I have Aspergers but am not an Aspie

Post Reply New Topic

I say this becauses I have brown eyes, but I am not brown eyes, I have a liver but am not a liver, I just see this as a component of me but not what everything about me revolves around. Anyone else feel that way?

Yeah, only I can't be sure I even have Asperger's because I haven't paid a guy in a padded chair to tell me so.

I've got Soul but I'm not a Soldier

I have white skin, and I'm a caucasian. I have Asperger's syndrome, and I'm an aspie.

However, I am six feet tall. Nobody has six feet tall. There have been discussions about this before but, basically, the semantic difference between saying you 'have AS' and saying you 'are an Aspie' is actually quite small. It's like the distinction between having brown hair and being a brunette.

Speak for yourself! I have 4 of those!

I have only been recently DX and at the age of 43 I find the term Aspie a little too soft and cuddly for a disorder that has made my life incredibly hard. However there is nothing dangerous in people wanting to associate with their disorder in this way, and if they find comfort in collective noun good on them.

Last edited by DentArthurDent on 16 Aug 2008, 8:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, I believe it has something to do with being self aware and being attached to your unique sense of individuality.

Like Shadow...I am ...all of me.

This is mere semantics, not the overwriting of your personality by a diagnosis. Being an "aspie" just means that you "have Asperger's." You can have blonde hair, but you can also be "a blonde."

More Autism-Spoken-For hyperbole...

I only I can define who and what I am.

I have brown hair, I am brunette.

I don't have Asperger's Syndrome, I am Aspie. (Although sometimes I will say I "have" it to people not on the spectrum, before getting into the semantics of it.)

The reason why I believe I am Aspie is because of this:

I don't have heterosexuality, I am heterosexual.

To me, there's an important distinction. Having AS implies agreement with the medical model and the medicalising of neurological differences.

I use the gay analogy waaaaaay too much, so apologies if anyone who's gay find my appropriation of their struggle a problem, but there are parallels.

A few decades ago, homosexuality was classed as a psychiatric illness. Today, it's not (well, not in most countries or societies). And today, gay people don't say: I have homosexuality. It's not a disease that they have, it's something they are.

I can understand that at the moment this is a bit of a grey area, some people do still think of it as a medical condition, even some people who are themselves on the spectrum.

I firmly believe that over the next couple of decades the neurodiversity movement will achieve the same kind of gains in recognition for and acceptance of our differences as LGBT groups and lobby groups/support organisations such as Press For Change, by and for transgender people.

I watch birds but I am not a bird-watcher.

How 'bout "Asper"?

Anyway, Eggman has a good point. The "homosexual" example doesn't hold water, as homosexuality is not considered a disability. It may have been in the past, but that's irrelevant. What Eggman is on about is the fact that the "disability" does not encompass his identity. Who are we? We are not a collection of traits, of hands and feet, of eye color or skin tone, we are what we make of ourselves. Our hands, feet, eyes, and differences in mental state are simply what we are "given" at birth (or through accident at times). What are we? A collection of things. Who are we? What we do with those things.

[edit]
Think I misunderstood the poster who had the homosexuality analogy in their post. Pardon, but I don't wish to change the post here. I see your point however.

How 'bout "Aspen?"

(Not "I am an Aspen," but "I am Aspen.")