Question about definition
I don't want to hurt anyone with this thread, but it is just that my brains never stop analyzing and everything I read provides a new question to me. Triggered by the threadhttp://www.wrongplanet.net/postt182814.html I got a question:
Do you say: 1) I am an autist/ Asperger or do you say: 2) I am a person with autism/ with Aspergers.
Then would you say: 1) The person is NT or 2) it is a person with NT?
The difference for me is that saying "I am"/ "The person is" - I don' t know...seperates in a way like there is nothing in common at all. "I am a person with"/ "is a person with" sounds somehow different. It is somehow more connecting in a way, I feel somehow.
But I am not sure how to define it and how to feel it. I don't know if I need to say "I am" or "I have". Who decides how to say it?
Today one year ago (9th December 2010) I got diagnosed. Maybe therefore I am not sure what to say, because untill one year ago I just failed in being like people around me
But I didn't had a "term" for me, neither for others.
I don't hate NT's. We are all human beings, but I feel that human beings are weird beings anyway as I feel myself weird as well...
So what is the "right" definition (>if there is one) and what difference does it make to you?
_________________
English is not my native language, so I will very likely do mistakes in writing or understanding. My edits are due to corrections of mistakes, which I sometimes recognize just after submitting a text.
btbnnyr
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago
I use "I am autistic" or "I am an aspie". Talking about NTs I say "They are an NT" or "They are neurotypical".
As for what others want to use, everyone can choose what they want to call themselves. I just find "I am a person with autism" to say "the autism isn't part of me, its separate" and that's wrong. I'm not a person who happens to "have" being autistic, my autism is an innate part of me.
(For the NT side, you can't "have" neurotypical, mismatch of words there, you can be neurotypical or have a typical brain.)
So as a whole I think how I view it as "I am an autistic person, they are neurotypical people."
Thank you both for replying.
As for what others want to use, everyone can choose what they want to call themselves. I just find "I am a person with autism" to say "the autism isn't part of me, its separate" and that's wrong. I'm not a person who happens to "have" being autistic, my autism is an innate part of me.
(For the NT side, you can't "have" neurotypical, mismatch of words there, you can be neurotypical or have a typical brain.)
So as a whole I think how I view it as "I am an autistic person, they are neurotypical people."
This is a good point, because it is definately an innerte part of you. But there a many people who say: "I have Aspergers".
So it is just a question how someone defines him/herself?
_________________
English is not my native language, so I will very likely do mistakes in writing or understanding. My edits are due to corrections of mistakes, which I sometimes recognize just after submitting a text.
Somehow, I imagine the conversation going something like this:
Hi! I am Fnord.
< exchange of various pleasantries and superficial information >
... by the way, have you ever heard of Asperger's Syndrome?
< discussion of AS, with a few well-known examples >
... of course, this is all in comparison to the general population, mostly composed of "Neuro-Typicals", sometimes refered to as "Enties" ... yes, I am an Aspie ... neurotypicals are Enties, like those people over there; they are Enties ... no, I don't wet the bed, play with fire, or torture small animals ... yes, I'm serious ... well, your cousin's neighbor's son may have Borderline Personality Disorder and not AS ... No, that's Schizophrenia ... what? how much is 728197465 times 661437831? What do I look like, the Rainman? Oh, okay ... it's 481657351789298415; there, satisfied? Wait, where ya goin? It was the right answer!
10 minutes, 23 seconds ... a new record! She must really like me!
![]()
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.

