'Autistic' vs. 'Autism' - Your Thoughts

Post Reply New Topic

Since receiving my diagnosis of HFA a couple years ago, I've grappled with the nature of my cognitive make-up. When initialling considering the term 'autism' I thought of a separate entity akin to something such as a tumour. This proved disastrous as it split my existence in two, between 'me' and the 'autism'. Inevitably it created a sense of us and them between myself and society at large and, after reading up on the history of autism's representation (Autism Speaks, bleach 'cures', etc.), I feel that this view of autistic conditions is not only incorrect but dangerous as it understandably creates a boogeyman for parents to blame and attack.

After further research into the science of it all, the term 'autistic behaviours' kept cropping up. This got me thinking, instead of portraying autism as an entity unto itself, why not view it as an interdependent collection of behaviours which exist within the brain, with many of the most notable behaviours corresponding between people to form the diagnostic classifications we assign today? If autism was expressed in this way, perhaps people would understand the cognitively fundamental nature of autism, and stop looking for a 'cure'.

In this vein, I consider my self to be 'autistic' and not to 'have autism' - buts that's enough of me jabbering on, what's everyone else's thoughts on the ideas raised?

I actually don't believe that autism is a disease; it's a developmental disorder. It's not something that can be "caught."

Autism is a set of symtoms--a syndrome.

Agreed and I think, incidentally, it could apply across the board in the mental health industry.
I have autism, it's like saying 'I have leprosy'
I'm autistic, is like 'I'm left-handed'.

It's part of who we are, not something that makes us wrong.
Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world uncomplicated by written and spoken language? No more labels...

Funny that you should say this. Will explain why in a moment.

Someone on WP once posted an old Autism Speaks TV spot that talked about how "autism can strike! Anywhere! Anytime!". It was offensive as hell.

So I tend to agree with you.

Autism is not smallpox. Its like lefthandedness, and homosexuality. You cant catch it. And its not gonna be "cured" nor eradicated in the way infectious diseases can in theory (and often in reality) can be.


But the reason "its funny that you say this" is: its interesting that you are making this assertion (that "autistic" is better than "person with autism") because there is a movement of folks who pressure everyone to use "person first language". They want everyone to say "person with autism", and not "autistic". Their thinking is that "we cant label folks", and that "your condition shouldn't be your identity". And you seemed to be unwittingly turning that on its head.

Interesting.

I am biased towards agreeing with you because I always thought that "person first" only appeals to "persons with stupidity", or at least to "persons impaired in common sense".

If you're a human on planet earth you cant escape "labels", nor can you escape using labels. And its unwieldy to talk that way, and where would you stop? Are you gonna force folks to say "person with maleness", or "person with Blackness", or "person with American-ness"?

Agreed, and neither do I consider myself disordered.

I think the use of labelling for diagnosis is useful, especially in acquiring the support you need, but I have noticed that since dropping the whole 'have autism' idea my sense of self has developed significantly. The thing I especially hate seeing is 'he/she suffers from autism'- that really gets my heckles up.

And don't get me started on that puzzle piece....

I wholeheartedly agree with you naturalplastic. Labelling is how we navigate the world (including stereotyping, for better or worse).

Kraftiekortie is exactly right. Autism is a "spectrum," and no two with the condition will manifest it in exactly the same way.

I think children can suffer from "over labeling." Their futures can be compromised by irresponsible teachers or psychologists who can unfairly determine the course of a person's life based on one awful test score.

I agree with the OP. I prefer to be known as "autistic" or "aspie" rather than saying "I have autism." Autism is kind of like a part of me- it can't be cured, and it affects me every single day. I don't care for person-first language; it makes me feel like I'm something that should be cured or removed from society.

You guys got me thinking. As much as I truly hate the term "suffer from autism" when applied to those on high and mid parts of the spectrum, what about the lowest end. Those who have no communication skills, are in near constant meltdown/overload, regularly self harm etc. Do they suffer? If they do, do they suffer from autism or something else entirely?

I suffer from autism the same as I suffer from dyspraxia.

Can one get all philosophical about a severe coordination problem that's almost like having cerebral palsy?
Should I think of it as something that makes me special? Or that it's a special thing to have?
Should I start pondering if I'm dyspractic or a person with dyspraxia?
Do I suffer from having a debilitating coordination disorder, or something else entirely?

Last edited by EzraS on 22 Jul 2017, 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I prefer the word autistic, because autism isn't something separate from myself that I carry in a suitcase and it's not a terminal illness. It also doesn't spread.

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant, I was getting at the idea that other aspies often say they don't suffer from autism. I was just trying to get at the fact maybe we need to adjust our acceptable terminology to accept that some people do suffer. Just like I don't suffer from my sight impairment because it's very mild whereas people who are totally blind suffer from blindness. Also I have spastic tetraplegia CP. Sorry if my post seemed like a philosophical rant with no purpose, I always appreciate your insight Ezra.

I prefer to descibe myself as "aspie", "autistic", or "aspie-autistic". I think a person should be allowed to identify as they please. Unfortunatly that is not the situation now. For the most part the media, the schools, and the psychology proffession have guidelines or rules saying use "person with autism". Online sometimes you have language police correcting people that want to describe themselves as "autistic". The oft stated reason is that it is offensive to define a person by thier condition. I think people telling other people what they should be offended by is both offensive and infantilizing.

I say I'm "autistic", because that's what I am. When you have the flu or cancer or ebola it's not really a defining part of who you are, so no one says they're "flutistic".

You're right, I misunderstood what you said and or jumped to a wrong conclusion. People not getting what you're tying to say can be an occupational hazard sometimes posting in an autism forum. My posts have been misunderstood before. I should have tried digest it better. So I'm the one who owes an apology. That sight analogy is a good one.