"Autistic" or "Person with Autism"?

[tazz]

never thought I'd be stepping into a minefield

You thought that was a minefield, wait until you google "medical model" vs "social model" of disability.

 

[marc_101]

In a sense, words are sounds (or images) that are given meaning in our heads. In my head, a person with autism and an autistic person are represented in the same way. It's the same concept. I'll use the language that the person prefers, though.

What bothers me a little is when people get offended or become the Words Police. Many people use words with no intention of offending, I think it distracts from more important issues. Not at all implying you are doing so, by the way. Interesting discussion.

 

[Misty Avich]

In a sense, words are sounds (or images) that are given meaning in our heads. In my head, a person with autism and an autistic person are represented in the same way. It's the same concept. I'll use the language that the person prefers, though.

Yes, that is true. I feel autistic and person with autism as the same thing in just a different order of words, but I try not to judge if someone prefers one term over the other.

What bothers me a little is when people get offended or become the Words Police. Many people use words with no intention of offending, I think it distracts from more important issues. Not at all implying you are doing so, by the way. Interesting discussion.

I find that a lot on internet forums. It reminds me of when people on the spectrum (now not sure whether to say "autistic people" or "person with autism" in this thread? lol) don't like using words like disability/disorder/condition when describing autism. Some on another forum derailed a thread by getting too hung up on those words and said that autism is not a disorder. So I reminded them that ASD stands for Autism Spectrum Disorder, and they said it shouldn't be called that and insisting it should be called a difference. But calling it a difference doesn't sound right to me. I don't think we should get too hung up on how we word things, otherwise we might as well just make up words like 'glimerix' or something to use whenever describing autism to keep everyone happy.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

I don't "identify" as anything, per se. I don't get hung up on the language and will use many of these terms interchangeably.

 

[Misty Avich]

Interchangeably - that's a good word and explains what I've been trying to say.

 

[marc_101]

Yes, that is true. I feel autistic and person with autism as the same thing in just a different order of words, but I try not to judge if someone prefers one term over the other.

I find that a lot on internet forums. It reminds me of when people on the spectrum (now not sure whether to say "autistic people" or "person with autism" in this thread? lol) don't like using words like disability/disorder/condition when describing autism. Some on another forum derailed a thread by getting too hung up on those words and said that autism is not a disorder. So I reminded them that ASD stands for Autism Spectrum Disorder, and they said it shouldn't be called that and insisting it should be called a difference. But calling it a difference doesn't sound right to me. I don't think we should get too hung up on how we word things, otherwise we might as well just make up words like 'glimerix' or something to use whenever describing autism to keep everyone happy.

I think that getting hung up on details is one symptom of ASD. Or AS not D. Or chose-your-own-term.

 

[Fino]

I understand that, but I feel the opposite. Identification with a sub-group allows people to understand certain things about me quickly, as well as be more forgiving of certain things.

 

[VictorR]

For me, to each their own. I have my preferences (autistic, on the spectrum) but I don't really mind too much how I'm referred to as long as it's respectful.

A poll we had close to two years ago now had a bit of everything, including some who chose no identity.

Poll: Preference of Identity terms

Apologies if this has been done before. Just curious if everyone has an Autism term they prefer to identify with. Just wanted to note, I'm not suggesting that the term IS your identity, but more of a generalized descriptive term.

www.autismforums.com

 

[v4169sgr]

Thanks a lot for the interesting and stimulating replies, everyone!

Looking back I am not sure I was clear enough.

I am not referring to the terms one may use to describe ones self. Indeed, I am happy to describe myself as autistic - I wander around with an enamel badge saying "I'm autistic, not rude" and find it quite appropriate.

The distinction I am trying to arrive at is "with which group do I associate myself?".

For me, my answer is 'none', specifically because I don't wish to belong to an 'in-group' with the implication of an 'out-group'. I prefer to identify myself instead as a world citizen i.e. to connect to everyone.

That is why I would prefer 'a person with autism', because autism doesn't define who I am, though it clearly impacts everything I think and do.

I do not feel comfortable with the whole 'autist vs NT' thing at all. For me, we learn and progress more by discarding such labels and learning from each other, than creating two camps and 'othering' each other.

 

[wards]

I just say I am on the spectrum lol, each to their own right?

 

[tazz]

"with which group do I associate myself?".

Ah, I see. I struggle to see any merit in associating with a group in that way. It's useful in some very limited ways. But the problem is when a group has a label, it becomes a stereotype. Associating with that group means that a lot of people will apply the stereotype.

For example, if I say I'm autistic/have autism (as you say, the specific words don't matter for the purposes of your point) then it might be accurate to assume that I probably have some difficulties in my life associated with social communication, and I might have some unusual sensory responses. But it doesn't say much more than that.

Same with "British" - it's useful in that it suggests I was born on a specific part of the planet's surface, and I have experience of some national institutions such as a democratic parliament and a national health service. But it doesn't say anything really about my values or the culture I grew up in.

Again, the same with "bisexual". Apart from the fact that I'm generally considered to be male and would not have romantic or sexual relationships only with women, and that it's probable that I've experienced some discrimination of some sort, it says nothing much about me.

I could sit down for a coffee with another autistic, British, bisexual person, and still find that we have very little in common.

 

[v4169sgr]

Ah, I see. I struggle to see any merit in associating with a group in that way. It's useful in some very limited ways. But the problem is when a group has a label, it becomes a stereotype. Associating with that group means that a lot of people will apply the stereotype.

[...]

I could sit down for a coffee with another autistic, British, bisexual person, and still find that we have very little in common.

I completely agree with you, hence the reason for this thread.

For me, categories are not just pointless. They can be directly harmful too. Depending on people's attitudes, they can drive wedges between people. I prefer to avoid doing that.

Plus I think it is always nice to try to find things in common with people when sitting down with them over coffee. Don't you?

 

[Misty Avich]

I use the term "NTs" as a short term for "people without an ASD or any other type of neurodevelopmental disorder/disability they were born with".

 

[marc_101]

Thanks a lot for the interesting and stimulating replies, everyone!

Looking back I am not sure I was clear enough.

I am not referring to the terms one may use to describe ones self. Indeed, I am happy to describe myself as autistic - I wander around with an enamel badge saying "I'm autistic, not rude" and find it quite appropriate.

The distinction I am trying to arrive at is "with which group do I associate myself?".

For me, my answer is 'none', specifically because I don't wish to belong to an 'in-group' with the implication of an 'out-group'. I prefer to identify myself instead as a world citizen i.e. to connect to everyone.

That is why I would prefer 'a person with autism', because autism doesn't define who I am, though it clearly impacts everything I think and do.

I do not feel comfortable with the whole 'autist vs NT' thing at all. For me, we learn and progress more by discarding such labels and learning from each other, than creating two camps and 'othering' each other.

It's a bit of a logical problem though. Regardless of how you personally identify, the moment you use a word to describe yourself, others will identify you as a member of a group. That group has characteristics associated with it. The understanding of those characteristics vary among people. Few people will have a deep understanding of your personal characteristics. However, some of the characteristics of the group must apply to you, otherwise, you wouldn't be a member the group.

I think I understand what you are saying. I have the same problem. Regardless of the term I use (autistic or person with autism), I feel weird using them because I would like to follow up with an explanation of which characteristics apply to me and which do not. But some characteristics must apply to me, otherwise, I wouldn't identify with the group that shares some of those characteristics.

Doesn't it make sense? In a way, it's about the definition of autism. No definition applies to everybody.

 

[tazz]

It's a bit of a logical problem though. Regardless of how you personally identify, the moment you use a word to describe yourself, others will identify you as a member of a group. That group has characteristics associated with it. The understanding of those characteristics vary among people. Few people will have a deep understanding of your personal characteristics. However, some of the characteristics of the group must apply to you, otherwise, you wouldn't be a member the group.

I think I understand what you are saying. I have the same problem. Regardless of the term I use (autistic or person with autism), I feel weird using them because I would like to follow up with an explanation of which characteristics apply to me and which do not. But some characteristics must apply to me, otherwise, I wouldn't identify with the group that shares some of those characteristics.

Doesn't it make sense? In a way, it's about the definition of autism. No definition applies to everybody.

As part of a longer, deeper conversation, like if I'm having a meal with friends, no problem because I get a chance to explain myself more fully. But otherwise, I try to avoid the labels. For example, I have a big problem with using the phone. That's due to autism. If I say "I am autistic and I have trouble using the phone can we do this some other way." it opens up the possibility that the person I'm conversing with will make all sorts of assumptions connected with the word "autistic". If I say "I have a neurological condition that makes it difficult for me to use the phone..." they can't make the same assumptions. Both are accurate. Both get me the result I want (probably). But the latter reduces the risk that someone will use a stereotypical definition of the word.

 

[v4169sgr]

Thanks again for the replies.

For me, the issue isn't about how others may refer to me. I don't attach so much importance to that.

It's more about with which group I wish to identify.

As I don't wish to 'belong' to any group smaller than the sum total of humanity, I refer myself as a 'world citizen', and not some characteristic of what I look like, the way I behave, the language I speak, or my beliefs.

For me, the whole earth is my home

 

[Fino]

Why not go one further and instead of identifying with humanity, identify with all mammals. Or even further, all life. But I feel like there could be an example between all mammals and all life. But beyond all life, all things with physicality. Next, all things which exist in any form.

 

[v4169sgr]

Thanks Fino - appreciate the humour.

I think identification with and connection with are different things. I have no trouble with feeling connected with ... more or less anything.

 

[NB79]

I don't care, autistic, person with autism aspie, if you are not trying to offend me i don't take offense, because if you don't tolerate people innocently calling you stuff without malice, you are the intolerant and impatient.
Just my opinion.

 

[Neri]

I don't mind about the labels. I'm rolling with "neurospicy" most these days, as it's very inclusive and broad and yet still explains that I'm weird and I have a neuro reason for it. Hopefully, I get cut a little more slack for that. I've always been a complete weirdy and not a "fitter-inerer" and raised by total neurospicy odd people too, so I had no chance. I do feel more human than not these days, but that's because I worked really hard on working through all the depersonalization and derealization and alexithymia and severe trauma symptoms. I'm not fully convinced that "neurotypical" is actually a thing, maybe some people are just better at covering up and masking their weirdness? I don't even know.

I also feel more like a "world citizen". I do get on better with people who are in touch and comfortable with their own "freakyness" though that tends to be mostly "neurodiverse" people. Like Micheal Franti so eloquently sings "All the freaky people make the beauty of the world". I'm a singer/songwriter like him too.