Board index › General Discussion › General Autism Discussion

Autistic Person vs Person With Autism

Page 3 of 3 [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

06 Jul 2016, 4:15 pm

As long as you don't call me an "autist" :eew:

If "autist" were a real word it would mean "a person who purposely 'does' autism as a craft, or a profession" which no one does (unless maybe theyre trying to game the system by pretending to be autistic to get SSI or something).

Someone on WP recently made a post in which they used "autist" twenty times. Its like hearing someone bang a sour note on the piano twenty times. Dont know how a person can misuse language like that without cringing.

:



Edenthiel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Sep 2014
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,820
Location: S.F Bay Area

06 Jul 2016, 4:32 pm

Testingwaters wrote:
AspergersActor8693 wrote:
This has been a question on my mind for a while in recent time. Which is the preferred term? I like to say "Autistic Person" or "Autistic People", but on some of the Autism pages I follow, a number of them and a number of members use "Person with Autism", "Child with Autism", etc.

Now in my mind Person with Autism has the strong reference to Autism = Disease. So I don't quite understand why we seem to be commonly referred to as people with autism instead of autistic people. Is this due to NT perceptions or something I'm missing? I mean, as far as I know no one says things like "person with homosexuality".

Any clarification would be appreciated.


I'd prefer neither. Autism is a disorder unlike homosexuality. Homosexuality is no longer in the standard DSMs or ICDs. Homosexuality is only who you like. Autism is a set of social/sensory impairments or abnormalities which affect your daily functioning if not accommodated or treated. Even though Autism may not be a disease, it is still a disorder, hence the terms 'autism diagnosis'.

Person with Autism/Autistic person mean the same thing, as person with Achondroplasia/Achon/Achondroplastic do. Person with Autism is no more offensive than person with Down's syndrome. Down's is not a disease yet a genetic anomaly in which there is an extra copy of chromosome 21. Its quite similar to autism. Each disorder is an integral part of the affected person, so each disorder is not inherently bad. They're called disorders because they affect the person differently than an enabled person, not because the diagnosis necessarily 'breaks' them. Look at them in both a medical and sociological standpoint.


A somewhat leading set of question(s):
Should autism always be considered a "disorder"?
What is the standard that it is judged against?
Why should neural typical people's behavior be considered the standard of perfection for "order", or functionality?

It seems to me that perhaps at many levels and in many instances the two are *different* but that does not always make NT *better* by default simply by virtue of being "typical".


_________________
“For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love.”
―Carl Sagan


EqualGroundsWrongToRight
Butterfly
Butterfly

Joined: 4 Jul 2016
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 11
Location: New York

06 Jul 2016, 7:50 pm

^ Exactly.

Being neurotypical in my opinion means nothing special. Ordinary, expected (by other neurotypicals of course), etc

Autism is not a disorder, it's just one of many ways a human brain can develop. (Somewhat unique, but still quite common)



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,129

06 Jul 2016, 11:26 pm

Yup. Normal isn't necessarily good or healthy, and it's certainly not the best - it's mediocre, it's run-of-the-mill. The best, if there is such a thing, is abnormal.



PrivatePyle99
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2016
Gender: Male
Posts: 80
Location: UK

07 Jul 2016, 1:10 am

ToughDiamond wrote:
Yup. Normal isn't necessarily good or healthy, and it's certainly not the best - it's mediocre, it's run-of-the-mill. The best, if there is such a thing, is abnormal.


I like this, it's like I've always said, you can't be the best at anything and be like everybody else. Not that I've ever been the best at anything, but I usually tried to be.


_________________
"A feller wiser than myself once said, sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear, well, he eats you."
The Stranger - The Big Lebowski

Your neurodiverse (Aspie) score: 140 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 59 of 200
You are very likely neurodiverse (Aspie)


ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 72
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,129

07 Jul 2016, 4:53 pm

^
It'd be interesting if they had a DSM for "desirable" abnormalities. But would they cut benefits and tax breaks for those who had them, on the grounds that they were better able to fend for themselves than average, or give them extra money as a reward for being so smart and potentially helpful to society? Would those thus diagnosed be labelled wealth creators, or persons-with-wealth-creation?