Autistic or person with autism? SURVEY

Post Reply New Topic

That is half the reason why I thought this may be a good idea. I always come across people who aren't autistic (often they have a child who is or work with autistic people) and if someone says or writes autistic they try and to insist that it should be with autism because the autism doesn't define them(or for whatever other reason). And the majority of the time autistic people prefer autistic rather than person with autism and everyone seems to hate when people insist on using a term even when autistic people have said not to do that. I thought maybe if even a small survey was done it could help stop people insisting on person with autism when it's not their choice to make. If that makes sense.

Thanks to everyone who has done it so far.

Makes perfect sense. It's why I hate the PC movement. When a group says 'don't do that' and is ignored, it's actually more offensive than just plain language.

And, when it goes so far as trying to prevent a group from claiming and re-appropriating a term it has gone too far. For instance a band called "The Slants" (Asians only in the band) were prevented from trademarking the name because it was deemed 'too offensive' by the Trademark and Patent Office. The band eventually won, but wow.....1984 is just 30 years late with all the thought control going on. And the thought that 'they' know better is really galling. It's just another form of marginalization to say we don't know what is better for us.

Why is plain language so feared and twisted today?

I prefer being called 'autistic' to 'person with autism' because it's what I am, it's a part of me, not some kind of added extra. It's same as me being female. I'm not a person with femaleness, I'm a female. I do understand where the idea behind the 'person with autism' malarky comes from but it just doesn't fit the situation of how I experience being autistic. 'Person with autism' to me feels like a lie, whereas 'autistic' feels genuine.

PS: I did the survey.

"I'm not a person with femaleness, I'm a female." That was the funniest and truest of all the lines in that blog.

80 odd replies so far

Anyone have any ideas where else I could share it? I'd post it on Twitter but I don't use Twitter.

Put it on any social media site you could think of.

But, since it is anonymous, who's to say it's answered by Autistic people or parents of Autistic people?

I'm paranoid enough to believe that people would try to skew results to fit their narrative.

Obviously they could that but it's the same with any survey or poll. And the results so far are inline with the other one I did which wasn't anonymous. I thought it just be easier to do another one on a survey site, as they give you all the statistics at the end.

I am encouraged to hear that.

Ho-hum, semantics wars again.

I don't give two hoots which you use, but if you correct me for which I use, my first impression is you are focusing on the wrong things. The labels instead of the concepts.

hahahaha......which one do you use, btw?

That's a very good point--it's as though we are too impaired to define ourselves the way we wish to be defined.

I liken the "autistic-first" self-labeling to be a similar thing to Deaf culture's "Deaf person" being preferred to "person who is deaf." Autistic people have developed their own culture and conventions. I think it reflects the fact that autism and deafness are more integral to these group's identities than people with a condition that is acquired, temporary, or does not affect the essential aspects of they way they communicate and think (e.g., a person with cancer, a person who is quadriplegic). Just as Deaf people have their own language with its own grammar and conventions, autistic people are developing their own customs, such as the use of color-coded badges at gatherings to indicate what level of interaction they can do. I think the defining feature of the autistic self-advocacy movement (and disability self-advocacy) is the right to self-determinism.

I would think that would go with any advocacy group. As Bea said, it is a bit of a semantics war. But I do get a bit ticked when a 'well meaning group' wants to force it's views on others without realizing the irony of their actions.

I'm okay with a group stating what they want to be called (e.g., African American instead of black, Negro, or colored, even all of these terms were used by African Americans in previous decades). That's their right to have a label that makes them feel comfortable. What is really objectionable to me is being corrected on how I refer to myself, or correcting a term that wasn't really offensive, in order to make some philosophical point.

I got into the feminist and neo-Pagan movement shortly after college, and soon ran into a branch of feminism that had clearly overdosed on Andrea Dworkin and Z Budapest. I saw feminist goals as being to ensure that women and children received equal economic opportunities, control of their bodies, and safety from violence. I wasn't really into philosophical rants about patriarchy and word choice, and got super-annoyed by people telling me to refer to "herstory" instead of "history," and the anti-transgender words, "wombyn" and "wimmin". I was concerned with equal pay and domestic violence, not butchering the English language. I don't care if you call me a girl or a woman. I care if you pass me over for a promotion.

There is a kind of snobbery in people that go around correcting other people's language regarding an issue in which they are not personally invested. There is a sneering superiority that says, "I know much better about this than you do. I am here to set you straight, you ignorant peasant."

I would use whatever term the individual used when referring to themselves.

I prefer "autistic" for its simplicity. I have yet to meet anyone who finds it offensive.