Preference of the terms "Autistic" or "Person with Autism"?

Page 3 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Do you prefer the term "autistic" or "person with autism"?
I prefer "autistic" 64%  64%  [ 36 ]
I prefer "person with autism" 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
I prefer neither "autistic" nor "person with autism" 4%  4%  [ 2 ]
I am indifferent (Either/both is/are acceptable) 29%  29%  [ 16 ]
Total votes : 56

Da_Zero_A_Dieci
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2022
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 542

02 Dec 2022, 7:17 pm

shortfatbalduglyman wrote:
"person with autism" contains too many syllables and sounds awkward

Thus far, the only species where anyone has been diagnosed with autism is humans. To say someone is autistic thus (correctly) implies that someone is human

Furthermore what is so great about being a human?

I am Chinese. I don't say "person from Asian descent"

Tongue twister

Saying "I am Chinese" does not "dehumanize" me any more than saying "I am a person of Chinese descent"

Semantics

Pragmatics

Linguistics


I really like how you write: synthesis skills and very visual impact.
Thank you because I have to make your own arrangements, so you're teaching me and I thank you for that.

§

Please, trying to forgive me for the length of my post, I would like to write that not only humans are autistic but the same condition is also present in animals.

It's just nososgraphed differently.

Instead of autism it is described in published studies
as "Dog Dysfunctional Behavior"

I could demonstrate what I assert if it is deemed useful.





What are the causes of dysfunctional canine behavior?
Autism in dogs, or canine dysfunctional behavior, is an idiopathic condition, meaning the cause is unknown.

What is known is that autism in dogs is congenital so dogs that display dysfunctional behaviors are born with the condition.

Among the most plausible causes of an autistic dog we find the lack of some mirror neurons in the brain, useful for learning and building social relationships.



Da_Zero_A_Dieci
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2022
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 542

02 Dec 2022, 7:46 pm

autisticelders wrote:

I usually say I am autistic, but like my diabetes diagnosis, I can also use
" I have autism" in conversation or communications sometimes.

I have diabetes, I am diabetic. Communication discussing the condition either way.

I am autistic, I have autism. Ditto above.

I highlight two differentiations.
<>
Being (I am, individual is)
<>
Have (I have. In me there is something that comes from external sources
<>
a) Differences between are and have

1) I'm an autistic person or with autism is fine because it expresses the concept of a person born this way.


2) Having autism presupposes it has been imported from sources external to us, therefore the person becomes depersonalized, becomes something else with another imported into himself.

<>

Diabetes : There may also be two different conditions here

1) I'm diabetic, I was born like this, it's in my DNA

2) Type II diabetes which is more responsive to the diction having diabetes as senile, for example even if the case studies dictated by nutrition always understate a genetic factor which in a controlled diet perhaps would not have surfaced.
<>
At least I hope so since my father is diabetic and my grandmother.
Percently very possible it will become me too, I don't know when it will happen (hypothesis).


In my opinion, there are differences between having and being.

I respect your consideration.


In the poll I am among the only 2 people with autism who voted (I)

With =in itself of course .

On biochemical and structural grounds, having presupposes introjection.

Research has not yet come to outline the causes, but genetics has a predominant role, not only that of course.


If it's genetic: I think, I'm a person with autism.

My neurology is different from birth it didn't become different.

§

I hope you understand what I write.
§
My difficulty expressing myself in English.
§
I apologize for this, because I realize that many of my sentences may be difficult to read, * and I am very sorry for this.



Da_Zero_A_Dieci
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2022
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 542

02 Dec 2022, 8:25 pm

temp1234 wrote:
I'm surprised to see the result so far of the poll. No one prefers "person with autism". I think this kind of discussion sometimes happens in the autism community: person-first language and identity-first language. In this case "person with autism" is person-first language and autistic person is identity-first language. I thought in the past many people on the spectrum preferred person-first language but now it seems to have changed.

I don't really have a preference myself. "Autistic" is easier to use but I've heard "autistic" used as a derogatory term like "retard" by some people. Sometimes a neutral term gets used as a derogatory term repeatedly and eventually become a widely recognized derogatory term. I get a feeling that "autistic" is becoming one. It's quite deep rooted as some people think autistic traits are something to laugh about.


Ciao Temp 1234 welcome back! :)

You know, I had a hard time thinking about it.

But even in culturally valid countries such as Sweden I have witnessed an entire bus making fun of an autistic boy

For me every concept is fine even if I prefer one, I always place respect for the individual at the base

I was startled by the fact that they were all young people.

It is thought that they have a greater mental opening but this is not always the case.


They mocked him for his stereotypes.

There were three of us: him, the mother, and me.

The mother and I got up.

And we asked to stop immediately.


Their low-key comments felt the same.


The boy is special: he has a superior ability to paint and possesses perfect pitch.

When we got off the bus, we passed among them.


No one had the courage to do anything.

We looked them in the face one by one.


Yes: I believe in every nation it is subtly used in a derogatory sense.


On our return to Rome at the airport, no one even looked at us, everything was normal.


This soothed me a lot.


But socially it is counterproductive
from us the say.


I say :"I'm anxious"

People accept it, I'm shy, it's okay.


I think even good people don't understand some things, including autism.

It also happens in the family.

Every day that passes I promise myself not to talk about it, because every time it's meant to be an excuse for something we don't have to apologize for at all.

People respond that they too have their difficulties.

In other words: we are all the same.

It's not quite like that.

Some people have diversity.

You have to accept them.

In this thread we look for the most appropriate definitions.

My best bet is to talk about it as little as possible outside and inside the house.

Even if the stress of not being accepted, despite having been present at the diagnoses is a source of great distress



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,820

02 Dec 2022, 8:37 pm

Looks like most Aspies don't want person-first nomenclature then. It seems that health professionals have decided what's good for us without asking. Personally I don't see why anybody would prefer person-first anything, but if a ND really wanted me to use it, then it'd probably be a case of "oh allright then, it doesn't make sense to me but it doesn't have to." Left to my own devices I'd just use go for the easiest, and that's not the person-first one. I don't normally mix with people who would use my choice as an excuse for Aspie-bashing, and I'd expect them to mock me if I did use person-first to them. The health professionals' views don't matter much to me in this respect.



Shadweller
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 28 Dec 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 128
Location: Manchester UK

03 Dec 2022, 4:18 am

ToughDiamond wrote:
Looks like most Aspies don't want person-first nomenclature then. It seems that health professionals have decided what's good for us without asking. Personally I don't see why anybody would prefer person-first anything, but if a ND really wanted me to use it, then it'd probably be a case of "oh allright then, it doesn't make sense to me but it doesn't have to." Left to my own devices I'd just use go for the easiest, and that's not the person-first one. I don't normally mix with people who would use my choice as an excuse for Aspie-bashing, and I'd expect them to mock me if I did use person-first to them. The health professionals' views don't matter much to me in this respect.


Aspies suffer enough mockery and ridicule as it is, without consciously adding to the burden by using derisable, ridiculous, nonsensical, pretentious, and politically correct sounding language.

It's safe to say that I really do not like it.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,820

03 Dec 2022, 11:15 am

Shadweller wrote:
Aspies suffer enough mockery and ridicule as it is, without consciously adding to the burden by using derisable, ridiculous, nonsensical, pretentious, and politically correct sounding language.
It's safe to say that I really do not like it.

Yes I sense a pretentious and condescending element to person-first, even if whoever it was that invented it really meant to help us.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,390
Location: Long Island, New York

03 Dec 2022, 11:27 am

Like I said on page 1 I prefer to be called “Autistic”. I am not the language police. If you tell me what I should call myself then I will react. Otherwise it is live and let live. Eight years ago when “person with autism” was universal among non autistics it was a problem. We fought back and now the media use both and according to this survey parents mostly prefer “autism”. We basically won this fight. While a minority there are people on the spectrum who prefer “person with autism”, we should respect that, there are more important things that need to be dealt with.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Shadweller
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 28 Dec 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 128
Location: Manchester UK

03 Dec 2022, 12:17 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Like I said on page 1 I prefer to be called “Autistic”. I am not the language police. If you tell me what I should call myself then I will react. Otherwise it is live and let live. Eight years ago when “person with autism” was universal among non autistics it was a problem. We fought back and now the media use both and according to this survey parents mostly prefer “autism”. We basically won this fight. While a minority there are people on the spectrum who prefer “person with autism”, we should respect that, there are more important things that need to be dealt with.


I would say that that is a very fair and balanced view of the issue.



lostonearth35
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,374
Location: Lost on Earth, waddya think?

03 Dec 2022, 12:24 pm

I absolutely cannot stand it when people say "with/has autism".

I absolutely cannot stand it when people say "high/low functioning"

I absolutely cannot stand it when people say the R word.

I absolutely cannot stand people. :evil:



shortfatbalduglyman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,004

03 Dec 2022, 12:50 pm

Sciency_Owen wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Double Retired wrote:
I think "Autistic" and "Autistic Person" are both viable candidates.

I'll admit that when I think about it, I'm not too crazy about "Person with Autism". To me that sounds like Autism is some kind of viral infection. But, other folk might like the term.


Youre missing the point. What he is asking about is an issue known as "person first language". Some make a cause out advocating person first language in autism. Some on this site were passionate about it some years ago.

Some feel strongly that you should refer to the person as "a person with autism" and not as "an autistic" because the latter is labeling them by the diagnosis, and dehumanizes them and so forth. And that it makes a difference - and is better- to say it "person first" to show that they are "a person how happens to have the condition". That the condition is not their whole identity. Some on WP years strong advocated that.

So if you buy into that then "autistic person" is just the same thing as "an autistic". Has the same disadvantage, AND its longer to say on top of that.

I dont advocate person first myself. I think that its silly. I am an aspie. Or I am level one autistic, or whatver. Fine with me. Someone describing me as "a person with aspergers" ? Kinda like saying "I am a person with maleness", or "I am a person with Americanness". Silly. And like you said "a person with autism" sounds like youre supposed to avoid them because their autism might be contagious. Lol!

Can you elaborate on the dehumanisation that occurs when some iteration of the term "autistic" is used? I only ask, as to me, it seems to be a way of categorising people, in the same way you may categorise people by hair colour ie. that is a blond/blond person, that is a brunette/brunette person etc... So that means you could say "my friend X, is an autistic/autistic person" or "I am an autistic/autistic person. I can also say that I myself have not experienced dehumanisation by myself being referred to as autistic, and that the only dehumanisation that actually occurs comes from stigma around autism itself, not labels.



________________________


What Owen said

Just because someone doesn't keep telling you that you are a "person", doesn't mean that they are trying to "dehumanize" you

However I do get your point. Actually I feel that way sometimes. A couple of years ago my former "friend" had the nerve to tell me that she would tell me whenever I (allegedly) did something she did not "like" and she expected me to stop, immediately, permanently, completely and cheerfully. So I asked her, what about when you do something l don't "like"? She was like "like what?". "Jaywalking", I said. "People in (city) do it all the time", she correctly told me.

"People " sounds like eight billion, but literally means two or more

She told me a correct statement, but at the time, I felt like she was"dehumanizing " me by implying that, since I don't do it (jaywalking) all the time, I was not a "person ". But maybe she didn't mean it that way.

She was not trying to "dehumanize " me.

She's just not articulate enough to phrase her statement well enough for me to receive.


(But because she was condescending and demanded that I never do anything she didn't like, while refusing to modify her own behavior to suit my preferences, she is no longer my "friend " )


__________________
Although the word "neurotypical" is better than saying "normal".

However, many conditions, such as down syndrome and brain damage, are literally "neurotypical", even though they are not *neurologically typical" per se



Da_Zero_A_Dieci
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2022
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 542

04 Dec 2022, 7:59 pm

I think ToughDiamond
Understand the motivation.

As for me I have
written person with autism because in Italy this form of specification prevails.

Autistic is understood by us not well, sometimes used as a disparaging word.


It is also necessary to make distinctions:

1) How we use it to describe ourselves

For myself I mean that he has a different neurology than neurotypical neurology.

You function socially: I mean how you manage to do things in your daily life (example)

2) The nosography and dictions are specific so they intend to help us.

It's true that too many words complicate things.

But at the same time they distinguish identities and connotations, belonging and specific condition.

3) My feeling is that just by using autism, a totally equal situation is created.

Instead the levels of autistic people are different.

To understand, they must be distinguished precisely.


Otherwise we risk people, most of whom are in good faith, not understanding.


4) I express my concept; even if an autistic person has different levels of possibility of being able or not being able to express themselves, it is as good as the others who can express themselves better and be their voice.

I consider who has a better chance of explaining to the neurotypicals in service than what I call my autistic brothers who can't.

<>
The Web has helped make us known.

Films except a few have often used definitions and behaviors as labels, be careful because the result at least in Italy is that the average person perceives us as Dustin Hoffman in The Rain Man.

<>
They initially denied me the diagnosis because the doctor was not trained and thought only of those described in that film.


Then I had 5 diagnoses over the years from different people, from different institutions, cities and different regions.
<>

I note that here the result people with autism is understood differently.

And that it takes only 2% as a percentage.

While autistic / or you get almost two thirds of the votes.


So, while keeping my opinions and nosographic nomenclature, I will use the term that is more suitable for you.


I think that at the basis of every interaction there must be respect for people, and, if an expression in an unaccepted way is annoying, you can use the shared majority.

Unfortunately I don't think I'm allowed to write in Italian.

In English I'm almost sure you don't understand clearly what you write.

I therefore think to read what you write, but to intervene rarely if ever.



skibum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,735
Location: my own little world

05 Dec 2022, 9:59 am

I respect whatever other people want to be called and I will address other people however they want to be addressed. But when it's about me, I insist that they use identity first language. I do not tolerate person first language when people are addressing me. And when I speak in general terms, like not addressing a specific person but when I talk about Autistic/disabled people in general, I use identity first language.


_________________
"I'm bad and that's good. I'll never be good and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me."

Wreck It Ralph


skibum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,735
Location: my own little world

05 Dec 2022, 10:03 am

You can also say that you are neurodivergent. That is a good term. It does not specify that you are Autistic, but it does specify that you are not neurotypical. You can also say, "I am an Autist," and if you were given a diagnosis or Asperger's, you can say, "I am Aspergian, instead of I have Asperger's." Any of those will do. It has also become very popular to simply say, "I am on the Spectrum." People immediately know that you mean the Autism Spectrum as opposed to maybe the color spectrum! :D


_________________
"I'm bad and that's good. I'll never be good and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me."

Wreck It Ralph


skibum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,735
Location: my own little world

05 Dec 2022, 10:11 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Double Retired wrote:
I think "Autistic" and "Autistic Person" are both viable candidates.

I'll admit that when I think about it, I'm not too crazy about "Person with Autism". To me that sounds like Autism is some kind of viral infection. But, other folk might like the term.


Youre missing the point. What he is asking about is an issue known as "person first language". Some make a cause out advocating person first language in autism. Some on this site were passionate about it some years ago.

Some feel strongly that you should refer to the person as "a person with autism" and not as "an autistic" because the latter is labeling them by the diagnosis, and dehumanizes them and so forth. And that it makes a difference - and is better- to say it "person first" to show that they are "a person how happens to have the condition". That the condition is not their whole identity. Some on WP years strong advocated that.

So if you buy into that then "autistic person" is just the same thing as "an autistic". Has the same disadvantage, AND its longer to say on top of that.

I dont advocate person first myself. I think that its silly. I am an aspie. Or I am level one autistic, or whatver. Fine with me. Someone describing me as "a person with aspergers" ? Kinda like saying "I am a person with maleness", or "I am a person with Americanness". Silly. And like you said "a person with autism" sounds like youre supposed to avoid them because their autism might be contagious. Lol!
I agree that person first language is silly. But I also find it incredibly dehumanizing and bigoted. It actually has the opposite effect of what people were trying to do by using it.


_________________
"I'm bad and that's good. I'll never be good and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me."

Wreck It Ralph


skibum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,735
Location: my own little world

05 Dec 2022, 10:27 am

Sciency_Owen wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Double Retired wrote:
I think "Autistic" and "Autistic Person" are both viable candidates.

I'll admit that when I think about it, I'm not too crazy about "Person with Autism". To me that sounds like Autism is some kind of viral infection. But, other folk might like the term.


Youre missing the point. What he is asking about is an issue known as "person first language". Some make a cause out advocating person first language in autism. Some on this site were passionate about it some years ago.

Some feel strongly that you should refer to the person as "a person with autism" and not as "an autistic" because the latter is labeling them by the diagnosis, and dehumanizes them and so forth. And that it makes a difference - and is better- to say it "person first" to show that they are "a person how happens to have the condition". That the condition is not their whole identity. Some on WP years strong advocated that.

So if you buy into that then "autistic person" is just the same thing as "an autistic". Has the same disadvantage, AND its longer to say on top of that.

I dont advocate person first myself. I think that its silly. I am an aspie. Or I am level one autistic, or whatver. Fine with me. Someone describing me as "a person with aspergers" ? Kinda like saying "I am a person with maleness", or "I am a person with Americanness". Silly. And like you said "a person with autism" sounds like youre supposed to avoid them because their autism might be contagious. Lol!

Can you elaborate on the dehumanisation that occurs when some iteration of the term "autistic" is used? I only ask, as to me, it seems to be a way of categorising people, in the same way you may categorise people by hair colour ie. that is a blond/blond person, that is a brunette/brunette person etc... So that means you could say "my friend X, is an autistic/autistic person" or "I am an autistic/autistic person. I can also say that I myself have not experienced dehumanisation by myself being referred to as autistic, and that the only dehumanisation that actually occurs comes from stigma around autism itself, not labels.


Using "Autistic" or identity first language is not dehumanizing at all but person first language is. Identity first language is simply descriptive, person first language adds a value judgement, and it is not a good value.

Person first language is incredibly dehumanizing. If you have to remind yourself that I am a person every time you address me or talk about me, that's because you don't believe I am one. Person first language has nothing to do with making sure that I feel like a person instead of my label or disability. The only reason that I could possibly feel like a label or possibly feel that I am just my disability is if other people make me feel that way by how they treat me. If neurotypical people actually treated me with respect and if they treated me as if I were their human equal, they would have no reason to remind me that they think I am a person. I know I am a person and Autism is not a problem for me. I am severely challenged as a level three Autistic not because I am Autistic but because I am constantly socially abused and neurologically tortured by how non Autistic people treat me. They treat me as if I was not person. So for them to feel better about being so socially abusive, they decided to use person first language so that they can convince themselves that they treat me humanely. So once they have convinced themselves of that, they can continue living in this delusion convincing themselves that they respect us while they continue to socially abuse us.

If you look at the history of person first language and how it came about, it was started by a community of people who had HIV and Aids. They created person first language because they were not being allowed to have control over their own medical decisions. They had to remind the medical community that they were people who had the basic right of autonomy and that they had the right to make medical decisions for themselves. But now when people use person first language, they say it's to make the person they are talking to feel like a person first.

Why do they automatically assume that I don't know that I am a person? The only reason someone would assume that is if they don't consider me a person. That is dehumanizing.


_________________
"I'm bad and that's good. I'll never be good and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me."

Wreck It Ralph


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 30,390
Location: Long Island, New York

05 Dec 2022, 1:04 pm

skibum wrote:
Sciency_Owen wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Double Retired wrote:
I think "Autistic" and "Autistic Person" are both viable candidates.

I'll admit that when I think about it, I'm not too crazy about "Person with Autism". To me that sounds like Autism is some kind of viral infection. But, other folk might like the term.


Youre missing the point. What he is asking about is an issue known as "person first language". Some make a cause out advocating person first language in autism. Some on this site were passionate about it some years ago.

Some feel strongly that you should refer to the person as "a person with autism" and not as "an autistic" because the latter is labeling them by the diagnosis, and dehumanizes them and so forth. And that it makes a difference - and is better- to say it "person first" to show that they are "a person how happens to have the condition". That the condition is not their whole identity. Some on WP years strong advocated that.

So if you buy into that then "autistic person" is just the same thing as "an autistic". Has the same disadvantage, AND its longer to say on top of that.

I dont advocate person first myself. I think that its silly. I am an aspie. Or I am level one autistic, or whatver. Fine with me. Someone describing me as "a person with aspergers" ? Kinda like saying "I am a person with maleness", or "I am a person with Americanness". Silly. And like you said "a person with autism" sounds like youre supposed to avoid them because their autism might be contagious. Lol!

Can you elaborate on the dehumanisation that occurs when some iteration of the term "autistic" is used? I only ask, as to me, it seems to be a way of categorising people, in the same way you may categorise people by hair colour ie. that is a blond/blond person, that is a brunette/brunette person etc... So that means you could say "my friend X, is an autistic/autistic person" or "I am an autistic/autistic person. I can also say that I myself have not experienced dehumanisation by myself being referred to as autistic, and that the only dehumanisation that actually occurs comes from stigma around autism itself, not labels.


Using "Autistic" or identity first language is not dehumanizing at all but person first language is. Identity first language is simply descriptive, person first language adds a value judgement, and it is not a good value.

Person first language is incredibly dehumanizing. If you have to remind yourself that I am a person every time you address me or talk about me, that's because you don't believe I am one. Person first language has nothing to do with making sure that I feel like a person instead of my label or disability. The only reason that I could possibly feel like a label or possibly feel that I am just my disability is if other people make me feel that way by how they treat me. If neurotypical people actually treated me with respect and if they treated me as if I were their human equal, they would have no reason to remind me that they think I am a person. I know I am a person and Autism is not a problem for me. I am severely challenged as a level three Autistic not because I am Autistic but because I am constantly socially abused and neurologically tortured by how non Autistic people treat me. They treat me as if I was not person. So for them to feel better about being so socially abusive, they decided to use person first language so that they can convince themselves that they treat me humanely. So once they have convinced themselves of that, they can continue living in this delusion convincing themselves that they respect us while they continue to socially abuse us.

If you look at the history of person first language and how it came about, it was started by a community of people who had HIV and Aids. They created person first language because they were not being allowed to have control over their own medical decisions. They had to remind the medical community that they were people who had the basic right of autonomy and that they had the right to make medical decisions for themselves. But now when people use person first language, they say it's to make the person they are talking to feel like a person first.

Why do they automatically assume that I don't know that I am a person? The only reason someone would assume that is if they don't consider me a person. That is dehumanizing.


Back when allistics demanding the use of person-first language was a thing because they claimed identity first language is offensive I told them I have been Autistic for six decades more than you so I get to decide what is offensive to me not you. Shut them up every time.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman