Functioning Labels

Post Reply New Topic

Why do some people consider functioning labels offensive? It seems to me that there has to be a way to quantify the degree of functionality of someone who is autistic and any way that you do that would have to be considered just as offensive as functioning labels. If this is indeed the case, what do you do to communicate the severity of deficits for an autistic person?

People on the spectrum know there are different functional levels across the spectrum but just don't want to admit to it. It's obvious that there are some people who are more high-functioning than others. But at the same time, it isn't black and white either. There aren't just two groups on the spectrum, high-functioning and low-functioning. I know that. But there are some autistic/Aspie people that are considered high or low-functioning. I'm so high-functioning that I sometimes question my own diagnosis.

In a purely clinical sense, no function-label should be offensive.  In a social sense, however, labels are often mistakenly construed to indicate personal status and worth.

This is why it is best to keep one's function-labels to oneself.

I think high-functioning means being able to pass off as NT and the ability to learn social cues from a young age. As a high-functioning Aspie I'm not exactly socially clueless. Also most high-functioning Aspies are drawn to social situations and crave friendships, and even introverts that don't like people so much can still mask their symptoms.

Also high-functioning Aspies are usually affected by anxiety more than cluelessness. Most high-functioning Aspies have jobs and relationships and a driver's license, and those that haven't aren't given a chance by society but it doesn't necessarily mean they are incapable. Autistics that are more severely affected are less likely to be able to pass off as NT except maybe for limited periods of time, and lack a lot of social skills required for employment or relationships, no matter how intelligent they are. I don't believe intelligence has much to do with functioning, it's more to do with what social abilities you have and how early or late you've learnt them and how much you can pass off as normal without too much exhaustion.

Not a blanket statement, but I'm sure this is true for a lot of people on the spectrum.

I think that functional labels are necessary, at the very least, on a clinical level. People at different functional levels of Autism have different needs and removing them would make it harder to distinguish them.

I think there is a problem with how those functional labels are viewed treated. Especially high functioning, which lots of people unfortunately treat as "oh, they should be able to do everything without help." When in reality, we need a different type of assistance; especially in the job fields, where quite often our social and sensory issues as well as secondary problems brought on by how others view us and our emotional and psychological reaction to that treatment. can be our undoing, no matter what our skill level is in relation to the position.

The problem with the high functioning label emerges (all too often) when people hear it and think "this person doesn't need much accommodation or support.

The problem with the low functioning label emerges (all too often) when people hear it and think "this person can't do much".

The labels higher/lower support needs start to do better.

Fundamentally, while so many people carry incorrect presumptions about the experience and needs of people with various presentations of autism, there will be people with good cause to complain about how the labels are used.

function labels don't really work because they are too generalized and lead to people making assumptions.

I like to think about my performance readings from the neurological testing I had done as part of my autism diagnosis assessment process.

Autism is caused by uneven neurological development. All individuals will have areas of high performance and areas of low performance.
In NT, performance ratings for any task measured will be nearly the same, perhaps only slightly higher or lower. In ND performance ratings will be very high , perhaps a few average, and some very poor. Each person's test will vary according to their neurological performance.

I had some performance tests come in at 25th percentile, I had a couple 80-90th percentile, I had a few come in at 130....
That is a much more accurate measurement of my capabilities than saying I am high or low functioning. I am actually both, and part of the autism diagnosis is that our uneven neurological development will show such peaks and valleys in performance.
Due to autism, most individuals will have areas of both high and low performance.
That is why function labels that generalize do not work well.

There`s a large middle in ASD, where functioning labels can fluctuate, someone can be high functioning one day & lower functioning the next, so there is alot of movement making exact positioning difficult.

However there are many outside this middle with static functioning labels, the ID man with ASD with the living skills of a 3 year old is never going to be high functioning. Likewise Anthony Hopkins is never really going to become low functioning.

At the end of the day there needs to a a way to identify needs functioning labels are a bit crude but there isnt much else except the vague ASD 1,2 & 3, that few outside autism understand.

Most spectrumers are both, which means moderate-functioning. But some of us are high-functioning, meaning we stay on the same sort of level of functioning from day to day. Same with low-functioning spectrumers.

That seems about right to me. I don't much mind function labels myself, and I don't much divulge my diagnosis.

I guess it's also about the idea that society makes us "disabled" by its attitudes. Much of what we can't do is down to the behaviour of NTs. I remember hearing on a news item that Aspies wanted to be seen as different rather than disabled, before I knew anything much about ASD, and the idea resonated with me because I'm sick of the way the mainstream world looks down on people for not doing things in what they see as "the done way." So I can see why being labelled as simply a low-functioning person wouldn't go down well, though I think it's important not to go too far the other way and pretend that all our impairments would vanish if only NTs would mend their ways. I've experienced for myself that it makes a huge difference to be among non-judgemental, inclusive people. It certainly made me feel a lot better, but it didn't completely eradicate my impairments.

im moderate autistic

never spoke til i was 7 and a half

now i drive buses for a living
but because i need certain routine and i am unable to relate to nt or understand subtle social cues and i have meltdowns even in public
it makes me moderate because i can go mute after a meltdown and im unable to express my feelings most of the time unless its anger or panic but i express it inappropriatley like

also im not aware of most of my struggles so i dont really ever get depressed about having autism im too self absorbed

yes i can drive buses but socially and emotionally i am less mild than high functioning autistics

You’re much better than I am at driving buses

To my mind, there are two main issues, which unfortunately don't have as much focus as they should.

1) The issue isn't with the label themselves or what they mean, but the misuse and misunderstanding of them by others; some people just don't know and only go by what little they've learned, and others use it form problematic judgements of people with ASD or otherwise insult and demean them.

In my opinion, although the method of taking offense and making use of the social pressure of expectations regarding 'proper' social conduct to force others to acquiesce can, on a personal basis, get you some decent short-term results, it's not a socially healthy solution. It does the opposite of propagating understanding and empathy since it leaves people trying to make sense of things in the lurch. If they can't address or act/react to a factually correct issue, what are they supposed to do when that issue brings up problems that they need to talk about?

The ideal solution would be to educate people, but of course that's an incredibly difficult task that can only be done slowly over time.

2) Many ASD people have very difficult mental challenges to deal with and cope with it in different ways, some healthy some not. Regardless, we're all just trying to make things work somehow, and I can see how having ones own uniquely ASD difficulties being thrown in your face in one way or another could be a big stress trigger or otherwise disrupting of whatever balance it is you're currently maintaining.

Considering that, the issue is, once again, not an issue with the label and meaning itself but the person's response to them. (trigger warning)

But that leaves us with a kind of no-win situation. It's good to be accommodating of other people's unique difficulties, but placing the burden on others instead isn't right either. The 'greater good' solution might be to throw those people under the bus and carry on with functional labels, but it still sucks.

---

That being said, I can sort of see an issue with the label itself. 'Functioning' labels are more of an overly-general summary of current state, and can change over time. Attaching a lower 'functioning' title to someone's identity than they can achieve in practice could be very harmful to a person's mental health and future, especially the people around them act as if they can't achieve as much as they could, which is a real issue considering the sheer volume of misunderstandings people have regarding ASD.

In my opinion, the greater the disparity of expectations vs capability (in either direction, greater or worse), the worse off someone's mental health is likely to develop.

Maybe a better label (or labels) to throw around would be an ASD person's unique set of difficulties. It gives others a better understanding of not just that person but also all of ASD in general. Maybe keep functioning labels as an internal matter for mass healthcare and social policy concerns.

Well my difficulties are relatively mild. Anxiety is my main issue. It holds me back, especially social anxiety. It's the sort of anxiety that meds don't really treat, as it's wired into my personality to be sensitive. I'm capable of taking care of myself, although I can have difficulties when it comes to numbers or technical stuff. But I put that down to ADHD or even slight learning difficulties.

I don't like "high functioning" b/c it implies (the social aspect) that I don't need help. Sure enough, I was in an urgent situation once and doctors told my parents: she doesn't drink, she doesn't do drugs... don't worry. It almost cost me my life (and similar (lack of) help cost my cousin and her mother their lives). Apparently, this is common for "high functioning" Autistic women who tend to "behave" outwardly and self harm (or suffer) in more "acceptable" ways. I appear high functioning and the outward success I have achieved would seem to support that and yet... and yet... sigh... from a different perspective... a different measurement... harumph. It seems "low functioning" Autism is more associated with motor and speech difficulties (or severe sub-conditions OCD ADHD etc), which can occur in people without Autism also. The degree of function is typically observed from outside, but what about the inside experience?

I've been turned down from support in the past because I am too high-functioning. It was disappointing and stressful at the time but I've figured I don't need as much support as what a person with more functioning challenges may need, so I rather it go to them. I am capable of holding down a job, my only setback is anxiety; I let my emotions get in the way and this might be the only area where I might need some financial support at some point in my life. But despite that, I still agree that I'm high-functioning, and that there are a lot of people who need support more than me.