"Autistic person" vs "person with Autism"

Post Reply New Topic

In my disability studies class, we learned that we should use "identity-first" language with Autism...that it was offensive to say "person with Autism". And then mental health professionals tend to say the opposite, that you should say "person with Autism" rather than "Autistic person..."

Personally, I don't care. I don't like it when other people try to say "Autistic people want this" like we all think the exact same and like we are a hive mind. Say "Autistic person" or "person with Autism", idc. I get upset when you say "Autistic people want this"... 'cuz like, we don't all think the same...

I also don’t really care which one is used and will freely use both terms myself, but it feels patronizing when people insist that no, it has to be “person with autism.” Would anyone try to insist that I’m not a brunette, I’m a person with brown hair? No? Where’s the big difference?

Same, but I find it patronizing when people try to speak for all of us like they have interviewed each and every one of us personally and know the opinions of every Autistic person on the planet.

(I frankly hate this regardless of whether the person doing so is NT or AS, though it irks me a bit more when it's NTs who do this. Especially if they still treat us badly in spite of "speaking for us".)

I'm not a fan of "person first" language at all and I refuse to use it when referring to myself.

Person first advocates feel that calling someone an autistic person is dehumanizing. Flipping that around that means person first advocates feel they must separate me as a person from my autism in order to humanize me. To put it another way they don't consider me to be human if they don't separate me from my autism.

I have pretty strong feelings about this actually; also because it smacks of political correctness. I'm not ashamed of my autism, nor do I think it's offensive and should be made separate. Autism pride runs deep with me on a near militant level.

I have no need to separate myself as a person from my autism any more than I feel a need to refer to the majority of people as people with neurotypicality.

A youtube comment on an autistic centered youtube channel on the topic sums it up well in my mind:

"My feeling is that if they need to use person-first language to remind themselves that we are people, then they don't see us as people in the first place. " ~ Mic drop....

A few other noteworthy comments from the same youtube post on person first language:

"I don’t “have” autism. It’s a part of how my brain works. I don’t see it as a thing, a disorder, that is separate from me. It *is me."

"in English we say we "have" autism...like its something that can be treated or cured."

"I see Autism as an intrinsic - inseparable - part of *me*. (Leave my brain alone; it's how I function!! !)"

"I'm an autistic person, I don't carry it around in my bag. I can't leave it at home, the autism is me, i am it."

""Person with autism/who has autism", makes it sound like it's something I physically carry around with me in my arms and can set down, rather than it just being a part of who I am"

"I refer to myself as autistic rather than a person with autism. I view being autistic as part of my identity and how my brain is wired. I’m autistic and that doesn’t make me less of a person. "

In summary, I would never allow a neurotypical person to dictate how I refer to my autistic self, nor would I allow them to shame me for rejecting the use of person first language.

Last edited by Magna on 12 May 2020, 3:25 pm, edited 4 times in total.

I personally use "autistic person" instead of "person with autism" since I've said that my entire life, and I don't think it's a huge deal either way. That's what sometimes frustrates me about this, I understand the idea behind using both of those things, just use whatever makes you and the person you're talking to comfortable. Whenever people argue about this it just seems useless to me since there's multiple reasons why someone would personally want to use one term or the other. It's just a difference in phrasing the same thing.

I hate being lumped in with any group of people, usually what the person says “we” want/feel/need/etc. does not apply to me. Any kind of broad generalization, I dislike.

While I personally prefer Autistic Person or Person on the Spectrum, I'm not the type to make someone feel miserable over using Person With Autism. I actually know someone on the spectrum who prefers Person With Autism, and respect their choice. To me, the person-first variety implies I have some disease that needs to be cured, which directly contradicts my view of what Autism is.

I am autistic so have no problem being referred to as an autistic person.

'With' autism sounds as though its come along for the ride.

It hasn't because it isn't separate. Its in integral part of me.

That's how I look at it.

I describe myself as “autistic”. If you want to describe yourself as a “person with autism” I have no problem with that and nobody else should either.

A few years ago this was a really contentious issue. Professionals and the media only used person first language and that was annoying. Worse then that in nearly every comment sections of blogs or youtube videos created by an autistic there would be some language policing NT scolding us for using the “offensive” term “autistic”. That invariably get a very hostile reaction from multiple spectrumites including me. I found people who had 60 years less t experience then me at being at autistic telling me what I should find offensive, offensive. After a few years of this apparently the first person language police got the message and this type of thing rarely comes up. And the media often uses the terms interchangeably these days.

It should be live and let live and lets discuss more important autism matters.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 12 May 2020, 8:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It’s just semantic splitting of hairs, in my opinion.

I have not yet reached the point where I can call myself ND or NT as I have not yet been assessed... But to me, as long as whatever I am called has not been intended it as a directed insult why do I need to be concerned?

The technical aspects of language seem do trivial to me.

I prefere Idiot Savant anyway.

I don’t really care and use the terms interchangeably.

BUT

The more I think about it the opposite is true. By saying he’s autistic you are putting the condition before the person.

Replace autistic with a negative word like “disease”. “He’s disease” as opposed to “he has a disease” and you’ll see my point one sounds like a medieval sounding insult the other just addressing his condition separate to the person.

Reminds me how sjw use these terms to freeze others out for example “he’s a man” so can’t talk about issues effecting women, “he’s white” so he can shut up on black issues etc...

In the end it's the intent of the person using the language,the language used shows education level,but not always emotional intelligence.

I don't put much stake in language used nor do I in education, education does not often reveal emotional intelligence.

Idiot Savant works for me.

When I say someone is “autistic” that the person is human is so obvious to me I do not feel a need for the “person” qualifier and I suspect this is true of most people who describe themselves with identity first language. This assumption is true in other situations. I do not know how this works in the UK but if someone says the someone “Jewish” or “Italian” there is no need to say they are a “Jewish-American-Person”, those qualifiers are assumed.

Most people whom identify as autistic do not see autism in the same negative light as a disease or at least negative to that degree. That is why you don’t see people identifying themselves as coronavirus or cancerous.

This only goes into SJW territory when people insist others use certain language and start ganging up on and harassing people who do not use the language the SJW decided was offensive. Which was what was happening to us on those online comment sections and what was happening to special needs students from their teachers a few years back.

I disagree with those that think this is about semantics or words are trivial. Words and phrasing can be very powerful and affect change for good or for bad. I think person first language is bad.