A research study on preferred terminology for autism

Post Reply New Topic

http://aut.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/06/10/1362361315588200.full.pdf+html

Researchers reviewed autistic people, parents, family/friends and professionals in the UK to determine how they prefer to refer to autism.

'On the autism spectrum' was highly endorsed by all four groups.

Person-first language such as 'has autism' or 'person with autism' was not well-liked by autistic people but highly endorsed by the other three groups.

'Aspie' and 'autistic person' were both liked by autistic people but disliked by at least one of the other three groups.

The research shows the divide between those who are and those who aren't. Let's make them understand it! We're not ill, just different. Not being ill, doesn't mean we don't need support. To receive support doesn't mean we're not capable of anything.

If the did an American version of the study I think more parents and professionals would prefer the disability model and prefer person first language then those in the UK.

I mostly agree; i do not like the variations on "he has autism/aspergers" either: this makes it sound like ASD is a disease, one which you get and cure "he has the flu".

"He is on the spectrum" is better, but quite broad, so i tend to prefer "he is autistic" and its variations, those are a more accurate descriptions, stating a way of being, just like "he is asian" or "he is gay"

As long as they aren't using insulting terms, why does it matter? This seems almost like looking for opportunities to be offended. While there is a slight and subtle difference between "My son has autism" and "My son is autistic" and "My child is on the autism spectrum" and "I have an autistic son", I don't really see anything offensive. It's nitpicking to delve into the psychology behind how this phrase may make someone feel if you switch a couple of words around. Usually, if someone finds something offensive they will tell you that they prefer such and such instead. That way you can use that wording around them, while most people may not care one way or the other.

Can you imagine how difficult communication would become if we did this with every little thing? This is just setting up even more eggshells for everyone to tiptoe around on in a language minefield already littered with them.

Eventually someone is going to be offended by the word "autism" itself and then what word are we going to use?

I have to say, I too don't see a problem with any of these terms, and I think that dislike of them is approaching a place where we're not allowed to call anything anything.

Maybe I'm completely out of line, but personally, in myself, and for myself, I can't see what's offensive about "I have autism," "I am autistic," "I'm a person with autism," "I'm on the autism spectrum" or any other permutation.

At one point or another I've thought them all, in my own monologs with myself, I've written them all in my personal diary or in posts here, and I've said all those variations in communications with the very small number of people who know of my diagnosis and with whom I have ever discussed my autism.

I do see that just because I'm not personally offended by any of these terms, that does not mean that nobody else should be. But I'm saying that I find it hard to see why they are.

One friend of mine kind of slapped my wrist figuratively (it was in email) for talking about "having" autism. She said you can't "have it" like having flu.

I kind of get that, yet at the same time I still don't see why it can't be said that way. People say "I have dyslexia" as well as "I'm dyslexic."

I may be wrong but I don't see a problem.

It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to find a way to get offended by some things, and this is one of them. You have to first find something that sounds similar to it and then show how it could be offensive if the same meaning were applied to the original thing. You can also use psychology and say that a particular word or phrase causes a particular feeling or emotional reaction because it reminds someone of something unpleasant. If you are particularly good at this type of "reasoning" you can actually twist the original words and say with what sounds like authority that the original speaker actually compared the two things or said that they were the same. You know, like people did when the one lady used the word "lepers" in describing how some autistics/people with autism/those on the spectrum/best and smartest gosh darn people in the world/overlords have been treated in the past. Of course many of us have said we felt like lepers ourselves, but how dare somebody else say we had been treated that way. It was twisted into her saying that we are basically lepers. Quite a few people were also offended for lepers because she didn't say "Hanson's Disease" which most people have never heard of and would only cause them to think of that boy band.

It's kind of how you can actually twist the Bible into saying whatever you want to say, if you string enough verses together and interpret them loosely. A couple of years ago I actually did that. The guy I was talking to did not believe it could be done, and I told him to give me an insane example. Being a 22 year old horndog guy and half drunk at the time, he challenged me to prove that the Bible encourages anal sex. Between a man and a woman. Actually to show his gf how the Bible says she should let him do that to her. So, after about an hour and a half, I had it. I don't remember which verses I used, but I did start in Leviticus which is the obvious starting point for that one, and went from there and by the time I was done with the verses and interpretations that sounded extremely accurate and not by saying that the original Greek or Aramaic or whatever language meant something different and only going by the English words in there, I proved that not only does the Bible say that women should let men do them in the behind but that if she says no, she doesn't trust in Jesus and isn't saved. Seriously. Of course I didn't believe it said that, he didn't believe it said that, and his gf got a good laugh out of it but told him it's still exit only down there. However, it was very persuading because I used exactly the same type of persuasion and spin that the offense mongers use to show us how anything and everything is offensive.

If there is a hell, I'm surely going there for that one.

It's exactly how BirdInFlight's friend said it: I don't have autism like I have flu because I can't be cured from it and it doesn't go away. It's not a virus or a bacterial infection. I am autistic because it's a personality trait. It's important to become aware of that because it does away with the notion that something is wrong with you. The notion that something is wrong with you comes forth from ableism, which is the handicap-form of racism (which is about race and skin color). When you know this and are aware of this, you understand why we say we're autistic and not that we have autism. That's not some "offense mongering" as OliveOilMom claims it to be. It is a vital concept in taking a stand when it comes to our issues and reclaiming that what has been taken away from us by the fear for autism.

I have autism, I didn't catch autism like I would a cold or flu. I didn't develop it like people do diabetes, cancer or heart disease. I also have an allergy to penn, and sulfa and I never caught those either and they can't be cured either. I work around my allergy to penn and sulfa when I need to, the same way people work around autism by accommodations and treatments to help other symptoms of it. I also have long legs which I was born with and isn't something I'd want to change or cure. I have a good metabolism that causes me to be able to eat what I want without getting fat. I have brown hair which I can dye but will still grow back brown. Having something doesn't mean it's something terrible. Just because the word "have" is also used to describe negative things doesn't mean that it makes autism a negative thing. You are reaching.

It's exactly offense mongering.

Outside of WP in places such as comments sections you do get people that insist you must use person first language. It is offensive for someone to think they know better then us in how we should self identify. I do not recall seeing people insisting other people use identity first language.

I am not insisting, I am suggesting - I am still leaving you the choice. I gave the reasons why I prefer person first language above the phrase: "I have autism". I sometimes say this phrase myself, too, because it is so engrained into the language. To me and many others within the autism spectrum it has something to do with a disease-view on autistic persons.

Accusing someone of offense mongering is a rather aggressive way for someone to tell someone else that their opinion is wrong. I'm not quite happy with that. Let's just keep it decent. Mongering is very negative and appears like I want to create some angry mob. I just very much dislike something that I believe puts me into the corner of being ill, so therefore I take personal offense on the phrase, but I won't stop you from using it. That would go too far.

I am being decent. I'm simply telling you directly how I feel about the whole thing.

As for offense mongering being a rather aggressive way to tell someone that their opinion is wrong, well you were the one who used the phrase "offense mongering" and said it wasn't that. I said yes it was. Why accuse me of using an aggressive way to say something when I'm simply repeating your exact words back to you except I'm saying that yes, it is what you said it wasn't. If you don't like the phrase offense mongering then don't bring it up the first time, it's one a phrase I would have thought of.

You used the word first, you brought it up, and now you are telling me how I shouldn't use it in response to you?

Do you not see the complete irony in all of this? You are upset over the phrase "having autism" and then you use the phrase "offense mongering" and I used it back to you in my response to your post and now you are offended by the phrase you used to me and then go on to explain to me how it's not something that I should say? Do you read what you write at all?

I want to know where Ashton Kutcher is because I swear to God I must be being punked right now. Do you honestly not see this? Really?

The irony of this is going to attract hipsters from all four corners of the world you know.

I mean, just, wow. This is not be being ugly or mean, this is me being absolutely and completely floored.

One more thing please. It's not simply a personality trait. Personality traits do not have physical side effects which can be severe. Autism does.

I see the irony in spending so many words to say this isn't important.

Language is more important than you seem to think. There's a reason why political groups focus on terminology, and that's because changing terminology causes social change.

to me i put little stake or meaning in mear words.i dont care what people call me.

but philosophicaly i like Amy Sequenzia's theory on indentity first language.