"Person with Autism" or "Autistic"

Post Reply New Topic

I find "person with autism" offensive because it implies that autism is something separate from the person.

Which is actually what one of Attwood's underlings told me; AS isn't the person, it isn't the personality; it's a deficit in the areas described, much like any other neurological condition.

Hey, they're the experts.

I prefer autistic to person with autism. It gets more to the point, and it sounds better.

Neither of them. I don't mind being called high-functioning autistic (with emphasis on high-functioning), but when most people hear about autism, they think about Rain Man. It has never occured to them that it's actually possible to be autistic and at the same time live an almost normal life.

I use autistic myself and I am not offended if someone uses it towards me.

The issue appears different in different countries. In my native language, person-first expressions are so awkward that no one has used them, after a few initial pathetic attempts. So the language of the professionals and the autistic community is the same in this respect. This doesn't stop different views on autism from existing just the same. On the other hand, very few actually call themselves autistic in Finland, and the same applies to some other countries. Mostly we use slangy derivatives of Asperger, corresponding to 'aspie'. Autistic still tends to be strongly associated with severe disability only in large parts of the world, and even when people believe it would be good to call everyone on the spectrum simply autistic, suddenly just adopting this practice would not help us in any way. It would only earn us the label of liar or delusional. So, strangely enough, in English language environments I'm autistic, in some other environments something else, and often I adopt 'on the spectrum' type expressions as a safe compromise that's not likely to offend anyone.

To defend my use of autistic (as an adjective, not as noun, I never use "an autistic") when dealing with professionals, I have sometimes told them that I am Finnish, female, myopic and autistic, and that I have no need to remove any one of these characteristics further from myself by semantic trickery; nor do I imply by using these as adjectives that any one of them defines me 100% (obviously, since that would already be 400%). Also, I telle them that if I ever contract anything that I find completely disagreeable and in no way part of my character, such as a fungal infection or cancer, then I will definitely prefer person first -style expressions. I invite them to consider whether they want to place autism in the same category with things like nationality, gender, maybe left-handedness or dyslexia, or do they really want to group it together with cancer, and which choice really feels more respectful.

Then you get into the whole labeling thing. Labels are stupid.

I prefer "autistic". I dislike "person with autism" for the following reasons:

1) It rests on the assumption that autism is a disease.

2) It is longer, and therefore less efficient.

3) Its "correctness" was established without the input of those on the spectrum (as far as I know).

4) Its use is primarily enforced by non-autistics, who seem to ignore the evidence that many people on the spectrum would rather be called "autistic" (see poll results).

5) It implies that autism is something separate from a person's identity, which implies that the autism could potentially be removed, causing the person to be just like everyone else. (IMO, the hypothetical autism cure would not result in any truly neurotypical individuals because their previous experience of autism would still effect the way they think.)

I see this as part of a larger pattern of how people with some (so-called) disabilities embrace their differences and distinguish them from true diseases. For example, dwarves usually call themselves "dwarves" or "little people", not "people with dwarfism". Deaf people say they are deaf, not "people with deafness".

The "person with ______" phrase is typically reserved for diseases, like HIV, cancer, etc. If I had cancer, I would say, "I'm an autistic person with cancer," not "I'm a person with autism and cancer."

Peeling the labels topic

If I am asked, I say I am autistic. I do live on the Autism Spectrum, but this is too long for many to grasp. But I do explain what a spectrum is. Person with Autism seems limiting. However, I do use the term "person using a wheelchair" because the chair is a tool, and the person is not bound (chained) to the chair. But "Person with Autism" would seem to be more limiting. I have never used it, though I suppose it is an attempt, however feeble, to recognize dignity.

Good topic.

Last edited by sartresue on 03 Mar 2008, 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I prefer saying, "I am autistic". Just my preference.

Eh, I disagree. That sounds like the sort of PC, "comforting" thing a professional might say, but I disagree that AS can be separated from the person. It's a lifelong condition which affects many different aspects of life. If AS were taken away from someone, would they be the same person? It's inseparable from the person, like gender or sexual orientation.

Ah, the "person-first" language" dilemma.

I'm a SPED major at university and it's pounded in our heads from day one to use person-first language. Some of my instructors even take off points on written assignments if you don't use person-first language.

I think if people stopped stigmatizing disabilities, it wouldn't even be an issue in the first place. "Person-first" language isn't even about being considerate toward the disabled. It's more about making NTs less uneasy about those with differences. They think if they can view the disability as something that's not a part of who one is......and can be discarded with the latest treatment, it will put their minds at ease.

Interestingly, the only disability person-first language doesn't apply to is the deaf community. They consider deafness a part of their identity, not something that's wrong with them.

Does this mean you were one of the (currently) two people who preferred "Person with autism"?

The question was which of the two you preferred. Not whether there were other terms you liked better.

=============

I'd be fascinated to learn who does actually prefer the "Person with autism", because I can see no redeeming features in that expression.

I find that phrase deeply offensive. My mind functions differently to the way the way the minds of the majority of humans on this planet function. I have learnt, now, that I am not alone in this difference. That discovery was quite a surprise.

The descriptor "autistic" fits me well. It IS me. I can say it to someone and they (often) know what I'm talking about. I am autistic. I am an autistic. I'm unsure if I am an "autist" - currently, I think that sounds somewhat affected.

To refine that descriptor, I may say that I have Asperger's syndrome. That's fine too... just. I'll abbreviate it to AS quite happily.

Most people don't know what AS is (shock! horror!). I can go on to explain that there are a bunch of diagnoses that make up the Autistic spectrum - which is another useful term.

In familiar company, I'm an aspie. I've even added that to my spellcheck, without a capital letter at the start.

I originally had a very negative view toward saying "I'm autistic," because the first autistic person I met used it as an excuse for rude behavior. And I'm still uncertain about my opinion of the labels, but I like your reasons. 1 and 2 in particular I can agree with, but 5... well. I'll refer you to Valerie Gray Hardcastle's paper "On the Normativity of Functions," abstract:



It's a lot of jargon, but basically what Daniel said, actually. AS doesn't determine who we are, any more than the fact that our legs cast shadows when we walk outside determines their function. You can explain all you want about symptoms and characteristics, but these qualities do not make a person. If you take away the symptoms (I'm not suggesting a cure, just a hypothetical situation), we are still the same people. We wouldn't be "neurotypicals," because the definition of normal cognition is so very ominously vague. I do not believe "neurotypicals" exist.

Daniel may correct me on this, but I believe he was reporting what "the experts" had said, and was being heavily sarcastic about their opinion.


The more I learn, the more I am diametrically opposed to everything you say in the above quote.

Autism, I am coming around to believing (a strange thing for me, as I find "belief" to generally be anathema), is the result of a minor difference at a very low level of brain function.

I do not believe it is at the detailed level of neurons.They are the "hardware" of the brain, but tell you very little about how the higher levels works. Some aspects of their physical organisation can be functionally recognised, but so far only to a limited extent. This is where neurology is making progress, but hasn't really got off the ground floor yet (or maybe they are at the mezzanine?).

Once you leave the lowest organisation, not far above that, you reach a level of operation that is partially, but not wholly, determined by genetics. You could say this was about the fifth floor. It is about this point where I feel the underlying "autistic" difference occurs. Something here self-assembles/self-educates in a curiously distinct way from the way it develops in neurotypical people.

Way, way above this level, on the 99th. floor, we have the development of personality, etc. --- those aspects of ourselves that are accessible to our own thoughts and to diagnosis by psychologists and psychiatrists.

What does not surprise me greatly is how closely we actually do resemble other folks. A huge part of our individuality comes from nurture.

However, the deep difference is still there, and does not alter. It kicks in, for instance, when we come to lying. I find it utterly painful to tell even a "white lie". I can't "spare someone's feelings", other than by completely leaving the room, and never speaking to them again.

I also feel it becomes apparent when you consider sensory symptoms. We seem to have much greater (often too much) access to direct sense data. There is a layer, in an NT, that almost totally blocks out low level sense information, to the extent that they do not perceive most things - they replace them with with what they expect, discarding most of what is sensed.

Anyway, I don't believe you can "take away the symptoms", or at least, not the important ones. Those "symptoms" are who I am. I can't "learn to lie" - I would not be me if I could lie.

Unlike a runny nose, which would be a symptom that I am a person with a cold, my symptoms of autism exhibit the autistic person I am.

I would say "autistic." "With autism" necessitates an explanation for a great many.