBP, despite not being the only member of staff in the Order, or Harry's Head of House. Perhaps having read the above paragraph, Tonks actually sent the Patronus to find Hagrid - but Hagrid was late for the feast (by a few minutes), which was why Snape took it. Hagrid is sat at McGonagall's side later in this chapter, so the Patronus would've presumably passed near her, too - but, again, she is not the one to come and find Harry. On this occasion, Snape once again misses not only the Sorting but practically the entire meal, arriving just in time for dessert. In fairness, by this time things are heating up with Draco, Voldemort, and Harry's whole destiny, so Snape may well have wanted to go personally (and throw a few insults at Harry and dock some points, of course).

Perhaps it's just the case that Snape takes his responsibility to keep Harry alive very seriously - and I don't doubt this has something to do with it. And if it were just for the sake of needling or saving Harry, I might agree - but we see it again in GoF, where Snape skips the Yule Ball altogether, and it very much appears that he's just out in the gardens because a hobby of his is preventing teen pregnancy. Sure, Karkaroff has sought him out and is trailing around after him having conniptions, but Snape chose to leave the ball - inferred from the fact that Snape is, or at least is pretending to be, completely unbothered by the impending return of Voldemort. He has been avoiding Karkaroff for the entire book, so I think it very unlikely they agreed to meet out there and Snape decided to check for canoodling teens whilst he waited. Further to that, someone who enjoys parties who is also pretending to be unbothered by the return of Voldemort would attend the party and pretend to be unbothered there (sort of like Alan Rickman's portrayal of him standing on the edges and not dancing. ily alan). Attending the party would also have the added benefit that Karkaroff wouldn't as easily be able to corner Snape or speak to him so freely in a busy, noisy hall, especially if Snape was in conversation with someone else (or at least stood around other people). But Snape has chosen to avoid the ball - despite it making him an easier target for Karkaroff. Meanwhile, the other professors dance the night away: Dumbledore danced with Sprout; Ludo Bagman danced with McGonagall; "Moody" danced with Sinistra; and Madame Maxime and Hagrid danced and enjoyed a moonlit stroll.

Note: Something I also noticed when writing a later section of this meta is that Snape is described to be wearing the same long, black, billowing cloak that he always wears - which suggests to me that he never even planned on attending the Yule Ball in the first place, given that everyone else is dressed for the occasion.

Just as important as the social events that Snape skips are the ones that he doesn't. One of the few times we see Snape just hanging out at an event the whole time is at the Christmas dinner in PoA. Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Sprout, Flitwick and Filch, plus a few first years, a disgruntled Slytherin 5th year, and Harry, Hermione, and Ron are in attendance. The primary focus of this scene is on Dumbledore's festive shenanigans, and McGonagall needling Trelawney for being something of a fraud. I think the people who seem to want to be there least are the unlucky two seated beside Trelawney (Snape and McGonagall; yet more evidence for their work 'friendship', because this isn't the first time we've seen it suggested that they sit together - though still with enough space between them for Dumbledore to conjure a chair there). However, I'm not sure that this scene can be used to infer very much about Snape, as it's not a particularly detailed a scene as far as he's concerned. Tenuously I could argue that in contrast to the other 'main' staff who were there - that is, "main character" staff members like Dumbledore and McGonagall - Snape hardly even speaks. He "reluctantly" pulls on a Christmas cracker, pushes away the vulture hat that comes out of it, and confirms that he's made the potion for Lupin, who is absent on account of it being near the full moon.

Snape's silence here is sort of noteworthy, since McGonagall, Trelawney, Snape, and Dumbledore each get a fair share of lines throughout this book - but it is at the awkward Christmas party where you're allowed to be mean to your coworkers, apparently, where Snape falls silent. Alone, we can't use it to infer much at all. Taken alongside his behaviour in general, and I'm beginning to sense a pattern - Snape does not much enjoy social gatherings. When Snape is mentioned in this scene, he confirms he's made a potion (work-related discussion), reluctantly pulls a cracker (perhaps he hates the noise or thinks it's silly - but curiously he still does it when Dumbledore offers), is embarrassed and/or angered by the vulture hat that pops out (self-explanatory, given the Boggart), and his mouth only thins rather than showing any particular expression.

Okay, fine - if you're on the hunt specifically for autistic traits, then apparently it you can speculate quite a bit. But overall, there's not a lot there.

Disclaimer: this meal is described as going on for about two hours, and we don't see most of it. Perhaps, then, Snape was chatting with whoever he was seated with - my money would be on the Slytherin student, as Trelawney was forced to his other side instead of McGonagall. Still, the brief part of the meal we do see sets the scene for a meal where Dumbledore was the one playing gracious host and encouraging conversation whilst everyone else was just trying to get their food and go, and also gave me the impression that Snape is not particularly chatty at parties. We also have no idea whether there are other staff in the castle who chose to take lunch in their own rooms (like Trelawney had planned) - in which case, Snape voluntarily went down to sit with everyone else, perhaps to sit with McGonagall or perhaps to keep his student company or perhaps just because he wanted to. We also don't know whether most of the other staff, except Lupin, plus Sprout and Flitwick, have gone home for the winter holiday. Perhaps the heads of houses had to be there, since Flitwick and Sprout are there, too. Perhaps he stayed over Christmas to keep an eye on Harry, what with Lupin being present. We'll never know, but I think it's fun to speculate.

Now, there is one social event that Snape definitely attended, and where we see him engaging for more than a few vague lines: Slughorn's Christmas party. This is perhaps only truly social situation we see Snape in... and he is not having a good time. He is described as both "sulking" and "trapped", which rather sounds like he didn't want to be there - and I think that's worth lingering on for a moment, given everything else we've discussed so far, and especially his choice not to attend the Yule Ball. Much like at the PoA Christmas meal, he is also not implied to be chatting, drinking, or joking around with anyone. We can reasonably assume that Snape was not in conversation with anyone else prior to Slughorn grabbing him, because being accused of "sulking" implies a rather obvious sort of disengagement from everyone else at the party. Perhaps Snape was lurking on the edges, and probably his body language rather strongly suggested that he was uncomfortable, and that he did not want to be there, much less in conversation. Further, whilst Snape has presumably chosen to attend the party, he is also described as "trapped" and comes across as rather withdrawn - which is also kind of suggested in the absence of 'moments' with the other staff. He doesn't reciprocate Slughorn's warmth or enthusiasm, and makes a rather poor attempt to respond at all. This is to be expected, as Slughorn's dragged him into a conversation praising Harry, but it also fits with how Snape is portrayed elsewhere in social situations: comments like "no wonder Quirrell's looking so nervous" when talking to Snape make the most sense if Snape's default behaviour when socialising is to look unhappy to be there, and not even attempt to hide it. I suspect if the Yule Ball is any indication, he would rather not be there at all (which does make me wonder why he attended). The only thing Snape seems genuinely interested in during this conversation is exactly the thing Harry would like to avoid Snape knowing about - "the source of [Harry's] newfound brilliance at Potions".

Also, like - why did Snape attend that party? And why did he return after speaking to Draco if he didn't want to be there? And if he wasn't going to talk to anyone, and it wasn't compulsory for staff, and Slughorn had plenty of other guests, what was even the point? Well, I personally think he went to that party for the same reason he went to the PoA Christmas lunch and to the Quidditch game to support his students and had a friendly rivalry with McGonagall - because he wanted to. Because as awkward as he can be, he does still seek out companionship, and value his friends and mentors, even if he's not very good at it. Also, speaking of Draco...

This is the same party that Draco was supposedly attempting to crash - but that aside, I think we can gather a little more about Snape's social behaviour from the interruption:

But almost before Harry had registered what he had seen, Filch had turned and shuffled away, muttering under his breath; Malfoy had composed his face into a smile and was thanking Slughorn for his generosity, and Snape’s face was smoothly inscrutable again. “It’s nothing, nothing,” said Slughorn, waving away Malfoy’s thanks. “I did know your grandfather, after all. . . .” “He always spoke very highly of you, sir,” said Malfoy quickly. “Said you were the best potion-maker he’d ever known. . . .” Harry stared at Malfoy. It was not the sucking-up that intrigued him; he had watched Malfoy do that to Snape for a long time. It was the fact that Malfoy did, after all, look a little ill. This was the first time he had seen Malfoy close up for ages; he now saw that Malfoy had dark shadows under his eyes and a distinctly grayish tinge to his skin. “I’d like a word with you, Draco,” said Snape suddenly. “Oh, now, Severus,” said Slughorn, hiccuping again, “it’s Christmas, don’t be too hard —” “I’m his Head of House, and I shall decide how hard, or otherwise, to be,” said Snape curtly. “Follow me, Draco.”

Despite Draco's faux pas being gracefully glossed over already, Snape wasn't done being awkward. Snape "suddenly" interrupts to speak to Draco, or cuts in immediately following what was probably an exceptionally skilled ass-kissing, fine-tuned by years of experience in the brown-nose mine. Snape does this instead of leaning in to any social niceties at all, despite there being ample opportunity to have done so; Snape could easily have asked to borrow Draco (thus promising they'd both be back), or interrupted more subtly, or waited for a pause in the conversation to ask Draco to step aside. (idk, social niceties obviously aren't my strong suit - and that’s sort of the point. They clearly aren't Snape's, either.) Snape is obviously capable of being nice, cordial, and exercising (or pretending to exercise) social niceties when it suits him - think of his conversation with Bellatrix and Narcissa (which I'll come back to), or his conversation with Fudge at the end of PoA about the Order of Merlin. Anyway, Snape then drags Draco away despite Slughorn's protests, is short with Slughorn, and his manner of doing all of this is not smooth, calculated, or subtle in the slightest - especially in contrast to Draco, who is successfully in the middle of putting on his party face despite The Horrors.

Yes, Snape is probably in the middle of a crisis about whether or not Draco is about to get them both killed, and yes, potentially he's leveraging the fact it's a party and Draco can't defy him there without raising some eyebrows to finally get a chance to speak to him - but Draco probably won't manage to kill either one of them in the next ten minutes at Slughorn's party, which was presumably part of the reason Snape felt comfortable enough to attend in the first place - so there was room for some subtlety if Snape felt like it. This scene alone leads me away from thinking about Snape's behaviour through the lens of general lack of social drive and misanthropy, and towards the fact that when it comes down to it, I suspect Snape isn't really all that smooth in unstructured social situations at all.

All in all, I think the evidence leans towards the idea that Snape does struggle with social-emotional reciprocity - that is, he perhaps struggles making friends, and/or has an absence of interest in his peers; for this reason he may struggle with casual back-and-forth conversations, or making small talk, or asking his colleagues about their day. It makes me picture a Snape who does not often share his own or ask about others' interests, or who perhaps fails to initiate or respond to social interactions. In short, Snape's representation in the books might suggest that he seems to struggle with the sorts of things an autistic person might struggle with in real life.

Now I want to turn to Snape's friendships, and see what we might uncover there.

Snape's (confirmed) friendships

For anyone wondering, I'm not even going to touch on Snape's relationship with Dumbledore. There's a lot to be said about it, but to summarise I'm not sure you can call that a traditional friendship in any sense, since (as I pointed out in the other essay), that relationship only existed "because it was sort of a contract Snape submitted to when Dumbledore asked for his life in return for not saving Lily's", and it largely consisted of Snape being guilted and manipulated into doing things he didn't particularly want to do, starting with spying at great risk to his life and ending with murder/unwillingly assisted suicide.

Lily Evans

Let's first take a look at arguably the most important and most well-known of Snape's friendships. I am, of course, talking about Lily Evans. His friendship with Lily offers some important insight into Snape's social behaviour, particularly in childhood. In one of Snape's earliest memories, we see him as a child watching Lily and Petunia "from behind a clump of bushes". He's waiting for the opportune moment to greet her, having been "planning this for a while". (At this point, I just want to throw it out there and say that planning how to talk to people is fairly common among autistic people, and is commonly known as "scripting"). Jumping out of a bush and startling two girls - one of them badly enough to scream and run away - is also a fascinating insight into Snape's childhood social skills, and speaks rather nicely to "abnormal social approach", "behaviour that is not appropriately modulated according to the social context", and "reduced social awareness" (reflected later in life, I think, as his lack of approach in adulthood with the other professors or in social situations he encounters as an adult, like Slughorn's party).

I think Snape's introduction also suggests that Snape doesn't really have any other friends, even as a child. The children are not in school, maybe it's the summer holidays, but Snape is not playing with other children - not even children from his own school (I'm assuming Snape went to a Muggle primary school since he's obviously literate by the time he reaches Hogwarts, and I'm assuming that it was a different school to Lily and Petunia as Lily and Snape would be in the same year, but she doesn't recognise him). Further to that, Snape must have spent a fairly significant amount of time wandering around Cokeworth to have stumbled across Lily doing magic in the first place, and he clearly had enough friend-free time to watch her for “all that time,” wait around hoping she’d do it again, and plan his introduction. None of this is proof of anything on its own, obviously, but taken together it paints a picture of a kid who spent most of his time by himself, and didn't really want or have anyone else to spend time with (as does the image of Snape, alone in his bedroom, in the Occlumency flashbacks). Now, we again can't say for sure why this is, to what extent it was a choice Snape made or as a result of 'odd'/unusual/potentially autistic behaviour which alienated him from the other kids - but I think it's worth noting, because this friendlessness seems to persist into adulthood.

Snape also struggled to maintain this relationship with Lily, and it's threaded through the memories that she and Snape started drifting a little bit when they got to Hogwarts. There were several reasons for that, including the general strains of growing up, developing as people, being in different Houses, and having markedly different world views at that point in their lives, and it being a friendship largely borne of being the only magical kids in Cokeworth. For the purposes of this meta, though, I do want to point out as well that Snape - in our limited view of their interactions - repeatedly had issues with perspective-taking (aka cognitive empathy, or putting himself in Lily's shoes), which is fairly common in autistic people. We see it first when he can't fathom why she'd be upset that her sister hates her, and she "threw him a look of deep dislike". We see it again when he can't - or refuses - to fathom why she doesn't like Mulciber and Avery.

Still on the topic of perspective-taking, you could also argue that Lily fails to understand Snape's perspective on "the prank" (I hate calling it "the prank", it was never referred to that in the book, but I will persevere) and the bullying, and that this is just what teenagers are like. However, Lily didn't have the full picture: Snape was not allowed to tell the truth about "the prank" thanks to Dumbledore, and given Snape's general inability to articulate how he's feeling ("how are things at home?" "fine" [cut to scene of a cowering woman and crying child]), and Snape's pride, Snape probably didn't disclose the full extent of the Marauders' bullying. So far as we know, nothing so dramatic as SWM had happened publicly yet, and Lily didn't see anyone else who James hexed for fun so "obsessed" with the Marauders - so rather than Lily being stubborn, selfish, or failing to put herself in Snape's shoes, she likely just didn't have the full picture and perhaps felt (fairly reasonably, given what she likely knew) that Snape was blowing the whole thing massively out of proportion.

Now, let us take a moment to consider Snape's one other confirmed friendship...

Lucius Malfoy

Obviously, there are several references in the books that Snape was friends with Lucius. Lucius is seen welcoming Snape to Slytherin after Snape was Sorted; presumably during that time in school Snape looked up to Lucius, because Sirius called Snape Lucius' lapdog, and as an adult Snape suggested that they have spoken recently, and discussed Sirius' Animagus form; Narcissa describes Snape and Lucius as "old friends"; Lucius "always" continued to speak highly of Snape (e.g. to Umbridge); Draco asks Snape to apply for the job as a headmaster, and Draco says he expects Snape would have Lucius' vote; and Snape seems to like or even favour Draco in school - all of which suggests that they had an ongoing friendship. This essay even suggests that the "sudden movement" Snape makes when Lucius is named as being at the graveyard at the end of GoF could be interpreted as defensive - an expression of concern for Snape's 'old friend' - which Snape ultimately stifled.

Personally, I'm not entirely convinced that Snape was that close to Lucius. I consider it more a relationship based on power differences and possible exploitation than sincerity, and there are a few reasons why they might not actually have been friends in the traditional sense, thanks to their class differences (per @sideprince's addition, not just the initial post). Put plainly, how close would they be if Lucius was a Prefect when Snape started? What ~16-year-old wants to be friends with an 11-year-old? How close would they have been at 17 and 12? What about the intervening years when Snape spent most of his time at Hogwarts, but Lucius had already left? How might Lucius' views of blood purity, wealth, and class have impacted the sincerity of the friendship? And what might their both being Death Eaters mean for the friendship, given the level of competitiveness among the ranks?

Realistically, I think the "lapdog" comment reflects how Snape was under Lucius' control or influence, even in school (since Sirius wouldn't have seen them together since then, and didn't know Snape was a Death Eater). This also supports the idea that the relationship would've been largely imbalanced, perhaps even transactional (with Snape essentially working for or under Lucius once they were Death Eaters, especially as Lucius was high-ranking enough to have been given a Horcrux, but there's no evidence Snape was as highly regarded in the first war). Plus, Slytherin friendships as depicted in the books are essentially all hierarchical like this anyway, and I don't believe for a moment that Lucius would be any less prejudiced when it came to wealth, class, and blood purity than his son. If anything, given that the war was ongoing in Snape's school years - and that by the time Snape graduated, Lucius was almost close enough to Voldemort to receive the diary Horcrux - these things are likely to have mattered more. Realistically, it is a relationship rooted in unequal power dynamics with a smattering of shared interests (in Dark artefacts/poisons), and, early on, a shared goal (for Snape, to become a DE; for Lucius, to recruit).

There was another meta/tumblr post I read about this somewhere, and please send it to me if you know what I mean because I can't find it, that suggests that how Snape flinches at Lucius' name is similar to how he/other DEs flinch when the Dark Mark burns. I believe the meta may also have referenced the "lapdog" quote, and described how it related to Snape being in a position of considerably less power than Lucius, with the other meaning of lapdog of course being 'a person that is influenced or controlled by another' - which Snape does not dispute. Anyway, I feel as though that post really cemented the decision in my mind that they weren't all that close or friendly, that it's likely that Lucius was at least partly responsible for Snape being 'groomed' into the DEs.

But again, one friendship - even if sincere and genuine, though I feel it vanishingly unlikely that it was - doesn't really prove that Snape had the capability or interest to maintain relationships in general. We can't really argue it either way, because we never once see Snape and Lucius together to get a feel for the dynamic (which is, I think, also suggestive that they were not especially close outside of their DE duties/beliefs).

The Gang

Snape is, at one point, also supposedly friends with Mulciber and Avery - but I think it's clear from the way Lily brings it up that this is a fairly recent change, occurring in their fifth year or around the time that conversation occurs. It also doesn't appear that they are particularly close, since Lily - in the series of flashbacks where Snape's past mostly lives, thus it's pretty load-bearing in terms of establishing dynamics - asks if Snape even knew what had happened, suggesting he wasn't there, and he's only heard about it. The next insight we get into Snape's teen friendships is after the exams, aka SWM. In quite obvious contrast to quite literally everyone else streaming out of the hall, Snape exits alone, doesn't meet up with anyone to discuss the exam, chooses to sit alone (or has nobody to sit with), and re-reads the exam paper. Nobody comes to his aid when SWM happens except Lily - and obviously in the Snapedom there's some ongoing and spirited debates about whether or not she was actually helpful in that situation, whether she fancied James, or whether she found the whole thing a little bit amusing, so all was (obviously) not well between them.

In GoF, Sirius also recalls that Snape was part of a "gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters" during his time in school - presumably including Mulciber as well as Avery, though only Avery is mentioned. Still, Lily says:

You and your precious little Death Eater friends—you see, you don’t even deny it! You don’t even deny that’s what you’re all aiming to be! You can’t wait to join You-Know-Who, can you?

If the extent of that friendship was similarly rooted in wanting to be DEs, I doubt it really counts as "friendship". From what we see of the Death Eaters, there is very little emphasis on mutual care or emotional reciprocity - in fact, quite the opposite. The precursors to the Death Eaters were described as "motley collection; a mixture of the weak seeking protection, the ambitious seeking some shared glory, and the thuggish gravitating toward a leader who could show them more refined forms of cruelty", "servants" who were "rigidly controlled by Riddle" - and we see nothing that would suggest that it is any different by the time the books were set. Even if some members were friends with Snape (which we can't guarantee), I'm still not sure that we can use it as clear evidence towards Snape's ability or interest in maintaining reciprocal social relationships in the traditional sense. It's a highly structured, "rigidly controlled" environment, with clear goals, clear rank, and limited-to-no requirements for social-emotional reciprocity or even liking the other people there. Death Eaters seem to largely go about their own lives when not summoned by Voldemort, only reporting in when progress is expected to have been made - and certainly in the first war, many members may not even have known who most of the others were, limiting the need to build relationships even further.

Before I draw this section to a close, there is also something from the ICD-11 that caught my attention. There is a sentence which reads:

Social naiveté, especially during adolescence, can lead to exploitation by others

...which led me to wondering whether child-or-teen-Snape may not have been as able to recognise the manipulation tactics used by people like Lucius or Voldemort when drawing him into the DEs as a youth, for example. This is not to suggest that Snape did not understand the ideology or the harm involved with joining the Death Eaters, only that he may have been less able to anticipate how his need for belonging and/or recognition could (and would) be exploited by a group like the Death Eaters.

You could similarly argue that Snape was susceptible to manipulation several times in the books: Sirius exploited Snape's frustration to prompt him into going down into the Whomping Willow, depending on your interpretation of how Snape was convinced to go down there in the first place (obviously, looking for a way to get them expelled; but if that were the case, why would you follow the advice of someone who you know doesn't like you? How do you get 'tricked' in that circumstance, if otherwise you are rather smart?). Snape may have been less likely to realise how someone like Dumbledore might exploit his guilt and shame. I might even suggest that Barty Jr. (as Moody) rather easily exploited Snape's insecurity about his relationship with Dumbledore - all of which, to me, suggests that Snape has rather a spotty record of realising when he is the one being manipulated. But to explore that properly might take another meta, and I'm trying really hard to keep to the point.

This brings us almost neatly to the other thing I wanted to ponder, however - whether Snape was rather easily able to manipulate complex social relationships within his role as spy.

A brief diversion into Snape's skill for manipulation

As a reminder, this is what got me thinking:

I did not say "autistic people can’t have any strong, long-term relationships". I analyzed that Snape demonstrates the ability to maintain, coordinate, and manipulate complex social relationships intentionally and effectively (with Slytherin students, colleagues, as a spy), which does not resemble the "persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction (Criterion A)" at a level that causes functional impairment.

As we've already covered ad nauseum, I don't think Snape had much of a relationship with his colleagues - so here I want to think more about Snape's skill in maintaining and manipulating complex social relationships in his role as a spy, and whether he demonstrated a particular strength in the areas of social behaviour that are most affected in autism.

'Manipulation' is an exceptionally broad category of behaviours, and Snape's success as a spy could perhaps be taken as proof of his manipulative (and thus social) skills - but something about the argument doesn't sit quite right with me. Whilst I don't want to undermine the skill it took to navigate his role as double agent, I'm not sure that the behaviours traits associated with autism - reduced/differing social-emotional reciprocity; developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships; in short, broadly 'good' social interaction - were ever a large or significant part of Snape's repertoire.

As far as we know, he's not out there subtly influencing people to do his bidding or to act in a certain way through the building of mutual relationships or understandings - if he needs someone to do his bidding, he uses Imperio (like he does on Mundungus). He's not at the Ministry charming people with flattering conversations and generous donations to the right causes, like Lucius Malfoy did. He's not pretending to be a teacher and successfully gaining the trust of students and staff whilst simultaneously rattling an ex-Death Eater, now-spy, like Barty Jr. did. He's not even really trying to convince Bellatrix or Narcissa or anyone else that he's trustworthy. I would argue that his key strength is actually largely in withholding himself and his information from the other DEs, like we see him do in the beginning of DH, where Snape "did not elaborate" for anyone other than Voldemort, and doesn't even engage in the kind of small talk about peacocks/light information gathering that Yaxley is apparently trying to initiate as they approach:

I'm not sure to what extent spending time with the other DEs can be considered strictly "social", either. The DEs aren't your typical social gathering, and have a clear hierarchy and one goal: to successfully do as the Dark Lord commands (with a side order of maintaining pureblood supremacy). Snape already has Voldemort's trust on the strength of the information he provides - information largely managed by Dumbledore rather than Snape himself:

“I prefer not to put all of my secrets in one basket, particularly not a basket that spends so much time dangling on the arm of Lord Voldemort.” “Which I do on your orders!” “And you do it extremely well. Do not think that I underestimate the constant danger in which you place yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what appears to be valuable information while withholding the essentials is a job I would entrust to nobody but you.”

And as we see from Snape's entrance to the Death Eater meeting in DH, Snape would have been relying not on his social skill, but on his magical skill, to appear trustworthy to Voldemort:

[Voldemort's] red eyes fastened upon Snape’s black ones with such intensity that some of the watchers looked away, apparently fearful that they themselves would be scorched by the ferocity of the gaze. Snape, however, looked calmly back into Voldemort’s face and, after a moment or two, Voldemort’s lipless mouth curved into something like a smile.

I suggest that Snape's greatest proficiency lies not in managing or manipulating social relationships with Voldemort or the other Death Eaters, but in managing and manipulating magic and information - particularly through the use of Occlumency. We see no evidence for Snape building, sustaining, or coordinating socially or emotionally complex relationships with the other Death Eaters to achieve his ends - no evidence of schmoozing, essentially, or any attempts to get them to trust him. Those sorts of 'positive', reciprocal social skills that autistic people may struggle with the most (or may have to work on or just pretend to possess) aren't really required, because there is such an overwhelming atmosphere of distrust among the DEs, and Snape has no reason to be fighting it. If anything, Snape attempts to set himself apart and alienate himself from the other DEs (sort of like he does with the Order; he is formal-to-unpleasant with other Order members, and does not engage with any other positive social interactions with them, like staying for dinner or engaging in conversation beyond the practical or antagonistic).

Further, Snape protects himself with the fact that he is providing useful information for Voldemort, and the other DEs doubting him means doubting their Lord - which is something Snape leans on when he is speaking with Bellatrix:

“Do you really think that the Dark Lord has not asked me each and every one of those questions? And do you really think that, had I not been able to give satisfactory answers, I would be sitting here talking to you?” She hesitated. “I know he believes you, but…” “You think he is mistaken? Or that I have somehow hoodwinked him? Fooled the Dark Lord, the greatest wizard, the most accomplished Legilimens the world has ever seen?” Bellatrix said nothing, but looked, for the first time, a little discomfited. Snape did not press the point.

Even when he speaks with Voldemort in front of all the others, he says things like "the source we discussed", rather than naming the source outright - I'd wager to signal to the others that he is closest to Voldemort - which he also does with Bellatrix:

“My information has been conveyed directly to the Dark Lord,” said Snape. “If he chooses not to share it with you —”

This is a good strategy, and it suits Snape just fine. It doesn't matter if none of themlike, trust, or feel particularly close to him, they just need to respect him - or, more accurately, respect Voldemort, who deems Snape and his information valuable.

The only time we ever see Snape in an approximation of a social situation is when Bellatrix and Narcissa visit him. I say approximation, because this still isn't a typical social situation. Even here, they are all under Voldemort's rather clear hierarchy - and Snape is, certainly within this collection of people, at the very top. We start with his obviously mocking civility with Bellatrix, and even Narcissa. He invites them into his home, his territory; he humiliates another Death Eater (Pettigrew), who is currently functionally his servant. He toasts the Dark Lord, as if to remind them of his existence - and this is all important not just because Snape enjoys needling people, but to assert Snape's dominance within the DE ranks, and in his own home, and to emphasise the tone and hierarchy of the whole interaction. Narcissa has come to beg him for help, to reveal a secret she's been forbidden to tell, and Bellatrix has joined her (no matter how reluctantly). This is in direct opposition to Voldemort's orders. That puts them both in far greater danger than Snape, who is currently top-ranking thanks to Lucius' fall from grace. Realistically, Snape cannot yet be replaced or killed - he is too valuable inside Hogwarts, too close to Dumbledore, and he is an Order member. Bellatrix can hardly reveal anything to Voldemort about their visit to Spinner's End - they've already been disgraced, they are already being punished, Lucius failed and is in Azkaban, Draco is being set up to fail and die, and Bellatrix is no longer being treated as Voldemort's most trusted and is no longer privy to all of his information. If Voldemort ever found out about Spinner's End, Snape is on much safer footing than anyone else in the room - and so, in that moment, he can afford to be cocky, and put on a bit of a show.

So now all that remained was for Snape to engage in one of his favourite hobbies: being deliberately antagonistic, and a little bit dramatic. Throughout the interaction with Bellatrix, it's very obvious to me that this is something of a performance and not his natural behaviour or manner of speaking (or probably anyone's, really). I think this is also reasonably well-supported by the text itself, rather than just being an interpretation, right from the offset: he repeatedly asks rhetorical questions as part of his dramatic monologue, which isn't a very Snape-y thing to do even when he's monologuing elsewhere (i.e. when teaching lessons), and nor is it how people usually speak; his tone is also repeatedly described as if intentional, or deliberate - "his voice delicately inflected to suggest his disbelief" - and more than likely also to suggest his boredom, his impatience, his indifference, and his mockery. Snape himself practically frames the exchange as a performance for their imaginary audience - the other Death Eaters - before it even begins, by inviting Bellatrix to spread his words. I don't think Snape cares one way or another what the other DEs think - because it is only what Voldemort thinks that matters, and anyone who defies Voldemort too openly will be killed. Still, he is very aware that every aspect, from his words to his demeanour, will be reported back, so the lies had best be strong ones, able to stand up to interrogation.

Of course, the real truth of it is that this whole interaction was for the readers' benefit - but we're doing a Watsonian analysis here, not a Doylist one.

However, this was something Snape absolutely prepared for - but not for the sake of Bellatrix. As Snape said himself, "Do you really think that the Dark Lord has not asked me each and every one of those questions? And do you really think that, had I not been able to give satisfactory answers, I would be sitting here talking to you?"

And it was a long time coming - Snape had to answer all of these questions about a year ago, at the end of GoF, and he had at least an academic year of the Dark Mark growing clearer during GoF in which he could've honed his lies and his Occlumency skills:

The Dark Mark had been growing stronger for months. I knew he must be about to return, all the Death Eaters knew! I had plenty of time to think about what I wanted to do, to plan my next move, to escape like Karkaroff, didn’t I?

...but in reality, we know that Dumbledore had assured him that Voldemort would return over a decade before even that, so he had even longer.

So, his lies are ready - they're the same lies he prepared for Voldemort, the same lies he presumably rehearsed and practiced and protected with Occlumency. He's had anywhere from a decade to a year to prepare them, and he's had his entire adulthood to cultivate and master his well-spoken, smooth persona, and likely to anticipate that at some stage, Bellatrix or someone else would interrogate him. He also knew he'd have the safety net of Voldemort's trust - or certainly knew by the time he survived GoF. He's hardly winging it.

Still, all of his confidence and sardonic pleasantries fall away when he is faced by something he's not prepared for: Narcissa's tears. The switch happens almost immediately once she begins to cry. Instead of his previous performance, he now stops speaking. He has no pre-prepared performance for this, and as usually happens when Snape doesn't want to reveal something, he suddenly falls silent:

Snape said nothing. He looked away from the sight of her tears as though they were indecent, but he could not pretend not to hear her.

Still, Narcissa pushes, and he has to say something - so to begin he falls back on toeing the party line, only this time accompanied by his usual (natural) bluntness, the shorter sentences, the less affected speech. The elipses and silences return - the very same we see when he pauses to think on his words as he so often does as a professor, or when pondering what answers to give during Harry's Occlumency lessons:

“If Draco succeeds,” said Snape, still looking away from her, “he will be honored above all others.” “The Dark Lord will not be persuaded, and I am not stupid enough to attempt it,” said Snape flatly. When Snape said nothing, Narcissa seemed to lose what little self-restraint she still possessed. “Narcissa, that’s enough. Drink this. Listen to me.”

This is no longer performance, and this is no longer prepared. He's tried shutting the conversation down by telling Narcissa not to speak of it, by reminding her that Voldemort's word is law, and when she persisted, he tried telling her there's no hope of changing Voldemort's mind. But none of that works, and she persists. The practically immediate shift in Snape's demeanour here could be a result of a few things - Snape's feelings towards mothers protecting their sons (perhaps like his own mother did for him, like Lily did for Harry); his feelings for Narcissa in this moment as she sobs, or for Draco, who is a child that Snape has cared for as Head of House for years and who is his friend Lucius' son; his own fear, perhaps, because he has not managed to sidestep this conversation, and now it could get reported back to Voldemort; as well as the fact that he didn't necessarily expect for the conversation to get this far, and was not prepared for it.

I think it's also worth mentioning that when it seems (to me) that Snape is starting to lose his composure, there are physical tells beyond just the shift in his speech - just like at the end of GoF:

“And, should it prove necessary… if it seems Draco will fail…” whispered Narcissa (Snape’s hand twitched within hers, but he did not draw away), “will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?” Snape made a sudden movement, but as Harry looked at him, Snape’s eyes flew back to Fudge.

I think this scene/chapter also perfectly encapsulates why Snape plays his cards so close to his chest - one person hearing the wrong thing, and making the wrong connection, would mean the end of his life. So, certainly within the Death Eaters, it's best not to cultivate those relationships or have those conversations at all. You could even argue again that Snape's distance from other people, his lack of relationships, is intentional on his part in the name of self-preservation than anything else - except I would then refer back to how awkward and withdrawn Snape appears in an unstructured, friendly environment like Slughorn's party where he could act pretty smoothly (if distantly) if he wanted to, but chooses not to, or is unable to outside of a very specific set of circumstances where the dynamics are clear and he has had time to prepare for the exam.

So, now what?

Well, if anyone's made it this far, you'll be pleased to hear that's the end of my analysis on Snape's relationships and social skills. Whatever the cause, it's hinted that Snape struggles with social events, struggles to maintain relationships, perhaps struggles to initiate conversations, and doesn't seem to much enjoy or desire socialising in general. From an outside perspective for why Snape does what he does - that is, without knowing why he seemed so uncomfortable at Slughorn's party, why he does not seem to cultivate friendly relationships with the other staff, why all of his relationships with his friends and acquaintances seemingly are distant or tend to break down (if they get going in the first place) - it would be impossible to say for sure. Of course, neglect, trauma, or abuse in his childhood years could account for poor relationships and social knowledge to an extent. However, as we've seen from his other appearances in the book, he is capable of minding his manners and pretending otherwise - certainly in some environments - which is why the strict, upright, eloquent persona is so prominent throughout the books and fanworks.

With all of that said, social difficulties/social differences and trouble with relationships are not the sole defining traits of autism, and I think we can make a similarly reasonable (if not ironclad) argument that his behaviours may fit into some of those other categories, too. With that in mind, I now want to quickly* turn our attention to one final aspect of Category A of the DSM-5. After that, we will then turn to Category B (restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities).

* this will certainly be quick in comparison to the previous sections, anyway

Category A2: Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction

Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction, ranging, for example, from poorly integrated verbal and nonverbal communication; to abnormalities in eye contact and body language or deficits in understanding and use of gestures: to a total lack of facial expressions and nonverbal communication" (DSM-5). "Understanding of, interest in, or inappropriate responses to the verbal or non-verbal social communications of others. Integration of spoken language with typical complimentary non-verbal cues, such as eye contact, gestures, facial expressions and body language. These non-verbal behaviours may also be reduced in frequency or intensity". (ICD-11)

Or, in less technical terms, autistic people might, for example:

find it more challenging to: 

recognise or read body language or facial expressions

choose a tone of voice, volume or speed of speech

judge pauses and turn-taking, or to be interrupted during a conversation

understand words when they are not used literally, for example in metaphors, idioms, jokes, irony and sarcasm

have a different pattern of language development compared to non-autistic people, which may include losing language skills (regression) and a later catch-up in childhood 

prefer not to make eye-contact, or find it uncomfortable 

use fewer gestures (generally in childhood) [x]

Read more here.

To add to that, autistic nonverbal communication can be a little bit all over the place. At times, your facial expressions might not match your feelings (potentially like Snape); you might not be able to conceal your thoughts from popping up very, very clearly in your expressions (like Snape); you might not look someone in the eye or you might stare (like Snape); your voice might be odd, or too loud, or too quiet (like Snape); or you may use gestures differently, or with reduced frequency or intensity (like Snape), or a whole host of other things. Follow the links above, or this one, for more info.

(or it could be totally the opposite. the key really is that it's considered unusual, too much or not enough - especially by allistic other people)

Now, I speculate that Snape is almost perpetually playing one of two roles - Professor and/or Death Eater - and this complicates things as far as this section is concerned - as does Occluding, the fact that tone and pitch is sometimes difficult to ascertain over text, the fact that interpretations on behaviour can differ from reader to reader, and that descriptions of physical behaviours or traits may be sacrificed when writing in the name of getting on with the story and what was actually said, especially in the books intended for younger readers. With all of that in mind, let's ponder some examples of Snape's nonverbal communication...

Unusual facial expressions

I didn't look into Snape's facial expressions specifically for the sake of this meta, because I can remember plenty of occasions when Snape is described as snarling (if that's an expression), smiling in various nasty, smug, and generally unpleasant ways, sneering, looking like Christmas had been cancelled, like he'd force-feed someone poison, etc, and it's in the diagnostic criteria that autistic people may show flat affect or fewer facial expressions. However, I would also like to draw attention to the fact that research shows that autistic facial expressions primarily tend to be reduced or absent during conversation rather than reduced or absent all the time - for example, allistic people are more likely to smile and nod during a conversation, or to mirror the facial expressions of the other person speaking, than autistic people are. Reduced or flattened facial expressions in autistic people can and does still occur when autistics are expressing their own emotions, but apparently the facial expressions of our own emotional reactions are similar between autistics and allistics - and that could track for Snape. I can think of very, very few positive/neutral social conversations that Snape has in general, and even fewer (maybe even none) where he is certainly mirroring the other person's expressions for the purposes of a friendly conversation. (Perhaps this was why Quirrell looked so nervous).

I think we could also potentially suggest that some odd facial expressions do sometimes escape Snape. For example, Snape's curious almost-smile when Mrs Norris was found Petrified:

Snape loomed behind them, half in shadow, wearing a most peculiar expression: it was as though he was trying hard not to smile.

...and when Snape is described as wearing a "grim" smile when he is watching Quidditch, and all of the other horrible smiles Harry describes over the course of the series. Of course, a lot of this could be because Snape and Harry dislike one another, and so Snape's smiles to Harry are often vindictive and nasty in nature - but the two examples I've listed above (grim and peculiar) are not from moments when Snape is even interacting with Harry. Then we have to assume that they're described as such just because Harry doesn't like Snape, finds him ugly and horrible, and so he'll be described negatively. But, as we're here for a thought experiment, I also want to suggest that Snape's expressions are just... odd. The way he expresses himself is odd. There's just something "not quite right" about him.

And this fits with reality: nonautistic (allistic) people are more likely to say they dislike autistic people even though they did not know the diagnosis. The most common reasons for disliking an autistic person was that they appeared awkward, and that they appeared to lack empathy - both of which could perhaps reasonably apply to Snape, if that's your cup of tea.

Of course, we're playing in the space between Snape's literary role as mean cartoon villain teacher and reality - but that is where I like to play the most.

Unusual eye contact

I mentioned in the other essay that Snape does sort of express abnormal eye contact in the form of some very intense staring. Still, I'm not sure that Legilimency or Occlumency count in the traditional sense, as that is purpose-driven for the sake of using magic and not strictly social eye contact. Still, if we don't assume that every time Snape stares it's an example of Legilimency... then Snape does express some abnormal eye contact in the form of staring. This could occur in real autistic people who are masking, as making eye contact during conversation is a "rule" of socialising - but Snape also stares when he's not in conversation, and I do suspect he's using Legilimency fairly often whenever Harry thinks he's "mind reading".

Possibly, if we're reading Snape as autistic, it could also be an attempt to glean expressions that he isn't able to interpret intutitively, or he simply doesn't realise when he's staring how long it's been. Of course, Snape could also just be staring at Harry at lot since he's James reincarnated and Lily's son and also is regularly in trouble and Snape's trying to work out what he's up to this time and it's nothing to do with any of that at all - but we're just pondering, here. I think you could reasonably interpret Snape's 'greedily watching' Lily as some sort of unusual looking behaviour, as well, or perhaps an odd or unusual facial expression overall, as well as the traditionally-held view that he's a lonely and neglected child who just really wanted a friend.

Unusual speech

I might also tenuously submit as evidence the fact that autistic people may often speak "too quietly" or "too loudly" for any given situation, and from this wonderful analysis, "when [Snape] is not simply speaking, he is whispering or hissing, which complements the 25% of the time that he is speaking softly or quietly". The above link also mentions speaking too quickly or too slowly as an autistic trait - and I would argue that Snape tends towards speaking slowly (but he could just be pondering the best insult to use).

His manner of speaking is also often very precise - but we'll come back to that later, as it's not really to do with this section.

Unusual use of gestures

These two sentences are what I want to focus on in this section: "Integration of spoken language with typical complimentary non-verbal cues, such as eye contact, gestures, facial expressions and body language. These non-verbal behaviours may also be reduced in frequency or intensity."

See also: my section on unusual facial expressions, and my note about how non-autistic people tend to mirror each other in conversation - which is not something I think Snape does - but here we're thinking about gestures only.

I had a suspicion that this might apply to Snape, so I attempted a (very brief, cursory) analysis of Snape's nonverbal behaviour in the form of gestures supporting speech and communication. What I gathered by scanning through for Snape's communicative gestures is, essentially, that he doesn't use them very much. Initially I wanted to separate the examples by book - but then I found so few examples across all of the books that it didn't really seem worth doing:

‘In!’ [Snape] said, opening a door halfway down the cold passageway and pointing. (CoS)

His hand moved toward the fire [as if to throw away the Marauders Map] (PoA)

“I certainly did,” said Snape, his face contorted with fury as he strode back to his desk. “I have just asked Potter to empty his pockets. He was carrying this.” Snape pointed at the parchment, on which the words of Messrs. Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs were still shining.

Snape pointed a long yellow finger at Malfoy and said, “Explain.” (GoF)

Snape nodded silently and swept out of the room. (GoF)

Snape looked back at [Umbridge], his eyebrows slightly raised. (OotP)

Snape gave her an ironic bow and turned to leave. (OotP)

Snape held up a hand to stop [Narcissa] (HBP)

he inclined his head slightly to Narcissa (HBP)

voice delicately inflected (HBP)

“Your defenses, ” said Snape, a little louder, “must therefore be as flexible and inventive as the arts you seek to undo. These pictures” — he indicated a few of them as he swept past — “give a fair representation of what happens to those who suffer, for instance, the Cruciatus Curse” — he waved a hand toward a witch who was clearly shrieking in agony — “feel the Dementor’s Kiss” — a wizard lying huddled and blank-eyed, slumped against a wall — “or provoke the aggression of the Inferius” — a bloody mass upon the ground (HBP)

“But Potter seems to have a lot to say on the subject,” said Snape, pointing suddenly at the back of the room, his black eyes fixed on Harry. (HBP)

Snape nodded, but did not elaborate. (DH)

Snape gave a stiff nod (DH; memory)

he nodded importantly (DH; memory; child)

For the sake of this search, I ignored gestures that involved wands, as nobody has much of a choice in that, and wand actions are also not employed to support communication with another person. Some of you may be thinking we need someone to compare it with to see if gestures are just rarely described in the books, and you're right - but that's a whole meta in and of itself, and I've already done this one and the other essay, and I'm almost all meta'd out. But, out of curiosity, I started to look at Hagrid. He was very expressive and used a lot of gestures, glances, etc to emphasize or enhance his communication - so many that I had almost as many examples just from a cursory look at PS as far as Diagon Alley as I did for Snape in the first four or five books combined:

Harry looked back at Hagrid, smiling, and saw that Hagrid was positively beaming at him. (reciprocal)

Not only was Hagrid twice as tall as anyone else, he kept pointing at perfectly ordinary things like parking meters and saying loudly, ‘See that, Harry? Things these Muggles dream up, eh?’ (sharing focus of attention)

‘Can’t, Tom, I’m on Hogwarts business,’ said Hagrid, clapping his great hand on Harry’s shoulder and making Harry’s knees buckle. (showing Harry to the others)

Hagrid was standing there, grinning at Harry and pointing at two large ice-creams to show he couldn’t come in

Plus, several sneaky sideways glances at Harry when Hagrid uses magic outside of Hogwarts and they both know he isn't supposed to

Of course, this is because Hagrid has a larger and more personal role in PS than Snape does at any point in the series. Hagrid is also more friendly, and not so much an authority figure. I then decided to look for Lupin, just in PoA:

“Now, then,” said Professor Lupin, beckoning the class toward the end of the room

“And you will raise your wand — thus — and cry ‘Riddikulus’ — and concentrate hard on your grandmother’s clothes. (Presuming here that he demonstrated in order to show the students)

Lupin looked up and, by the merest half-glance in Harry’s direction, warned him not to interrupt.

“Of course I know how to work it,” said Lupin, waving his hand impatiently.

“The number of times I saw James disappearing under it… ,” said Lupin, waving an impatient hand again.

Black’s wand arm rose, but Lupin seized him around the wrist, gave him a warning look, then turned again to Pettigrew, his voice light and casual.

He was also significantly more likely to use gestures to support communication than Snape, and that's in just one book - it took until OotP for Snape to reach the same number of communicative gestures, and I'm not even sure all of Snape's count.

By this point, I also realised I needed to look at someone more similar to Snape, who is not necessarily friendly, and who is also a teacher and strict authority figure.

And who would be better than McGonagall?

Well, she uses more gestures in the first chapter of PS than Snape uses in the first three books combined:

She jerked her head back at the Dursleys’ dark living-room window.

She threw a sharp, sideways glance at Dumbledore here, as though hoping he was going to tell her something, but he didn’t, so she went on

‘You don’t mean – you can’t mean the people who live here?’ cried Professor McGonagall, jumping to her feet and pointing at number four

‘Yes, yes, it’s all very sad, but get a grip on yourself, Hagrid, or we’ll be found,’ Professor McGonagall whispered, patting Hagrid gingerly on the arm

And then some more, when she's just in 'teacher mode' from Harry's perspective in PS, which is obviously a much shorter book, so I expect there'd be a few more if I were looking across the series:

Professor McGonagall led the first-years up here, so that they came to a halt in a line facing the other students, with the teachers behind them.

By the end of the lesson, only Hermione Granger had made any difference to her match; Professor McGonagall showed the class how it had gone all silver and pointy and gave Hermione a rare smile.

Professor McGonagall pointed them into a classroom which was empty except for Peeves, who was busy writing rude words on the blackboard.

She also has more italicised speech to show emphasis on her words (from which we can infer possibly the prosody of her words) in the very first chapter of PS, where she is speaking with Dumbledore, than Snape does in probably half the books combined - though this is just a guesstimate, and not a real figure.

All in all, Snape is not an especially expressive man when it comes to gestures - which is another thing I wonder if a lot of autistic people pick up on. (I think this is also why I find the way he speaks to McGonagall so odd and over-expressive when she returns from St Mungo's in OotP, because he's hardly ever that expressive, and even less when he's displaying positive emotions rather than rage or spite).

So, with that out of the way, let's just focus on Snape's gestures themselves.

What's most noteworthy is how Snape uses gestures, especially with regard to this: "Integration of spoken language with ... non-verbal cues, such as eye contact, gestures, facial expressions and body language. These non-verbal behaviours may also be reduced in frequency or intensity."

In several of those examples, his gestures are not integrated; instead, they replace speech. Sometimes this happens, especially in moments of stress like those examples are and you might not trust your voice or feel able to speak, or speak well - but it's mostly noteworthy because of how few gestures, especially integrated with speech, he uses overall. In one example, the gesture is as a threat - throwing the Map in the fire - and also replaces speech. Snape points, but mostly only as instruction (where to go, who should speak) - never to share something or bring something to anyone's attention, except on the one occasion in HBP where he is trying to humiliate Harry in class. Snape "indicates" the pictures, which intuitively feels much subtler than pointing outright. Similarly, his eyebrows are "slightly" raised. When he hear him affecting his tone on purpose, his voice is "delicately" inflected, and his voice is usually described as variants of quiet or soft - all of which feels as though it reflects the reduced intensity and flattened affect sometimes characteristic of autistic people when expressing themselves.

Another thing I might suggest is that Snape primarily does these sorts of gestures when he is 'performing' - in front of Umbridge, or Narcissa and Bellatrix. Three of the 15 examples I was able to find occur just during the conversation with Narcissa and Bellatrix, and another two are in front of Umbridge, meaning one third of Snape's total examples of nonverbal communicative behaviour occur in this type of setting and circumstance rather than being part of his natural speech. Given my discussion of Snape's interaction with Bellatrix and Narcissa earlier, it's worth noting that all of them were during the sardonic, lying, mocking stage of the conversation, and not the serious part where his affect is suddenly and mysteriously flatter - and he is also mocking Umbridge and has been lying to her about the Veritaserum.

If we were to speculate further, I would refer back to the idea that Snape puts on sort of an act when he is teaching, playing the "role" of professor, and so may be somewhat more expressive to match. If Snape were autistic, this could well be interpreted as masking. As we all know by now, masking is a complex process which involves both conscious and unconscious changes to your behaviour to look more allistic. This can include things like altering your eye contact, gestures, facial expressions, what you'd say or ask someone in conversation, scripting (preparing what you'll say ahead of time), and/or changing speech or tone of voice, among other things. As we have absolutely 0 insight into Snape's head to see whether certain behaviours are intentional or natural - and because, as an autistic person who has been forced to mask or camouflage autistic traits, it can be difficult in adulthood to tease apart natural or automatic behaviour from what's been taught to you implicitly and that you perform subconsciously - I think focusing on this aspect may be a little challenging - but once or twice I have certainly thought that Snape was altering his behaviour or tone deliberately, rather than being naturally Like That:

“Merely that I am sure you must feel — ah — frustrated by the fact that you can do nothing useful,” Snape laid a delicate stress on the word, “for the Order.” “Does he?” said Snape, his voice delicately inflected to suggest his disbelief. “Does he still, after the fiasco at the Ministry?”

Now, there could be multiple reasons why Snape acts the way he does - personal preference, general misanthropy, childhood trauma and neglect, lack of parental models, and likely more besides. So, this is where we - and anyone with or hoping for a diagnosis of autism - then would need to delve into the rest of the criteria.

Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities, as manifested by at least two of the following, currently or by history:

Stereotyped or repetitive motor movements

Stereotyped or repetitive motor movements, use of objects, or speech (e.g., simple motor stereotypies, lining up toys or flipping objects, echolalia, idiosyncratic phrases); Motor deficits are often present, including odd gait, clumsiness, and other abnormal motor signs (e.g., walking on tiptoes) (DSM-5); Repetitive and stereotyped motor movements, such as whole body movements (e.g., rocking), atypical gait (e.g., walking on tiptoes), unusual hand or finger movements and posturing. These behaviours are particularly common during early childhood.

Snape and stims

Stimming ("self-stimulatory behavior") is another term for these repetitive physical movements or other similar repetitive behaviours.

And this is just a quick one to get started: Snape sometimes shows some 'fidgeting' behaviours in the books which could come under stereotyped or repetitive movements / stims, including pacing when stressed, tracing his lips, wringing his hands, and flexing his fingers - though in the linked post I forgot to list him shredding leaves (pointed out by @danadiadea I believe, thank you!)

Alan really nailed the fidgety fingers, btw.

Snape also openly discusses his admiration for 'softly shimmering cauldrons', which could be considered a visual stim if you were in that school of thought.

It is, however, worth noting that every human stims, perhaps especially when stressed or bored, and that stimming alone is not an 'autistic' thing to do. Snape is only mentioned to be 'stimming' when he is under stress or pressure in the books. Per my previous headcanons - and the real-life experience of autistic people, and the academic literature - I do think that if Snape were autistic, he would stim more freely if he had the choice but learnt to suppress and/or internalise his stims, even as a child. More obvious stims are the ones most likely to get you bullied or shouted at, in my experience - though the small ones certainly seem to annoy some people, as well.

Atypical gait

You could also potentially argue that Snape is described as having an odd or "atypical gait":

A hooded figure came swiftly down the front steps of the castle. Clearly not wanting to be seen, it walked as fast as possible toward the forbidden forest. Harry’s victory faded from his mind as he watched. He recognized the figure’s prowling walk. Snape, sneaking into the forest while everyone else was at dinner — what was going on?

I'm not sure exactly what a human might look like if they had a prowling walk, but it's safe to say that Snape has a distinctive walk - so recognizable that Harry knew it was him, even from a distance, in the half-light, wearing a cloak that perhaps even covered his face. For the rest of the series, Snape is described as wearing a cloak that billows and swishes behind him, and is described as walking "in a twitchy manner that recalled a spider, his oily hair swinging about his face" as a teen. So, perhaps he always walks particularly quickly, which would account for some of the cloak and hair movement, as a teen he looked down when he walks which would account for the hair swinging in his face - and/or he has a bit of an unusual gait and 'bobs' slightly, which imparts additional movement to his cloak and hair.

Incidentally, bobbing too much when I walk was something someone once tried to bully me for in school, because it made my hair "too bouncy" and bullies really will take whatever shots they can. This sort of walking 'style' is also associated, for anyone interested, with toe-walking. Despite the name, this sort of tiptoeing action is not always on your full toes: "Rather than toe walking, adults tend to have a ‘bouncy’ walk". As a teen I was also told I walked silently, like an animal, presumably because most of my weight is on the balls of my feet.

This can apparently lead to tight or shortened calf muscles. Toe-walking may also be considered beneath sensory issues, as it can relate to issues with balance - and that may go some of the way to explaining my plantar fasciitis and why I lose my balance walking so much :P

Sensory differences

Hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of the environment (e.g., apparent indifference to pain/temperature, adverse response to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, visual fascination with lights or movement) (DSM-5). Lifelong excessive and persistent hypersensitivity or hyposensitivity to sensory stimuli or unusual interest in a sensory stimulus, which may include actual or anticipated sounds, light, textures (especially clothing and food), odors and tastes, heat, cold, or pain. (ICD-11)

Light sensitivity

If I were to attempt to make an argument for Snape struggling with sensory issues, I might suggest he has a sensitivity to light (living and teaching in the dark dungeons, dimming the DADA classroom when he enters). This is not a one-off choice, this is just how he keeps it:

“Ah, Potter,” said Snape, when Harry had knocked on his door and entered the unpleasantly familiar office that Snape, despite teaching floors above now, had not vacated; it was as dimly lit as ever and the same slimy dead objects were suspended in coloured potions all around the walls.

Plus, given the choice, he would rather keep that room than the DADA office. I don't recall ever seeing him outside, directly in the sun - even when he tells Harry that he ought to be enjoying the sunshine in PS, Snape then goes to the staffroom (and then presumably to his office/the dungeons). He sits in the shade in SWM. He stands in the shadows even inside the castle in CoS. Obviously, this could be for a range of reasons - including narrative reasons like making Snape seem sneaky and untrustworthy.

Something else which just occurred to me is this: on the day of Snape's "grim smile", this is how the weather was described:

“Okay — no wind to speak of — sun’s a bit bright, that could impair your vision, watch out for it — ground’s fairly hard, good, that’ll give us a fast kickoff —”

"Grim smile", indeed. Maybe he was just squinting.

Anyway, Snape also professes to enjoy "softly shimmering" lights in his introductory speech to potions, and "fascination with lights" is even in the DSM-5 and it's not uncommon for autistic people to enjoy stimming or sensory seeking by looking at things that softly sparkle/twinkle.

Poor balance

I might also suggest that Snape has poor vestibular sense and/or proprioception. Broom-riding, for example, would probably require quite a good sense of where your body is in space, and a good sense of balance. There's no suggestion Snape ever participated in the wizarding world's most popular sport during his school years (although he enjoys it enough to be competitive with McGonagall, and to switch up his outfit for the first and only time in the series to attend a match wearing green to support his students).

It wasn't suggested that he was particularly good at it in his childhood flashbacks, either, with the broom 'bucking' and a girl (probably Lily) laughing at him. Neville is the only other person shown to have such poor skills in Harry's generation, and Harry rather thinks that "Neville managed to have an extraordinary number of accidents even with both feet on the ground" (though we don't see many people flying outside of those who made the team, so that isn't necessarily too indicative of Snape's skill).

Snape was also not comfortable on a broom when he refereed the Quidditch match in PS as an adult (spitting, looking more mean and angry than usual - his way of expressing fear, I think) and is "white-faced and tight-lipped" by the end of the match - and said match only lasted five minutes. To be fair, a Bludger had been hit at him and Harry had flown by rather close - but Snape faces much worse than that, including his leg being "mangled" - without so much as a blink of an eye.

See also: Snape's strange walk aka "atypical gait", which can be tied to issues with moving your body and balance.

High pain threshold

I could also see Snape having being hyposensitive (under-sensitive, under-responsive) to pain - for example, he seems pretty unaffected by being bitten by Fluffy despite the fact his leg was bloody, "mangled", and needed bandages something like a week after Halloween. He does not go to the Hospital Wing, but deals with it himself. He was was similarly unaffected by Harry's Stinging Hex during the Occlumency lessons, powerful enough to leave an "angry weal there, like a scorch mark" - likely the same spell that led to Harry buckling in agony when Hermione cast it at his face.

Temperature sensitivity

He may also have issues with overheating or regulating his temperature, as the dungeons are consistently described as being rather cold.

Restricted, fixated interests

Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g., strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interests) (DSM-5); Persistent preoccupation with one or more special interests, parts of objects, or specific types of stimuli (including media) or an unusually strong attachment to particular objects (excluding typical comforters) (ICD-11).

The Dark Arts, Potions, and Spellcraft

This is probably the easiest to write about, because throughout the books Snape's interest in the Dark Arts are repeatedly described as abnormal in intensity (how much he enjoys/knows about it) and focus (the topic itself). In fact, it's one of the very first things the books let us know about Snape:

He teaches Potions, but he doesn’t want to – everyone knows he’s after Quirrell’s job. Knows an awful lot about the Dark Arts, Snape.

And boy, the books do not let us forget it. I hesitate to even add notes, since we all know this already, but I'll add a few, to make various points. Snape's interest started as a child, when he supposedly "knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year" and was "famous for it at school".

I do have to think this was more than the average hobby, as well. If Sirius is right, and Snape really was "famous" for his knowledge and/or enjoyment of the Dark Arts, then I ask you to consider just how into it Snape really was, and exactly how that became common knowledge. Was it, perhaps, because it was so unusual, so intense, and a little weird all round that he got teased for it? Because he put his hand up in DADA class - a little like Hermione does, all the time, practically standing up to answer? Whatever gave it away, it's clear that people thought he liked the Dark Arts a weird amount, and that he knew more about it than most of his peers:

His hand was flying across the parchment; he had written at least a foot more than his closest neighbors, and yet his writing was minuscule and cramped

Obviously, this passion never ceased - and I have to wonder if kid-Snape was giving passionate monologues like this about the Dark Arts to anyone who stood still long enough:

“The Dark Arts,” said Snape, “are many, varied, ever-changing, and eternal. Fighting them is like fighting a many-headed monster, which, each time a neck is severed, sprouts a head even fiercer and cleverer than before. You are fighting that which is unfixed, mutating, indestructible.” Harry stared at Snape. It was surely one thing to respect the Dark Arts as a dangerous enemy, another to speak of them, as Snape was doing, with a loving caress in his voice?

A loving caress is a particularly evocative way to describe it, and the implication is clear - Snape likes the Dark Arts a little too much.

You can also really clearly see the difference between Slughorn admiring a well-made potion, viewing it as a worthy craft, and enjoying it enough to teach, and Snape's similarly romantic declaration of how wonderful potions are in the first book - a view that I don't think is shared as passionately by anyone else in the series:

I don’t expect you will really understand the beauty of the softly simmering cauldron with its shimmering fumes, the delicate power of liquids that creep through human veins, bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses …

I was going to bold relevant bits of that, but I think the entire quote speaks for itself.

Also - and this is purely anecdotal - I don't know anyone who has annotated an entire book about something they just casually enjoy a completely normal amount. Read a book, sure. Collect a few books on the topic? Absolutely. Make a note here and there? Fair.

But annotate the entire book? To take the time to experiment with spells and potions to work out more efficient ways of doing it? Presumably to read up on supporting materials for things like spellcraft in order to make your own spells - a dangerous hobby, and one that killed Luna Lovegood's mother - for fun and enjoyment? Also, fifth year is O.W.L. year, not sixth, and we see Levicorpus used in SWM after their O.W.Ls - so Snape was reading and annotating this book, in his own time, a year ahead of Slughorn's curriculum (assuming it stayed the same? Snape's class was supposedly advanced, maybe Slughorn had to move it a year up to keep up).

In any case, none of this is giving "a hobby enjoyed a normal amount". If I had to think of alternative reasons then perhaps Snape was ahead of the curriculum just because he was exceptionally smart, or had few friends and so a lot of free time - but he loved it enough to keep what are presumably potion ingredients or potions he's made in his personal office, loved it enough to give his little speech about potions in PS - a speech which already anticipated that nobody else would love it as much as he did, or understand why he loved it so much.

Anyone else get the idea that Snape would just monologue about magic and Hogwarts before he got to school? Thankfully Lily was interested when they were kids, because I expect Snape had a lot to say. Also anecdotally, there was another autistic guy at my uni who would put up his hand and ask the most lengthy, drawn-out questions every single lecture, and as background he would list every single thing he knew about the topic before asking anything at all. We all went insane because it happened so often and we never got out of lectures on time because of it. This could've been an early-school-era Snape.

Insistence on sameness

Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior (e.g., extreme distress at small changes, difficulties with transitions, rigid thinking patterns, greeting rituals, need to take same route or eat same food every day) (DSM-5); Persistent restricted, repetitive, and inflexible patterns of behaviour, interests, or activities that are clearly atypical or excessive for the individual’s age and sociocultural context. These may include: Lack of adaptability to new experiences and circumstances, with associated distress, that can be evoked by trivial changes to a familiar environment or in response to unanticipated events. Inflexible adherence to particular routines; for example, these may be geographic such as following familiar routes, or may require precise timing such as mealtimes or transport; Excessive adherence to rules (e.g., when playing games). Excessive and persistent ritualized patterns of behaviour (e.g., preoccupation with lining up or sorting objects in a particular way) that serve no apparent external purpose (ICD-11). The National Autistic Society also calls it a "preference for order, predictability, or routine".

Snape's (Same) Clothes

If anyone hasn't read the sister post and is wondering what any of that has to do with Snape, now might be the time to hop on over for a fuller explanation of how these traits manifest differently between different autistic people.

One of the examples often given under "insistence on sameness" in discussions on autism is preferring to wear the same clothes... and one thing we know is that Snape, whose clothes are commented on fairly regularly, wears the same clothes basically every day. With the exception of one moment in PoA where he’s apparently wearing green at the Quidditch match, his nightclothes in GoF (because it's nighttime), and the addition of his travelling cloak in DH (but presumably the same robes underneath), Snape always wears the same long, black, billowing robes. He doesn’t even seem to have changed outfits for the Yule Ball. "Perhaps we don't hear about what the other professors are wearing!" I hear some of you cry - but that's not the case. There are several other 'main' professors, most of whose clothing is also described. These include:

Lockhart (robes of forget-me-not blue that exactly matched his eyes; robes of aquamarine; sweeping robes of turquoise and hat with gold trimming; robes of palest mauve; robes of deepest plum; lurid pink robes; others including jade green, lilac, and midnight blue)

Slughorn (magnificent, long, emerald green robes embroidered with silver at Dumbledore's funeral; waistcoats with gold buttons during; luxurious velvet smoking jackets; furry hat and an overcoat with matching fur collar)

Dumbledore (purple cloak, high-heeled buckled boots (PS); magnificent deep green robes embroidered with many stars and moons (GoF); long green robes (GoF); "different robes" in the Penseive (GoF); long midnight-blue robes (OotP); deep-purple robes scattered with silvery stars and a matching hat (OotP); glittering robes (HBP); dark robes gleaming (HBP). Honourable mention also to his "magnificently embroidered purple and gold dressing gown" and "flamboyantly cut suit of plum velvet".)

McGonagall (emerald green robes (PS); dress robes of red tartan and a wreath of thistles around the brim of her hat (GoF); a Muggle dress (OotP))

This isn't relevant to anything, but I find it amusing that in the staffroom there's a wardrobe "full of the teachers’ cloaks" (CoS) and where the "teachers kept their spare robes" (PoA). They are also described as "musty" (CoS), so perhaps it's not used very often.

Meanwhile, Snape wears black robes rippling in a cold breeze (CoS); black robes billowing behind him (PoA); black robes swishing (PoA); black robes (GoF); dark robes billowing behind him (HBP; possibly these aren't black?!]); black robes billowing behind him as ever (HBP), once wears a travelling cloak over his robes (HBP), and once attends a Quidditch game in a different colour: "Professor Snape sat in the very front row, wearing green like everyone else".

Obviously, clothes are used to express not only the wealth or vanity of certain professors (like Lockhart or Slughorn), and are also different on special/formal occasions. They can also be used to illustrate poverty - for example Lupin was described as looking "particularly shabby next to all the other teachers in their best robes", and the Weasleys are described as wearing "robes in varying states of shabbiness". However, Snape presumably receives roughly the same pay as the other teachers and has done for a decade or more by the time the books start, and the other teachers still occasionally switch up their outfits when he does not, so I think Snape's choice to wear the same clothes is exactly that - a choice.

Curiously, Harry's uniform robes are described as "long black robes" and "billowing black Hogwarts robes" in PS. He was instructed to buy three sets of those same long, black, billowing robes in his welcome letter, and (contrary to the movies) wore them throughout his time in school. So, we could even suggest that once Snape changed out of his ill-fitting Muggle clothes on the train (also just like Harry, who did the same) and into his Hogwarts uniform, he never really changed back. I feel like there's something there in terms of Snape's somewhat stunted emotional development and his role as one of the youngest professors meaning that he still dresses like a student, but I won't go into that now - but for the sake of this section I feel like it's worth mentioning that Snape hasn't just been wearing the same clothes just since he became a professor in his 20s, but that he has essentially been wearing them since he first had the chance, at the age of 11 - and if that doesn't speak to an insistence on sameness, I don't know what does.

I also noticed whilst searching through "robes" that the Death Eaters' robes are also black: "black Death Eater’s robes". So, Snape has been wearing black robes perhaps every day since he was 11.

It may also be worth mentioning that Snape is described as having overlong or long hair as a child, and he maintains that into adulthood, so I can only assume he enjoys it that way and wants to keep that the same, too, despite the overall change to his mannerisms.

Snape's (Same) Office

Snape's office is in the dungeons, and has been - as far as we're aware - since he started teaching there. He even retains that office when he is no longer teaching potions:

“Ah, Potter,” said Snape, when Harry had knocked on his door and entered the unpleasantly familiar office that Snape, despite teaching floors above now, had not vacated; it was as dimly lit as ever and the same slimy dead objects were suspended in colored potions all around the walls.

We'll return to the slimy dead objects and the dimness later.

...and Snape's not even been forced to stay there on account of Slughorn wanting or needing the other office, because it seems that Slughorn has some other room of his own which is not the DADA office Harry is familiar with:

Whether it had been built that way, or because he had used magical trickery to make it so, Slughorn’s office was much larger than the usual teacher’s study.

So, Snape maybe had the choice to move offices when he moved teaching positions - and he chose to stay. Perhaps he also chose to stay there on account of the entrance to the Slytherin dorms being in the dungeons, meaning better proximity to Draco in case he got into trouble.

Snape and strict adherence to the rules

This point is largely speculative, but this post goes into more depth about how Snape really strictly adheres to the school rules as a professor. I've quoted above a few examples far, far above where Snape is desperately hoping to get Dumbledore to adhere to the rules - when Harry and Ron fly the car and are seen by Muggles, when Harry is lying to the teachers in CoS, etc - and he is the only one, apparently, who seems concerned in the slightest. Perhaps it's just in the case of Harry - but we also find out in PoA that Snape was trying to get the Marauders expelled, using the rules against them in a similar way:

“It served him right,” he sneered. “Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to … hoping he could get us expelled. …”

And it's further implied that one of the (several) reasons Snape didn't like James was that he never followed the rules:

“Your father didn’t set much store by rules either,” Snape went on, pressing his advantage, his thin face full of malice. “Rules were for lesser mortals, not Quidditch Cup-winners. His head was so swollen —”

I might also suggest that Snape, if he were very strict about following the rules even as a child/teen, may have rationalised that the school rules and detentions weren't working to stop the Marauders from hexing whoever they wanted and running around at night - which was why he had to break the rules by sneaking out at night, in order to get the Marauders to be subject to the rules (i.e. exclusion).

Later in PoA, Snape attempts to call the authorities (Dementors) on Sirius instead of killing him himself, which sounds harsh but the Dementors are literally just the prison guards, and Sirius is an escaped convict. He could've killed Sirius in retribution - he had the chance, and chose not to take it.

Personally, I also suspect that the reason he insulted Hermione in Densaugeo-gate was to provoke Harry and Ron into doing something he could punish them for - like shouting and swearing at a teacher. He must enforce the rules with the Slytherins, too, since they tend to mock Harry behind Snape's back. Draco also has a skill for needling Harry/Ron and then and at the moment at which Snape arrives, it seems as though someone else acted out first, e.g.:

Malfoy spent much of their next Potions class doing dementor imitations across the dungeon; Ron finally cracked and flung a large, slippery crocodile heart at Malfoy, which hit him in the face and caused Snape to take fifty points from Gryffindor.

...and:

Ron dived at Malfoy just as Snape came up the stairs. ‘WEASLEY!’ Ron let go of the front of Malfoy’s robes. ‘He was provoked, Professor Snape,’ said Hagrid, sticking his huge hairy face out from behind the tree. ‘Malfoy was insultin’ his family.’ ‘Be that as it may, fighting is against Hogwarts rules, Hagrid,’ said Snape silkily. ‘Five points from Gryffindor, Weasley, and be grateful it isn’t more. Move along, all of you.'

I also think it's funny that although Snape is working on Voldemort's downfall in OotP, and although he's pleased to see McGonagall returned from hospital, he's so preoccupied with the rules (not having wands out between classes, and certainly not cursing other students) that for a moment, neither of those things matter, and he seems more than a little disoriented when McGonagall suggests Harry should receive points. Personally, I also think this disorientation was partly the cause of him snapping "What?" at McGonagall - when snapping and spitting his words tends to be associated with his frustration, usually taken out on people with lesser authority (students, Filch, etc), rather than staff who outrank him.

I also think Snape's just not great with situations outside of his control in general. On top of the 'famous' Snape breakdown moments like at the end of PoA or HBP, or after the SWM reveal (where things are firmly not going his way and anyone would lose their shit), Snape also rather obviously struggles in situations he's unfamiliar with and/or lacks control in. He gets easily and obviously frustrated whenever he thinks Harry ought to be expelled/punished and McGonagall or Dumbledore decide otherwise; when 'Moody' interrogates him about the office break-in in GoF; when the class rebels against him in PoA after the Boggart incident; before and after Sirius broke into Hogwarts, and Dumbledore refused to listen to Snape's warnings about Lupin; and probably many more. He shows marked distress at these unanticipated changes, experiences difficulty when his expectations are challenged, and this could also be considered an example of rigid thinking patterns (how rules should be interpreted, obeyed, and punished if ignored), as well as marked emotional escalation when those same situations can't be controlled or predicted. When the situation can be controlled - for example, when he's able to invoke his role and authority as professor by punishing misbehaviour, for example - he calms down significantly and regains control of his behaviour.

Insistence on sameness: general preference

I mentioned somewhere above or in the other essay that autistic traits ("impairments") can be masked or compensated for through effort, structure, or being in particular environments. It's well worth considering that by the time we meet Snape, he has been teaching at Hogwarts for around a decade. The days are familiar, routine, and structured - only major changes would be to timetabling, and that wouldn't really affect Snape's day as he'd be teaching potions regardless. He also spent a significant portion of his time here as a child/teen, so the school itself and the teachers would be familiar to him. He has had ample time to observe how they teach and how they act around students - all of this with the new, added benefit that he is now a figure of authority, rather than an odd, bullied child. I suspect the hardest part of this transition from student to teacher could actually be knowing how and where to draw the line between treating his new colleagues as colleagues - and peers and friends - rather than figures of absolute authority. Contrast the nebulous nature of being maybe-friends-and-colleagues-who-used-to-teach-you, and attending social events with them, whilst also having to navigate differing levels of power over different students in different houses, and also different levels of power to certain staff - be it real (like Headmaster, Deputy, professor) or implied (older, more experienced, expertise more established).

Compare that to the rigid structure of the Death Eater meetings - where you do not speak unless spoken or instructed to and then it is only to convey useful information - which, from an autistic perspective, feels like it would be a lot easier. We love conveying practical information, even when people didn't ask for it.

Obviously, it's a whole other matter entirely when it gets to the time in the books when Harry arrives and starts being Harry, and even more when Voldemort has returned, adding a sense of instability to Snape's otherwise very structured days on the occasions when those meetings are suddenly called - but he had over a decade to prepare himself for that idea, months for the Mark to get clearer. On a day-to-day basis, however, it would be a different story. Though protected from certainly some of the DE meetings by virtue of his 'spy' role as teacher, there would be occasions when he would need to submit to a sudden change in his schedule - but not every autistic person struggles with that to the same degree. When my plans change, I just feel heavy and stressed, and like it's ten times the effort to get anything done at all - and then I go and do the thing anyway (reluctantly). I can't imagine Snape feeling any more chipper about Death Eater meetings even if he weren't autistic.

Precision and order: Information that is precise and accurate

I will say very little, but present this meta and some quotes to illustrate that Snape really does like his information to be precise and accurate:

“You have no subtlety, Potter,” said Snape, his dark eyes glittering. “You do not understand fine distinctions. It is one of the shortcomings that makes you such a lamentable potion-maker.”

The ICD-11 also lists "pedantic precision in the use of language" under Additional Clinical Features:

“The Inferius is a corpse that has been reanimated by a Dark wizard’s spells. It is not alive, it is merely used like a puppet to do the wizard’s bidding. A ghost, as I trust that you are all aware by now, is the imprint of a departed soul left upon the earth . . . and of course, as Potter so wisely tells us, transparent.”

The (fantastic) meta also points out thatm "Snape’s communication is more about the theoretical and precise understanding of magical concepts. He emphasizes the deeper, more complex nature of an Inferius, which, while academically accurate, is less practical in the context that Harry is thinking of. Snape’s disdain shows that he values this deeper, nuanced understanding more than the direct, practical knowledge that Harry offers."

Snape's lining up or sorting objects

Not much more of a stretch, since Snape has an office that is described like this:

...shadowy walls were lined with shelves of large glass jars, in which floated all manner of revolting things Harry didn’t really want to know the name of at the moment. (CoS) Snape had acquired a few more slimy horrible things in jars since last time, all standing on shelves behind his desk, glinting in the firelight and adding to the threatening atmosphere. (HBP)

... which one could describe as a "preoccupation with unusual objects", especially given that the collection apparently grows between years, is not part of his private potions store (which is elsewhere in the office), and are presumably not the same ingredients that the students use in class.

Also, this is just how Snape chose to decorate - the offices can be highly personalised, and aren't necessary for storing work-related items. Compare it to Slughorn's office, which is purely for socialising (though he does keep a potion kit), or McGonagall's office, whose office seems comfortable but still ultimately a professional meeting place. Lockhart's is full of pictures of himself, and perhaps the only other person we see with such an odd personal collection is Umbridge and her cat plates.

Interestingly, Snape retains (and even expands) his collection of slimy things in HBP, by which time he's not even teaching potions any more. They are obviously not related to his position as Potions master and can serve no apparent practical purpose beyond being his personal, curated collection of slimy things in jars which he uses to decorate his office. If that's not giving autistic, I don't know what is.

I mean, I can't judge. I used to collect these:

Some additional thoughts

Now, as I explained in the other post, some things that autistic people may struggle with aren't the result of any one particular box or bullet-point in the criteria, but from the overlap of several different areas. I just want to touch on a few of those here, and how they might show up in Snape.

Hygiene

Although this isn't in the criteria at all, autistic people can sometimes struggle with hygiene. The challenges can potentially stem from sensory sensitivities (touch, smell, sound), difficulties with executive functioning (planning/initiating tasks), and/or difficulty with transitions (dry to wet to dry, warm to cold, switching from the current activity to a new one - or switching attention). Obviously, the books are awash (pun intended) with examples of Snape being called greasy, oily, and slimy, and with mentions of how yellow and uneven his teeth are. Potentially this is because he struggles to maintain his hygiene (for example, some autistic people can't stand the way a toothbrush feels or the toothpaste tastes, or hate having their hair washed or the feeling of wet hair, etc) - or potentially it's because his appearance isn't that important to him, he can't help it as his hair is just prone to that, or he's around potions fumes all day, etc. (I have no wish to personally revive the #greasecourse lool).

Also, just putting it out there - Snape's English. We're literally known for having bad teeth. Why should Snape be the exception to this point of national pride? /hj

Attention switching [edited to add 04/25]

I know I pushed back slightly on the idea that autistic people's attention is inherently and exclusively narrowly focused and difficult to shift, but sometimes that really do be the case, and @danadiadea put together this spectacular list of examples including Snape not noticing that he was on fire for thirty seconds - which is quite a long time, if you sit there and count it - as well as Snape not noticing the bluebell flame, missing sounds like knocking on the door, not always noticing the students misbehaving, not noticing Moody's surprise in GoF (which, tenuously, I could also submit as an issue interpreting facial expressions or body language), amongst other things. Arguably, some of these examples could also fall under sensory processing differences rather than attention or executive function, as well (for example, a busy and noisy classroom could mean difficulties in focusing on smaller issues like Hermione reading a magazine under the desk - but arguably any teacher, neurodivergent or otherwise, would struggle to keep their attention on every single student at every moment). The above post also sort of counters a the statement in the original post which said that "he does not avoid bright lights or loud noises when attending Quidditch matches or teaching in classrooms" [which isn't really diagnostically relevant], and under these conditions still "performs his tasks competently, and still pays attention to small details, such as monitoring students, which demonstrates stable sensory perception".

This man didn't notice Harry flying towards him in scarlet robes and also failed to notice he was on fire. All I'm saying is that there's a chance he was, in fact, affected. Some people might incorrectly expect an autistic person to go into full meltdown under these conditions (and tbh before I got diagnosed, I was one of them, so I thought I couldn't possibly be autistic), but that's not actually realistic to everyone.

Rumination

"Rumination is a type of repetitive thinking that focuses on distressing thoughts or dwelling on negative feelings and past events, often resulting in excessive worry, anxiety, and catastrophizing", and it's also really common in autistic people thanks to a tendency towards repetition.

I don't think I need to explain this either, really, but Snape certainly has a tendency to hold on to things, to ruminate (in the psychological sense), and an inability to move on.

On top of the infamous and infinitely understandable culprits - SWM and a murder attempt, and his grief over Lily - we can also consider another example. Two years, one Basilisk, one mass murderer, one loose werewolf, the escape of Sirius Black and Peter Pettigrew, and the slow revival of the Dark Lord after the CoS Polyjuice incident, for example, Snape is still bitter that Harry & Co. broke into his potions stores, and accuses Harry of that again in GoF. You'd think he might have let it go by now; he's had one or two more pressing matters to attend to. Similarly, Snape probably clung on to the flying car incident in CoS, and Harry's lack of punishment - which was perhaps an additional layer to why he was so eager to take points from Harry in HBP, when (five years and a few important events like the return of Voldemort later) Harry similarly turned up late, and Snape still wanted Harry to be punished, and wanted to make Harry a spectacle by turning up to the Great Hall in his civvies instead of his uniform. That man can't let a single thing go. The injustice burns. He probably spins those thoughts around in his head every single time Harry gets away with something, and has also been spinning those thoughts around his head ever since he himself was a student, and it was James Potter breaking the rules.

Snape never forgives, and he never forgets.

Emotional (dys)regulation

Again, another one I don't think I need to elaborate on too much - but autistic people can struggle with emotional regulation, which can result in meltdowns and/or shutdowns - which can sometimes resemble the way in which Snape reacts when clearly overwhelmed, though - of course - that could be for a number of reasons.

I feel as though I've missed a few things that could live on this list - so I encourage any autistic Snape enjoyers to reblog with ideas!!

In Summary

Let's now just take a moment to list everything nice and quickly that we've gone over, mostly for the sake of illustration.

As a reminder, according to the DSM-5, the features of autism include the following, and you need to fulfill all three As, two Bs, as well as fit C, D & E.:

Category A: Autistic social communication and social interaction. Category B: Repetitive patterns of Behaviours (stimming, sameness, special interests, and sensory sensitivities). Criterion C: Symptoms must be present since childhood. Criterion D: Degree to which autism affects daily functioning. Criterion E: Traits not better explained by intellectual disability.

Category A1: Differences in social-emotional reciprocity

✅Abnormal social approach (meeting Lily; Slughorn's party)

✅Failure of normal back-and-forth conversation (inferred from Slughorn's party; PoA Christmas party; leaving the staffroom)

✅Failure to initiate or respond to social interactions / difficulty joining conversations (meeting Lily; Slughorn's party; PoA Christmas party potentially)

Category A2: Differences in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction

✅Unusual or flattened affect and/or reduced or absent nonverbal communicative behaviors (see whole section on this)

Category A3: Differences in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships

✅Difficulty or indifference in modulating behaviour to social context (meeting Lily; spitting on the Quidditch pitch; the Quirrell-Quidditch quote; Slughorn's party; his general demeanour)

✅Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships (like, literally all of them from Lily to the other Slytherins to the Hogwarts staff - but arguably he was friends with McGonagall and would've stayed that way if it weren't for Dumbledore, and maaaybe he was friends with Lucius. See also: Snape's struggles with perspective-taking)

✅Absence of interest in peers (no friends after the exam; no friends perhaps as a child in Cokeworth and was only interested in Lily because she had magic; Hogwarts staff)

Category B: Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities

✅/❓Stereotyped or repetitive motor movements, use of objects, or speech. Hard to say, as we don't see that much stimming behaviour in Snape except for when he's stressed - and most people stim when they're stressed, autistic or otherwise. Could potentially be that he learnt to suppress or internalise them.

✅Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior. Fits like a glove - or, more accurately perhaps, fits like the school robes Snape's basically been wearing since the age of 11 until his death at 38. Refer back to the rest of the section on this subject for similar evidence/suggestions.

✅Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus. Name one other person in the series whose hobby is considered as abnormal in intensity or area of focus as Snape and the Dark Arts. Literally everyone has an opinion on it.

✅/❓Hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of the environment. Again, another one I'm not 100% on, but some evidence in support could be suggested. Fortunately, we've already hit the requirement of two of these areas for a possible diagnosis, and I do maintain that Snape has quite a high pain threshold and quite a low tolerance for decent lighting in his office.

Criterion C: Symptoms must be present since childhood. The examples I've given here are present throughout Snape's childhood, teen years, and adulthood.

Criterion D: Degree to which autism affects daily functioning. Safe to assume, I think, that Snape had quite low support needs - which is just as well, because I don't think anyone ever actually supported him. Important to note as well that just because the DSM-5 defines something as a deficit or an issue - like not enjoying small talk, as a rather asinine example - that doesn't mean autistic people view it as an issue in their own lives. Snape might have a low social drive and not particularly care one way or the other, but it would still probably count in an assessment - or, at least, it did in mine.

Criterion E: Traits not better explained by intellectual disability. Fair to say, I think, that this doesn't apply.

~The End~

Well, we've finally reached the end of my autistic!Snape thesis (for now. I expect there'll be more in future). Ultimately, none of this is meant as a real diagnosis, or a claim that this is the One True Reading of Snape - but what I hope it is is a way of exploring what some of us might be picking up on when we as autistic people relate to him as a character, and maybe even a way for people who don't share my interpretation to see where we're coming from.

As always, people are free to read the character however they like - but to me, reading his character as autistic makes him feel more real.

Diagnostic Criteria

For anyone who happened upon this and doesn't know what the DSM-5 or ICD-11 are:

"An autism diagnosis should be based on criteria listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) or the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision (ICD-11), according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Although many people (including most autistic people) do not consider autism to be a disorder, and autism is not a disease, these manuals are the standard classification systems used by health care professionals to assess and diagnose autism.  There are key similarities between the DSM-5 and ICD-11 diagnostic criteria. Both reference the ‘core characteristics’ of autism, which must be present (and must have been present throughout a person’s life) for an autism diagnosis to be made."

autism.org

Quick note: Some of the reblogs on the original post also rightfully touched on how both criteria describe autism purely in terms of deficits, and knowing that is rather crucial to interpreting them accurately imo - but this post is already rather long, and I fear I won't have time to address this in the detail it deserves. This page goes into a little more detail on how to interpret the DSM, and a couple of other things to keep in mind, for anyone interested - but the main thing I want to draw everyone's attention to is this:

The autism criteria of the DSM-5 can be confusing, and the fact that it describes autism purely in terms of deficits causes many people to misunderstand what autism is.

...which means that in places I have rabbited on a bit to explain.

Anyway, I'll start by looking at the ICD-11, as I think it's slightly more intuitive and requires a little less explanation than the DSM-5. For the sake of clarity I've colour-coded the sections into green for social, red for repetitive, and purple for the other qualifying factors:

Autism Diagnostic Criteria: ICD-11

Persistent deficits in initiating and sustaining social communication and reciprocal social interactions that are outside the expected range of typical functioning given the individual’s age and level of intellectual development.

Specific manifestations of these deficits vary according to chronological age, verbal and intellectual ability, and disorder severity. Manifestations may include limitations in the following:

Understanding of, interest in, or inappropriate responses to the verbal or non-verbal social communications of others.

Integration of spoken language with typical complimentary non-verbal cues, such as eye contact, gestures, facial expressions and body language. These non-verbal behaviours may also be reduced in frequency or intensity.

Understanding and use of language in social contexts and ability to initiate and sustain reciprocal social conversations.

Social awareness, leading to behaviour that is not appropriately modulated according to the social context.

Ability to imagine and respond to the feelings, emotional states, and attitudes of others.

Mutual sharing of interests.

Ability to make and sustain typical peer relationships.

Persistent restricted, repetitive, and inflexible patterns of behaviour, interests, or activities that are clearly atypical or excessive for the individual’s age and sociocultural context. These may include:

Lack of adaptability to new experiences and circumstances, with associated distress, that can be evoked by trivial changes to a familiar environment or in response to unanticipated events.

Inflexible adherence to particular routines; for example, these may be geographic such as following familiar routes, or may require precise timing such as mealtimes or transport.

Excessive adherence to rules (e.g., when playing games).

Excessive and persistent ritualized patterns of behaviour (e.g., preoccupation with lining up or sorting objects in a particular way) that serve no apparent external purpose. [for future reference, these I would group with the DSM's "Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior"]

Repetitive and stereotyped motor movements, such as whole body movements (e.g., rocking), atypical gait (e.g., walking on tiptoes), unusual hand or finger movements and posturing. These behaviours are particularly common during early childhood.

Persistent preoccupation with one or more special interests, parts of objects, or specific types of stimuli (including media) or an unusually strong attachment to particular objects (excluding typical comforters).

Lifelong excessive and persistent hypersensitivity or hyposensitivity to sensory stimuli or unusual interest in a sensory stimulus, which may include actual or anticipated sounds, light, textures (especially clothing and food), odors and tastes, heat, cold, or pain.

The onset of the disorder occurs during the developmental period, typically in early childhood, but characteristic symptoms may not become fully manifest until later, when social demands exceed limited capacities.

The symptoms result in significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational or other important areas of functioning. Some individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder are able to function adequately in many contexts through exceptional effort, such that their deficits may not be apparent to others. A diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder is still appropriate in such cases.

There is a little more included on the ICD-11 page including qualifiers and additional clinical features, but as I'm conscious of the length of this post and it's already pretty long, you can go and take a look at the full thing here.

Now let's look at the DSM-5 categories in more detail.

Autism Diagnostic Criteria: DSM-5

According to the DSM-5, the features of autism include the following, divided into 2 main categories and 3 separate criteria:

Category A: Autistic social communication and social interaction. Category B: Repetitive patterns of Behaviours (stimming, sameness, special interests, and sensory sensitivities). Criterion C: Symptoms must be present since childhood. Criterion D: Degree to which autism affects daily functioning. Criterion E: Traits not better explained by intellectual disability.

To fulfil the DSM-5 criteria for autism, you need to fulfill all three As (per the DSM-5-TR), two Bs, as well as fit C, D & E.

Category A: social communication and interaction

A few things to note from the above: "examples are illustrative, not exhaustive" - which means that there's variation in the ways that these traits can manifest within and between autistic people, and across things like age, support needs, gender, and setting (and more), and are not limited to the examples given above.

I'll go into these in a little more depth later in response to some of @tianfangyeta's statements.

Category B: repetitive patterns of behaviour

To be diagnosed, an individual must fit two or more types of restricted, repetitive behaviours. How those behaviours manifest, even within categories, is as diverse as autistic people are - which is to say, as diverse as any number of humans can be. But we'll get to that later as well.

Criterion C, D, and E

These are all fairly obvious, though I've highlighted a few things below that I've noticed people tend to miss or I'm not sure whether are common knowledge.

C: Largely self-explanatory, and we'll return to masking later.

D: Degree to which autism affects daily functioning: "Symptoms cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of current functioning." In medicine and psychology, clinical significance just means whether a treatment, disease, or disorder has noticeable effects for patients, or whether symptoms are meaningful to patients in practical terms. It is not an indicator of severity of a condition/disorder, or its symptoms. (ebsco)

And finally:

E: I just wanted to draw attention to this: "These disturbances are not better explained by intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder) or global developmental delay. Intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder frequently co-occur; to make comorbid diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability, social communication should be below that expected for general developmental level."

I'm going to go on a brief tangent now, whilst we're thinking about Criteria E, because I also want to touch on @perilousraven's comment on the original post:

one of the main conditions for a diagnosis [of autism] is that the behavior can’t be explained by other more likely things such as trauma

...and other similar sentiments I've seen around which seem to suggest that Snape's traits may more easily, or more accurately, be attributed to trauma. It led to me finding a really interesting read whilst I dived into my little research hole, and I just wanted to share.

Of course, assessors would also take trauma into account - but as people may have noticed above, one of the main conditions for a diagnosis is not that the "behavior can’t be explained by other more likely things such as trauma", but that global and developmental delay are not present. Differential diagnosis (the term for "when your symptoms match more than one condition and additional tests are necessary before making an accurate diagnosis" as I'm sure you're already aware) is a slightly different thing - not a main condition for diagnosis, which is what Criterion E is, but something to consider during any diagnostic process.

The DSM lists several potential differential diagnoses for autism, including Rett syndrome, language disorders, schizophrenia, intellectual disability, stereotypic movement disorder, and ADHD; you can find them on starting at the bottom of (book) page 57 or the PDF page 95 in the link I included above. Notably, the DSM-5 does not refer to trauma or PTSD at all in the entire section on autism, not even in the differential diagnoses - though it specifically does list trauma (or, PTSD) as a differential diagnosis for other conditions (e.g. schizophrenia, bipolar disorder), further cementing the idea that trauma is not the most commonly accepted 'alternative' to autistic traits. The other diagnostic guide, the ICD-11 - which was much longer than the excerpt I included, but have linked above for brevity and readers' perusal - also lists several differential diagnoses such as ADHD, OCD, ARFID, motor and language disorders, and learning disabilities, amongst others. You could argue that some of the conditions are caused, triggered, or exacerbated by trauma, but again, trauma or PTSD are not listed among them, nor is it an either/or situation.

"Trauma" (which often refers to physical trauma, usually relating to brain injury, in the DSM-5, but here in this essay meaning psychological trauma), and associated conditions such as Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Complex Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD) may well be considered as an alternative diagnosis depending on the individual, or it may be considered comorbid (meaning 'in addition to another diagnosis', as I'm sure everyone knows). However, I've found no evidence to suggest that it's a widely held alternative cause for autistic traits, and some authors note that they are largely held separate in the academic literature, here suggesting that they ought to be considered together more often as they may even share several neurological, cognitive, and behavioural similarities (including things like functional connectivity of the amygdala and prefrontal cortex, dysregulation of the Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adernal axis, and hippocampal abnormalities; challenges with emotion regulation; problems with recall of autobiographical memory; impairments in cognitive flexibility, potentially leading to cognitive rigidity and increased rumination; and manifestations of anger, aggression, and avoidance; however, the ways in which these differences manifest are a little different). Of course, all of this is complicated by some traits of autism and PTSD resembling one another (e.g. the ICD-11 lists "difficulties in sustaining relationships", "problems of affect regulation" under CPTSD, though the ways in which those manifest between CPTSD and autism are rather different) making diagnosis all the more complex, and is complicated further by things like alexithymia and misconceptions about autistic empathy.

But the base claim here is not strictly true, and calling it "one of the main conditions for a diagnosis" is rather overinflating how relevant clinicians find trauma in the diagnosis of autism, especially when it features in neither the criterion for the condition itself nor among the many differential diagnoses listed by either diagnostic guide. Saying so vastly oversimplifies the diagnostic process and tiptoes towards suggesting that you can't receive an autism diagnosis or be considered autistic if you've experienced trauma. I also think it implicitly underestimates how often autistic people are actually traumatised - much like any other disabled or marginalised group (this is, in psychological sircles, referred to as the Minority Stress Theory).

In reality, autistic people experience significantly higher rates of co-occurring mental health conditions than the general population, and autistic people are also regularly traumatised at a young age, according to this article (though the exact numbers aren't exactly widely studied). The aforementioned Hartley et al. (2024) study also looked at ACEs, or adverse childhood experiences (a potentially traumatic event that occurs in childhood), and the article suggests that "the odds of an autistic person experiencing at least one ACE is more than twice as likely than a non-autistic person". The study included ACEs including psychological abuse, physical abuse, violence against the child's mother, living with household members who are substance misusers or mentally ill, verbal abuse, neglect, witnessing domestic abuse, being bullied, peer violence, experiencing poverty, and more - some of which readers may interpet as reflecting Snape's own upbringing (e.g. parent struggling with substance abuse, poor parental mental health), and some of which undeniably do (violence against mother/domestic abuse, neglect, poverty, bullying, peer violence).

The study goes on to cite other existing research which suggests that autistic children were twice as likely than neurotypical peers to experience four or more ACEs. The authors suggest that this is because an autistic child's behavioural challenges, perhaps resulting in parental stress, are key contributors to increased risk of abuse and neglect - and that low levels of support are strong predictors of depression and anxiety in mothers of autistic children, which will affect their upbringing even further.

To me, this just speaks of the Snape family in general; a volatile family with a father who's presumably physically abusive towards his wife and perhaps child, with stress exacerbated by the fact that an autistic child with low support needs, in a low-income area, in the 60s, would simply never reach the radar of diagnosticians. I think it also fits neatly into Eileen being close and loving enough with Snape in his younger years (presumably enough to teach him about magic, Hogwarts, the wizarding world at large, and for him to later take her maiden name as a nickname), whilst also suffering from overwhelm and fatigue herself from lack of support (which we can reasonably infer from the look of her marriage and the fact that Snape wasn't wearing other kids' hand-me-downs from the same community), and her eventual depiction on Platform 9 3/4 as not especially close to Severus, which I personally infer from how they were not the picture of a loving family or the loving mother who is about to send her only child away for a long time for the very first time; she is not fussing over him or checking he's got everything, in the way Molly might for Harry and the Weasley kids, for example.

Anyway! To make a short point incredibly long, trauma can - and frequently does - coexist with autism; one does not automatically negate the other. This paper even suggests that undiagnosed PTSD being so widespread amongst autistics may be the reason behind the myth of autistic people lacking empathy. However, I'll admit to not being nearly as well-versed in the nuances of (C)PTSD, so I did take a look at the diagnostic criteria as outlined by the ICD-11 (it is not a standalone diagnosis in the DSM-5, though PTSD is; see book page 271, PDF page 308). If we are going solely by the diagnostic critiera, (C)PTSD also is characterised by "significant impairment" across life domains and "If functioning is maintained, it is only through significant additional effort" - and so, if we were strictly following the deficit model, Snape would be considered as functionally (in)capable of doing what he did whether he has (C)PTSD or autism - without substantial additional effort on his part, anyway.

All of that said, I can absolutely see where people are coming from, and - from my perspective only - I really do believe it's possible he has both. Obviously, it's impossible to say one way or the other. My instinct is that JKR is not nearly well enough informed to have written either intentionally or faithfully. Plus, Snape isn't real, he's not the focus of the stories enough to get a full picture of his character or his thought processes, and I think it would be impossible to diagnose a character anyway - but it is interesting to speculate.

And at the same time, if people are going to make posts saying that characters can't be autistic, or that they don't meet the critiera, it would be nice if they actually quoted and interpreted the criteria accurately. So, without further ado...

The Post in Question

Let's all take a look at that post again. We're starting off strong with:

Recently I’ve seen many people claim that Snape is autistic. I’m not sure what standardized sources they’re basing this on, or if they’re just going off fanfic. Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) typically presents the following features: Autistic individuals often experience difficulties in controlling social interactions and maintaining relationships, usually without a clear reason, which often results in few long-term relationships and limited entrusted responsibilities.

I'm not sure what standardized sources you're basing this on, @tianfangyeta, or if you're just going off a DSM fanfic, but there's literally nothing - not a single thing - in the DSM or ICD about "controlling" social interactions. What do you even mean by that?

You can even look for yourself, if the above summaries were not sufficient:

Here is a link to the full DSM-5. The section about autism starts on book page 50, or PDF page 88. The only reference to "control" was when discussing ADHD, and in that context listing "impulse control".

Here you can find the full ICD-11. The only mention of "control" in the autism section is possible "loss of bowel and bladder control" in children experiencing regression.

There is also absolutely nothing in either diagnostic manual about "limited entrusted responsibilities" being considered diagnostic or characteristic of autism, either - though what you might be confused about is "Levels", aka one of the specifiers listed in the DSM-5. See below (which comes from under the heading "Specifiers" on book page 52 or PFD page 90):

"Levels" reflect the amount of difficulty an autistic person might have in their day-to-day life, or the amount of support they might require. Levels, support needs, and related but outdated terms like "high functioning" and "low functioning" are discussed in more depth in my previous post, so I won't repeat it here. Essentially, some autistic people may be in a position where they have "limited entrusted responsibilities" - but it is in no way a requirement. That is categorically false.

I can already hear some people taking a breath to tell me that it clearly says, right there in black and white, that "inflexibility of behaviour causes significant interference with functioning" and "problems of organisation and planning hamper independence", even for Level 1. But hold your horses - this is just an example sheet, not every autistic person will have these exact challenges, and in many cases Levels are not even assigned (in the UK, the NHS primarily uses the ICD-11 and not the DSM-5, and levels do not feature in the ICD-11. I never received a level during/after my diagnosis and I imagine neither do most people in the UK.)

The DSM-5 also has this to say (bolded emphasis mine):

Manifestations of the disorder also vary greatly depending on the severity of the autistic condition, developmental level, and chronological age; hence, the term spectrum.

But I have another thing to point out, because the DSM-5 isn't done speaking:

Observant readers among you may have noticed that a person does not need to reach 'level 1 - support required' to be diagnosed with autism since symptomatology can fall below the threshold for "support required". This is important, because without that sentence, clinicians (and readers) might assume that just because someone doesn't clearly need support then they can't be autistic. "How can that be?" I hear some people asking. "How does that align with clinical significance?"

Well, I'm glad you asked, especially since OP put this in a reblog:

I did not say "autistic people can’t have any strong, long-term relationships". I analyzed that Snape demonstrates the ability to maintain, coordinate, and manipulate complex social relationships intentionally and effectively (with Slytherin students, colleagues, as a spy), which does not resemble the "persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction (Criterion A)" at a level that causes functional impairment.

OP is the only one who keeps centering capability by mentioning how Snape can't be autistic because he "excels at a masterful level" and how autistic people have "limited entrusted responsibilities" and "functional impairments", and other similar sentiments. That's not even what the DSM-5 has to say, despite its focus on deficits.

"Clinically significant" doesn't mean "requires ongoing external support" or "is noticeably impaired at all times". It means exactly what I said in the beginning: that the underlying pattern of traits has caused clinically significant challenges at some point across development, or continues to do so under certain conditions, because clinical significance just means that it is meaningful to patients.

Another thing of note from the passage above is that severity may vary by context and can fluctuate over time, and so there is room for "impairment" being more evident at different stages in life or emerging only when social demands exceed coping capacity, and allows for situations in which impairment is masked or compensated for through effort, structure, or being in particular environments - and I'll discuss this entire quote in more depth in the meta, as I don't necessarily believe it's supported by the text either.

Anyway. A diamond in the rough of OP's make-believe introduction to autism is the one true statement that autistic people may struggle in maintaining relationships ✅- but even then I'd argue that contrary to OP's post, this isn't "without a clear reason" - in fact, I'd argue that the DSM offers several:

Deficits in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships, ranging, for example, from difficulties adjusting behavior to suit various social contexts; to difficulties in sharing imaginative play or in making friends; to absence of interest in peers.

Not being interested in your peers and their lives, exhibiting "weird" behaviour, and general differences in communication styles tend to have a negative impact on socialising with and befriending neurotypical people. In fact, this is rather widely known - so much so that there's a term for it in the literature, explaining potentially how and why it happens: the double empathy problem, which I also discussed in my previous post which @tianfangyeta refused to read.

So, the first few sentences done with, let's take a look at the rest of that section. OP then continues:

Severus, however, is different: he shows irritation for clear reasons (Harry because of inherited animosity from his father, Neville due to repeated mistakes, Hermione for ignoring his warnings, and the Marauders for previous bullying), and he demonstrates strong personal resourcefulness (e.g., handling Bellatrix or Voldemort), group-level improvisation (e.g., coordinating with other professors to corner Lockhart), and the ability to maintain long-term relationships with his Slytherin students. Therefore, the first symptom is completely contrary to how he is portrayed in the books..

My overall suggestion is that OP's explanation so far is completely contrary to how autism is portrayed in the books (i.e. the DSM-5 and ICD-11). None of these things (with the exception of the ability to maintain long-term relationships) are even mentioned in the diagnostic criteria at all.

As a reminder, the three "Category As" from the DSM-5, and the first part of the ICD-11, refer to:

Deficits or differences in social-emotional reciprocity, which can show up via difficulty and/or disinterest in initiating and sustaining reciprocal (mutual, balanced) social interaction or conversation and/or a reduced or unusual sharing of interests (e.g. not asking return questions in a conversation; one-sided conversations or interactions); difficulty and/or disinterest in initiating, identifying, or responding to social overtures; and difficulty and/or disinterest in adapting behaviour to social context.

Deficits or differences in nonverbal communication. This can include things like difficulty and/or differences in coordinating spoken language with gestures, facial expressions, and body language; atypical eye contact ("too much" or "too little", depending on the person); atypical gestures, facial expressions, or body language/posture; reduced, atypical, or absent nonverbal signalling (for example, not pointing at something to redirect someone's attention to something) and/or reduced understanding of signalling and gestures, such as difficulty interpreting gestures like pointing or waving (this is a big one for me lol please do not try to high-five me it takes forever to compute); and/or a reduced or unusual affect (outward expression of feeling, emotion, or mood).

Deficits or differences in developing, maintaining, and understanding relationships. This can mean deficits and/or differences in the ability to adjust behaviour to different social contexts; confusion about social roles (I know what you're thinking - "he's a spy, he can do this just fine!" - but don't worry, I'll return to this later in the meta section); in childhood, problems with imaginative or cooperative play; difficulty making and maintaining friendships; deficits, disinterest, or differences in the ability to imagine and respond to others’ feelings, emotional states, or attitudes; and/or reduced interest in peers.

With all of that broken down again, it's worth noting that not every single one of these things will necessarily be true of every single autistic person. Remember "Manifestations may include..." from the ICD. Remember "examples are illustrative, not exhaustive" from the DSM-5. This is not a checklist that every autistic person has to fulfil every single aspect of, and some traits may express differently - though some aspect(s) of each criteria must still be present for Category A.

None of that really matters anyway, because @tianfangyeta only really touched on one thing that even exists in the criteria at this stage: maintaining relationships, or A3.

Difficulty making and maintaining relationships is part of the diagnostic criteria, you're right, as seen above in *checks notes* long-term relationships with students?

Well, not really. Snape's students are literally only there because it's the only wizarding school in the UK, a hat put them in Slytherin, and they have to be there until they graduate - not because Snape excels socially or is particularly personable. Snape is only there because it was sort of a contract Snape submitted to when Dumbledore asked for his life in return for not saving Lily's.

A better example would be to consider how well Snape interacts in a friendly, reciprocal manner with the other professors. Does Snape enjoy social gatherings with many people? When everyone else is making small talk in the staffroom, does he join in? Does he look in their faces at all when they speak? Does he stare instead, in an unnerving sort of way? Does he intuitively ask follow-on questions when they tell him about their day? Does he even ask in the first place? Does he even care to hear about their day, really? Would he prefer conversations be kept strictly to the transfer of useful information? Does he seek out their company, or their conversation, in his free time - in a social context, not when they're all in the hall because that's where the food is - or does he mostly prefer to stick to conversations about work-related duties? Does his tone vary much in everyday conversation? Does he speak unusually loudly or quietly, regardless of context?

Of course, we will never know most of these things, and I'll return to ponder that in more depth in the meta. But food for thought.

Just as an aside, autistic people still get irritated for regular irritating reasons, too - plus maybe a few extras, which I'll touch on when we finally get to sensory sensitivities and insistence on sameness. However, "irritation", "resourcefulness", and "group improvisation" are not a part of the diagnostic criteria. Go ahead and check, I've listed it several times. I assume that you were attempting to draw from the criteria to argue that these are examples of Snape's lack of social deficits, but 1. resourcefulness and adaptability would probably fall more under rigid or inflexible thinking, which is the domain of Category B traits instead, and 2. they're not even good examples of Category B traits. Let's take a look at them now.

People with ASD often have restricted interests and repetitive behaviors. Severus, however, does not: he excels in multiple fields, including Potions, Defense Against the Dark Arts, Legilimency, Occlumency, espionage, and even artistic creativity* (such as the logic poem in Book 1). He does not follow rigid patterns, so this trait does not match him.

* note: I'm not sure whether OP's "even artistic creativity" is supposed to be listed as another example of Snape's diverse portfolio of interests thus proving he can't be autistic or whether that's sort of a suggestion that autistic people can't be artistic - but basically either interpretation is wrong, or at the very least irrelevant, because it has no bearing on anything within the diagnostic criteria.

The issue with the above statement is that it collapses the four-part Category B into muddled oversimplifications of only two of the subcategories: restricted interests, and insistence on sameness.

"Rigid thinking patterns" actually comes under the subcategory concerning "Insistence on sameness", and has little to nothing to do with "restricted, fixated interests" diagnostically, given that they are distinct subcategories and that you only need to align with two of the four to be diagnosed, so I'll stick a pin in that for now. On the topic of fixated interests, the post also later adds this:

People with ASD often demonstrate exceptional ability in one or a few specific areas because their attention is narrowly focused and difficult to shift to other interests, rather than this being entirely innate. Many individuals with ASD do not show such special skills. Severus, however, excels in multiple areas while still managing social and work-related tasks effectively, so this trait does not resemble the ASD pattern.

Perhaps the only thing from this section which relates to actual diagnosis is that some autistic people struggle to shift their attention between tasks, but that isn't strictly related to special interests (and is, again, more to do with "insistence on sameness").

Before I go any further, I just wanted to pause here to ask a question, because I'm not sure what you mean by "Many individuals with ASD do not show such special skills". Do "special skills" here mean "innate skills"? Innate skills which you seem to suggest autistic people broadly lack, and only gain their exceptional ability through narrowly focused attention which is difficult to shift?

Are you aware of autistic savants? "Research suggests that while the prevalence [of Savant syndrome] in the non-autistic population is less than 1%, about 10–28.5% of autistic people have savant syndrome, and as many as one in three people with autism may possess exceptional abilities."

Many individuals with autism may 'not show such special skills', you're right, and savants still make up a minority even within the autistic community - but statistically we still have way more innately "especially skilled" people than neurotypicals (at least when it comes to their savant skills; obviously, it is also typically associated with some kind of social difficulty).

Also, are we under the impression that most people - autistic or not - who are talented are just 'naturally talented', as opposed to people who have worked towards advancing certain skills? Sure, some people are naturally talented, and that may give them a boost - but most of the time, for most humans, 'talent' is just the result of time, experience, and hard work.

In any case, it's diagnostically irrelevant. Check the criteria again.

Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus

Returning to Severus excelling in multiple fields... The clue is in the name, here. The DSM describes "highly restricted, fixated interests". I don't think I've spoken to single autistic person with just the one special interest, or interests exclusively consisting of their special interests. I think I can fairly say I personally have about three main special interests which sort of peak and trough as time goes along, and some in hibernation, alongside interests in things I just sort of casually like - and I feel as though @fromhogwartswithlove has about 50 :P

Hm. I guess I must also have missed the part in both critieria about "the ASD pattern" meaning incapability of balancing interests and social/work-related tasks effectively. Of course I did, because "Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus" just means that the interests are often unusually specific and intense, and there's absolutely no requirement to diagnosis that they hinder daily functioning. The ICD-11 also makes no such claim: "Persistent preoccupation with one or more special interests, parts of objects, or specific types of stimuli (including media) or an unusually strong attachment to particular objects (excluding typical comforters)." Conspicuously absent is the need for it to impede on the rest of your life. Of course, you're right only insofar as there are some situations where that happens (I think me writing this essay may even be one of them lol), and that becomes one of the areas in which an autistic person may need additional support - which you can read more about in my previous post, where I have already explained in more detail.

However, as we all know @tianfangyeta is a stickler for the details, so concerning all of the above points: here is a study suggesting that of the sampled participants of 687 autistic adults, 65% had one or more special interests and 35% said they had no or no current special interests. Of the 65% who reported a special interest, 88% reported having one or more. The same study reported that "Most respondents did not perceive their special interest to be an obstacle to functioning".

Some autistic people even make a career out of their special interest. That's even in the DSM-5:

"Special interests may be a source of pleasure and motivation and provide avenues for education and employment later in life."

And the ICD-11:

Special interests, and focused attention, may benefit some individuals in education and employment

...and in real life, like Kerry Magro, Dan Aykroid, and Chris Packham, for example - though I'm sure plenty of academics who aren't famous would probably be under this umbrella, as well.

In fairness, @tianfangyeta did attempt to clarify this section in a reblog:

I did not say "autistic people can’t have several hobbies". I said Snape possesses a diverse range of talents and excels at a masterful level, which does not align with the pattern of "Restricted, Repetitive Patterns of Behaviour, Interests, or Activities (Criterion B)" as described in the criteria. This is a difference in quality (diversity and flexibility), not quantity (having many interests).

Except for the fact that you've misunderstood this section of the DSM as well, because it literally means that someone becomes very intensely interested in one or a few rather specific things, to a degree that's much stronger than is considered "typical" - but it makes no mention of capability, diversity, quantity, or flexibility of the interests, whether the skills are innate or learnt, or whether they can be balanced with other tasks. And that's without considering that by adulthood - if Snape were autistic - that he would've developed his own methods of managing, as most late-diagnosed or undiagnosed people have to do anyway.

Now, I know you didn't want to hear the argument about how the DSM-5 operates from a deficit model, but this:

"Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g., strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interests)." (DSM-5)

Just means this:

"Persistent preoccupation with one or more special interests, parts of objects, or specific types of stimuli (including media) or an unusually strong attachment to particular objects (excluding typical comforters)." (ICD-11)

Which from a more humanised perspective of someone with autism just means this:

"Things that you need to know everything about, and take pleasure in learning about and specializing in." or "[becoming] autodidacts or gifted artists in our chosen passion" or "More interested in special interests than people" (embrace-autism)

Hm, an autodidact... someone who teaches themselves a great deal about something... perhaps potions? Who does that remind me of? No, I shan't say...

A final note on this section. As I've mentioned before, some autistic people don't have a special interest at all, so not all autistic people would even have the supposedly "narrowly focused and difficult to shift" attention when it comes to a particular interest. Remember - you need only meet two of the Category Bs to be diagnosed, and fixated interests may not even make the cut.

So now we turn to the next chapter.

Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior

Here is what I assume @tianfangyeta had to say on this subcategory, as the whole original post was not laid out according to either the DSM-5 or the ICD-11 guidelines and is growing rather difficult to address in an organised fashion:

He does not follow rigid patterns, so this trait does not match him.

Hm, rigidity...

Rigidity in the DSM refers to thinking patterns, not necessarily literal patterns of behaviour - simply put, it means believing that certain things have to be a certain way. That can involve behaviours (e.g. "there is only one right way, my way, to stack the dishwasher, and any other way of doing it is Wrong and Bothers Me") - but it can also include more nebulous things, like worldviews, or following rules (and the rules can be external, or self-imposed). Also, OP lumping it in with special interests when it's a different category entirely doesn't fill me with confidence. Saying "He does not follow rigid patterns" as proof when you have no idea what "rigid patterns" even means - and without acknowledging that, even then, it's just an example of one criteria, as you were so keen to stick to the criteria alone - is, at best, a shallow and inaccurate understanding of the topic.

(Also, does Snape not strike you as the sort of person to have some very strict beliefs about How Things Should Be Done, and a penchant for rule-following, which he gets very annoyed about if anyone violates?)

Later the post continues:

People with ASD often have difficulties in self-care (eating, hygiene, clothing) and/or in adaptability and managing daily routines. Severus shows some neglect in personal hygiene (greasy hair, poorly cared-for teeth), but being unable to care for oneself and simply not prioritizing hygiene are different; I personally lean toward the latter. Regarding adaptability, task management, and situational problem-solving, Severus is completely normal, even exceptional. This fourth trait can therefore be considered only partially inconsistent with him.

Neither diagnostic manual lists "difficulties in self-care," "task management," "managing daily routines", or "situational problem-solving" as defining traits of autism. "Task management" could feasibly be linked to a combination of difficulty switching between tasks, and/or executive dysfunction, so I'll give you half a point for trying, even though it's not mentioned in the critiera you supposedly drew from. Your suggestions may also appear in screening or assessment tools, and these are good questions to find out whether or not, and to what extent, people are struggling with executive function (or sensory issues - washing, brushing your teeth, or brushing your hair, for example, can sometimes be sensory hell for some autistic people. Others - like me - fucking love grinding away their gums with a toothbrush and the most obnoxiously minty toothpaste money can buy).

I'm also curious which part of the diagnostic criteria you got "situational problem-solving" from. Could you please show it to me?

Finally, the criteria states that autistic people have "inflexible adherence to routines", not difficulty managing them. Of course, I'll admit that you're right ✅ in saying that the ICD-11 says, "Lack of adaptability to new experiences and circumstances", and that autistic people tend to score lower on measures of adaptability - but even then the effect is offset by age and higher IQ, and even-even then, I'm not confident that you have a firm grasp on what that means in practice.

"Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior" (and the associated ICD-11 criteria, which I marked at the beginning of this post) is often mischaracterised by people unfamiliar with autism as us needing to do everything the same, all the same, every single day/week - same clothes, same foods, same activities - and any minor change cause massive distress. Whilst this is undoubtedly the case for some autistic people, it isn't a blanket, all-the-time statement, because autism exists on a very wide spectrum, and it's much more nuanced than that.

This webpage goes into it in more detail, but with slightly less clinical language:

The things that need to be the same will differ from person to person. How they react will differ from person to person, especially depending on how abrupt the change was, whether they were given any warning, and how important the "sameness" was to them in the first place.

For me, my "inflexible adherence to routines" accepted in my assessment included:

Walking the dogs the same route every day - but if I can't do that (e.g. because of a road closure) it makes me a little inexplicably uncomfortable - but I just change route, maybe a little grumpily.

For almost three years I ate the same sandwich every day, and I looked forward to it every day (crunchy peanut butter 4eva). If I knew I was going out for lunch or there was no peanut butter ahead of time, it didn't bother me, and I'd have something else. If we ran out unexpectedly, I would be upset, and not eat lunch. Devastatingly, I've now gone off peanut butter. My life may never be the same.

I listen to the same CD whilst putting up my Christmas decorations with my family every year (this was considered a "ritual" in my assessment). The year we unexpectedly lost the CD, I had a full meltdown (I was about 25 years old at the time, for context). This year, however, I knew we couldn't use the CD. I've known this would be the case since last summer because I moved in with my partner, and we don't have a CD player, and it seemed a bit silly to get one just for this. It was a non-issue, because I'd had time to mentally prepare.

Here we can see the "associated distress that can be evoked by trivial changes". But in the rest of my life, I have no routine at all - I even crave diversity and new experiences, because ADHD - and a lot of autistic people have both, so I'm not alone in this. On the webpage linked above, and in this study, we can see that some autistic people crave sameness in other, different things to me: from day-long, structured routines to routines that only become relevant at certain times of day like bedtime, mealtimes, or when dressing. But it can also include a strong preference for following rules, and ensuring the rules are followed (which sounds a little more like Snape). Some people do wear the same clothes every day (like Snape). Some people really like organising their things in tidy, organised rows (like Snape). Some people really need information to be precise and accurate (like Snape - and me, apparently).

Under the very same heading, for the very same condition, the things that people need to be the same will be different, and so will their reactions to those things being changed - including rage, anger, mild irritation, anxiety, panic, overwhelm, meltdown, tearfulness, sadness, and probably more. This can also change depending on the day, the person's general emotional state, how much preparation time they've had, what has caused the thing to change, etc etc etc. We're still people, after all.

To be honest, this is one of the main issues with the original post. You have cherry-picked a handful of behaviours and traits which are not universal, defining, or diagnostic, and presumed that they are. They are illustrations, or examples. This is what I think @ollywander was attempting to explain when they said, "You seem to be completely under the impression that people on the autism spectrum cannot present in ways contrary let alone slightly varying to the symptoms you have described here."

And, of course, a few people took the time to ask considerate questions:

Well, @pet-genius, I'm glad you asked, because this is what I'm trying to get at. I think this is what @ollywander was trying to get at as well when they said, "the way his almost definite autism presents is not fully similar to mine, nor will it be fully similar to anyone else’s, or perfectly fit any checklist. Everyone presents differently".

Autistic people do not do every single thing on the checklist, because the examples are only illustrative of the larger trait. Autistic people may not fit what most people might expect for each category, because most people's predominant understanding of autism comes from stereotypes, not the full spectrum of behaviours that might be exhibited by autistic people and understood by autistic people and the professionals diagnosing them. It is not so much an issue of "autistic people not fitting the criteria" as it is of allistic people not fully understanding the scope of what those criteria include.

What's left?

I'm rather worried that this is getting long, and any readers left standing at this point must also be fatigued, so I'll try and keep it brief.

Fortunately, there's not much of the original post left to touch on, so I'll start with sensory sensitivities. Here is what @tianfangyeta had to say:

People with ASD may be overly sensitive or under-responsive to sounds, lights, smells, touch, or other sensory stimuli, leading to discomfort or unusual reactions. Severus does not show this: he does not avoid bright lights or loud noises when attending Quidditch matches or teaching in classrooms, performs his tasks competently, and still pays attention to small details, such as monitoring students, which demonstrates stable sensory perception. Therefore, this third trait does not match him.

Look, we've been down this road before. Yes, autistic people may be overly sensitive or under-responsive to sounds, lights, smells, touch, or other sensory stimuli, leading to discomfort. That much is true. Yes, autistic people may be averse and even show adverse reactions to certain sensory stimuli (though I paused when you called it 'unusual reactions'. I'm curious as to what you meant by that. What do you think we do? Explode in a puff of pink smoke?)

However, once again, you have cherry-picked one trait and based your entire section on that one trait. There is no mention here of hyposensitivity. There is no mention of differences in experiencing pain or temperature. There is no mention of stimming or sensory-seeking. There is no mention of people with mixed hyper- and hypo-sensitive profiles. And even what you have mentioned about hypersensitivity is not universal - or in some cases, even relevant.

There is no mention in the diagnostic criteria of sensory sensitivity affecting attention. It might in some people, but it is not a requirement. There is no mention in the diagnostic criteria of sensory sensitivity affecting competence. It might in some people, but it is not a requirement. There is no mention in the diagnostic criteria of sensory sensitivity affecting awareness of your environment. It might in some people, but it is not a requirement.

Yes, autistic people may be generally more (or less) sensitive to certain things when compared to neurotypical people overall, but once again, there is still scope within that for individual experience. Even in autistic people who are hypersensitive, it is also not static. Just like I explained in my section above, the extent of people's sensitivity to certain things can change depending on their overall mood and wellbeing, what has happened that day, other external stressors, what is the source of potential distress, and countless other factors. The reaction will also depend on the individual, spanning from mild irritation to full overwhelm and everything in between - including the examples you listed, as well as things like pain, anguish, and I've even seen someone describe a sensation like having bees in your teeth, which curiously I related to as well - but there is not any one universal response. I feel like this needs to be a floating reminder for this essay:

Manifestations of the disorder also vary greatly ... hence, the term spectrum

Even autistic people who are extremely sensitive to loud noises may still attend a concert or sports event if that is something they are passionate about. People can also learn to manage their sensitivities, especially when they are well into adulthood - and often have no choice, especially if they are late- or undiagnosed.

You have also cherry-picked just two of the senses for your discussion: sight and hearing. In reality, sensory differences can potentially affect all of our senses:

If you'd read the DSM-5 even once you might know that, because it also says it there:

Motor deficits are often present, including odd gait, clumsiness, and other abnormal motor signs.

You've also forgotten to mention sensory seeking. The ICD-11 is a little clearer on this, saying:

Lifelong excessive and persistent hypersensitivity or hyposensitivity to sensory stimuli or unusual interest in a sensory stimulus, which may include actual or anticipated sounds, light, textures (especially clothing and food), odors and tastes, heat, cold, or pain.

But research is catching up to the fact that it's not always so black-and-white. You can read more about sensory differences in adults here. This paper is also pretty funny to me as it points out things I also struggle with, like hating the sound of clocks ticking - but it also highlights the many contradictions in sensory profiles of autistic people, none of which you have touched on:

Under- and overresponsivity frequently coexist, and sensory-seeking behaviours are associated with both over- and underreactivity in people with ASD

Sensory sensitivities, like autism and autistic people, are complicated and full of contradictions.

So, if I were to attempt to make an argument for Snape's being autistic and that he struggled with sensory issues, I might suggest he has a sensitivity to light (living in the dark dungeons, dimming the classroom when he enters), but also enjoys "softly shimmering" lights, as some autistic people do - "fascination with lights" is even in the DSM-5 and in practice can mean things like stimming or sensory seeking by looking at things that softly sparkle/twinkle. I might also suggest that Snape has poor vestibular sense and/or poor proprioception owing to his questionable broom skills and unusual gait, but I'll go into that in more detail in the meta section, so as not to derail this essay.

And, as usual, your regular reminder that sensory sensitivities are just one of four potential components of Category B, and that not every autistic person will have them at all - and if they do, they don't necessarily have to be debilitating.

Stereotyped or repetitive motor movements

I also notice that you didn't touch on stimming. As the only one of the four Category Bs in the DSM we haven't looked at, we might as well while I'm here - especially given that over 65% of autistic people report frequent stimming behaviours.

"Simple motor stereotypes" - or stimming - are typically thought of as hand flapping, rocking, spinning, or repeating sounds/phrases (all of which some autistic people may do some of, or none of). This may include countless things, but some of mine are lip rubbing, biting, and other lip movements (sort of tucking my lips in the corners? rubbing my gums with my lips? no idea what that's called), biting the inside of my cheeks, as well as playing with my hair, playing with objects like pencils in school, toe wiggling, fidgeting with my fingers or my nails (especially if I've had a manicure and they're all glittery), and repeating words I like the sound of inside my head. They also can include more harmful things, like head banging, biting, and skin picking, though generally they don't, and autistic people find the behaviours to be self-soothing.

inb4 people say "lots of people do these things, that doesn't make them autistic!!" by asking everyone to remember that it's the frequency and severity of the actions, and whether they meet all of the other relevant critiera, that tips the scale. Lots of allistic people will fidget when nervous, pick their nails when bored, tap their foot in class, rock themselves when they are upset or jump for joy or clap in excitement from time to time, for example - but most people won't do it so frequently as autistic people, i.e. doing something fidgety most of the time. This goes for all of the autistic traits. Some allistic people will be socially awkward, and/or incredibly passionate about their interests, but they will not sufficiently meet the other criteria, or they will not find it meaningfully impacts their lives.

Add to all of that that that stigma drives many autistic people to hide their stims - it's even mentioned in the DSM-5 and ICD-11:

Many adults with autism spectrum disorder without intellectual or language disabilities learn to suppress repetitive behavior in public. ...adolescents and adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder may also try to suppress specific behaviours that they realize are socially undesirable.

In practice, this can mean that the less obvious stims (i.e. the ones you're less likely to get told off/bullied for) become more commonplace. This is true of most autistic traits, especially in autistic people who can "mask" their traits. Speaking of which...

Masking

Even if someone argues that Snape might be “making”, there’s still a difference: a person with autism still has difficulty maintaining eye contact. It’s even harder to deliberately use one’s gaze to exert subtle psychological pressure on others, let alone on a trauma trigger. In the books, Harry (a trauma trigger because he resembles his father) often feels as though Snape is reading his mind when the latter looks at him, even though JKR never explicitly states that Snape was using Occlumency in those moments. Therefore, I tend to think that Snape’s direct gaze itself created psychological pressure on Harry, something that would be extremely difficult for someone with ASD to do consciously and repeatedly, and it would also be extremely difficult for them to endure having their thoughts probed repeatedly while continuing to operate as a spy.

*deep breath*

Okay, here we go.

"Masking" is much more complex and multifaceted than making eye contact. That's literally just one part of it:

Beyond that, not all autistic people struggle with eye contact in the same way.

Some don't struggle with eye contact at all - they love it. They'll stare into your soul.

Some people have strategies to cope with it.

Some people find certain colour eyes are easier to look into than others.

And some may not even be aware that eye contact is uncomfortable for them.

Still don't trust me? Remember this part of the ICD-11? "These non-verbal behaviours may also be reduced in frequency or intensity". The nonverbal cues listed in the section include eye contact, gestures, facial expressions and body language. The diagnostically relevant difference is in integrating them with spoken language, not necessarily an outright absence. Lack of eye contact by itself is not indicative of autism; both diagnostic criteria make a point of differentiating autism from social anxiety and shyness, for example, which may also influence frequency and intensity of eye contact.

Still not sure? The DSM-5 lists "abnormalities in eye contact" as one of the examples of "Deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction". That is abnormalities, not total absence or inability. Under "Diagnostic Features" it elaborates that "Impairment may be relatively subtle" or "may have relatively good eye contact", but an individual may fail to integrate it and/or other methods of nonverbal communication.

Further to that point, eye contact in a diagnostic sense is explicitly related to "social interaction", i.e. during everyday social interactions and conversations. I'm not sure it has a section for using magic, or during life-or-death situations like having your mind penetrated by the Dark Lord.

Also, most of us already have to contend with more eye contact than we'd like or care for, anyway, even outside of life-or-death situations. Do you think autistic people don't get instructed to make eye contact by their families or bosses? Do you think that (controversial) ABA therapies don't force/'encourage' improvements in this area? Do you not think many of us do it every day as part of masking before diagnosis? What on earth makes you think Snape couldn't cope with it for short bursts where he is being 'searched', or searching someone, even if he didn't like it? All of the examples we see - even the potential/hypothetical ones you've suggested - last a few minutes at most, with only the exception of Harry's lessons.

I also think that it would be different than making regular sustained eye contact. Legilimency has several "layers" to it imo, or at least different levels of intensity or focus. Once you get past a certain point, it's clear from Harry's lessons that both people are seeing memories, or glimpses of them, rather than the eyes.

I also think if you're going to make assertions about what would be "extremely difficult" for an autistic person to do, you might want to consider taking in the opinion of a few actually autistic people regarding our abilities and preferences rather than point-blank speaking over us. A few people reblogged your original post speaking from firsthand experience, and it's not clear that you've engaged with any of the points being made. This isn't unusual; qualified autistic people conducting academic research on autism are regularly made to feel by neurotypical researchers as though they don't have the expertise or the trustworthiness to be doing that kind of research. Experts and laypeople will regularly ignore our voices when discussing autism. Ignorance and erasure are common in the research. This is something that is only just now beginning to change with the introduction of critical autism studies aiming to correct misinterpretations, but it sure as fuck doesn't seem to be changing in the Snapedom.

I'm also curious, @tianfangyeta. Why are you "completely at a loss for words" at the idea of people considering that Snape might be autistic? Is it really so odd, so shocking, so heinous ( @therealhalfbloodprince) for people to interpret a character as autistic? Is that what you think of all the people in the fandom who are autistic? And why do you think so?

Don't get me wrong, I have no issues if someone simply doesn't vibe with the interpretation - there are interpretations of Snape I don't vibe with sometimes, too - but flabbergasted incredulity and outright disgust seem a little over the top.

I also wanted to touch on this, @tianfangyeta:

...Diagnostic criteria (DSM-5, ICD-11) are public documents, designed to be referenced, understood, and discussed by professionals and the public. Demanding that I be a doctor to be permitted to reference them in a discussion about a fictional character is absurd. By your logic, no one but a psychiatrist would be allowed to have any opinion on mental health in popular culture. ... I synthesized the information concisely from the DSM-5 and ICD-11. If you're using "well, honestly, it's a pretty weak interpretation of the criteria, at best" to criticize my post, then why don't you use the actual diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder to debate me instead of just saying that?

You don't need to be a doctor to be 'permitted' to reference them, but the key takeaway here is the DSM-5 is a professional reference tool. While it - and everything in it - is available for public perusal on the internet, it is not in any way designed for a layman. You did not "[synthesize] the information concisely from the DSM-5 and ICD-11" - half of what you supposedly referenced doesn't exist in the DSM-5 or ICD-11 at all, and the other half was so poorly interpreted it was difficult to know where to start in correcting it. Your post is little more than an amalgamation of regurgitated stereotypes framed as medical or psychological expertise, incorrectly conflating traits that are not in the diagnostic criteria with traits that are, compiled solely to argue that there's nothing to support Snape being autistic without any real understanding of autism at all. Worse than that, I saw people in the comments agreeing with it, when clearly neither you nor they have any real understanding of the topic at hand. You have also failed to take into account current clinical understandings of autism - understandings that would be taken into account during an assessment by any proficient assessor or expert, and are increasingly being considered during the diagnostic process.

On the 'Deficit Model': You are correct that the DSM is a clinical guide. But in a debate about whether a fictional character meets the clinical definition of a disorder, it is the only objective standard we have. If we reject it, we reject any possibility of a grounded discussion.

Calling it "objective" may be a bit of a stretch. Remember this page, which I mentioned in the beginning?

At a certain point we also have to concede that the very nature of diagnosis is subjective, historically situated, and culturally dependent - and thus, always open to more nuanced ways of understanding.

As an example, until 1973, "homosexuality" was in the DSM. The DSM-1 lists homosexuality as a "type of the pathologic behavior" and was listed alongside "transvestism, pedophilia, fetishism and sexual sadism (including rape, sexual assault, mutilation)".

"Autism" was originally referred to as "Kanner syndrome", and wasn't differentiated from childhood schizophrenia until 1980.

It wasn't until 1987 that the DSM produced a checklist for diagnosing autism.

It wasn't until 2013 that Asperger's was removed from the DSM and combined with autism.

Until 2013, you could not be diagnosed with both autism and ADHD. Now, research suggests that 50 to 70% of autistic people also have ADHD.

Contrary to your other (rather self-congratulatory) post, @tianfangyeta, "real experts" - that is to say, the people who attempt to work towards developing knowledge rather than clinging to half-truths - accept the limits to their knowledge, are open to new information, and revise their claims accordingly. If we didn't, we might still be calling autism Kanner syndrome, homosexuality would still be considered a mental illness, and we wouldn't have 5 editions (plus additional text revisions) of the DSM, and 11 revisions of the ICD.

My final thought, @tianfangyeta, is this: you very, very clearly not sufficiently informed to discuss autism, the DSM-5, ICD-11, or their contents - in the context of a character, or in general. For someone who claims to want to 'listen to the experts', you have repeatedly ignored expert knowledge, and readily discarded and ignored others' credentials (including from people like @starcrossedkayla and others who replied, who have worked in the field). You have ignored actual autistic people when discussing something for which they can offer direct, personal insight; you have ignored the diagnostic criteria from which you supposedly structured your original arguments; you have ignored the latest academic contributions to the subject; and you have ignored the mountains of resources available online to help improve your knowledge. You are functionally incapable of speaking from a place of authority on the topic - and that is not an insult, that is a statement of fact.

I would suggest that you critically engage with the idea of why there was so much backlash to your post in the first place - but my instinct, honestly, is that you don't care what I have to say. Perhaps you are a troll, and perhaps all of this was a waste of time, because no amount of evidence or resources can change your mind.

But that doesn't really matter, because this was mostly for my benefit - so I could lead us all... to this: