Aspies saying they're Austic without context.

Post Reply New Topic

I know this is going to get me flamed, a lot but I've been noticing more an more people with Aspergers particularly when they appear in the media throwing around "I'm Autisic" without much further followup like "I have Asperger which is related to / a mild form of Autism". Partly I think it's because it's dramatic but I think it's in bad taste. Maybe be I has something to do with the
confusing naming system where Classic Autism [Known to everyone else as "Autism"] is a form of the broader category Autism.
Maybe it's because I think that dictionary definitions are useless if they don't match with the common usage of a term. But it bugs me. Anyone else.

I don't think Aspies should say they're autistic. I don't think they should not say they're autistic, either. I'm not sure whether answering no in your poll would suggest the latter as an imperative, so I have not answered.

I do say I'm autistic. I don't see any reason I should have to describe myself as anything other than autistic when I am autistic. One of the many reasons I avoid labeling myself as an Aspie or as having Asperger's when it's not relevant is because people love to call it "a mild form of autism."

Yes, I find it bothersome when there's no context.

I wouldn't use the term autism to describe me comparison to the nonverbal teenager down the road. We both have a severe disorder, but they're a world apart. Two labels help here.

Only available adjective.

I have had more problems come from people assuming that me being an aspie meant that it was not really a disability for me than people thinking that autistic meant that I was more disabled than I am. As a whole people I've interacted with understand that the autistic spectrum has a wide range of people on it.

I don't think people should be forced to call themselves autistic or avoid it. I will call myself autistic though, because describing myself as on the autistic spectrum is far more descriptive than calling me an aspie (though I do solidly identify as an aspie and that my diagnosis is Asperger's).

Just to be clear here I'm talking more about when It is used a the only adjetive or the headline adjetive.
I think it would be a lot clearer if the superset had a different name to the individual sub-conditions. You
end up with confusing terminology eg. "Autism is a form of Autism" "Aspergers is a Form of Autism"
"High-Functioning-Autism is a High Functioning form of Autism".

Work it out from the context.

Who says that Aspergers is always more severe than Autism? I know a 14 year old boy who is Aspergers and singificantly more impaired than a few people I know who are labeled as autistic. The DSM only differentiates between the two via a delay in congitive and verbal abilities or not.

So yeah... That is the whole point of the two being placed as ASD in the DSM V and is exactly why I say that I am Autistic. If your assertion was correct you'd have a point but it is not.

With the context in question:

Asperger's works for me, i.e., verbal ASD who can do quite a lot of in regards to self-care (still far below the normal person though)

Him, autism works, nonverbal ASD who can't do much in regards to self-care

You can exchange "Asperger's" for "mild autism" in my case in comparison to him, with "severe autism" for him. Verbal [and self-help] skills aren't the only difference of course, but that's what most people notice when you see two people who look normal.

We both present quite differently in symptoms (both still typical of each separate label), and I kinda feel like I'd be cheating him by using his label to define my disability.

"HFA" would work for me too. "LFA" for him.

I think people mistake "high functioning" and "mild" to mean what it doesn't in a clinical aspect, i.e., close to "normal". Even with "mild" autism, one is still an outlier in behavior and functioning compared to the normal person. But again, people often overlook this.

Thinking of a typical audience, I've maybe told two people, close friends, smart people, and they lacked the context to really understand. Getting technical would be pointless. On forums like this... well, I think if a difference was relevant it would be apparent, but maybe I'm a bit heedless of the lurker.

this phycologist who was studying aspergers said she diddn't like the term aspergers because It made it seem less severe and she said it was all autism, she has a non-verbal autistic son.

I really think either works. It's not like NT folk in general know any more about Asperger's than they do about Autism. Either you present one or the other outside of context and prepare to deal with the ignorance, or you give the context and education yourself.

Well, here's my take on it.

Thinking of the people I know who have autism, I see a group of people who are very diverse. They are anywhere from completely independent and self-supporting since the age of 18, to living at home as adults and needing help every day.

The people I know who have Asperger's have exactly the same distribution of independence levels, except that they are on average better with speaking. Note that I don't say "better at communicating", because they aren't; they are just better at speaking.

The difference is so small that I have come to the conclusion that Asperger's and autism proper are the same thing. It's not just that "Asperger's is a form of autism", but actually, "Asperger's IS autism." There was never any difference. We just didn't know that autistic people could speak until we named Asperger's. With the definition of Asperger's, not only did we get the Asperger's subset of the Spectrum, but the classic autism group also gained many people who could speak and take care of themselves--they are, in fact, the majority of classic autism cases now.

So, when I say "I am autistic," I mean not just that "I've been variously diagnosed with Asperger's, autism, and PDD-NOS, and believe PDD-NOS to be the best description so far," but, "I think dividing the autism spectrum into subcategories makes no diagnostic or clinical sense." There are no subcategories--just one very diverse category called "autism".

Anyway, when I identify myself as autistic--obviously odd, but also competent and fairly independent--I'm making the point to everyone I meet that autism is more likely to be someone like me than someone like the Autism-Speaks stereotype.

I picked yes because I didn't know what aspergers was when I started University. Having people say that there autistic, but have a less severe form called aspergers would help people understand it better. From this people can understand that its a difficulty interacting with people and that its a disability. It's better to be underestimated and given too much allowances at first than to have your functioning overestimated and be forced to fight for every bit of assistance you need.