Aspies, have you read this article?

Post Reply New Topic

It's called "In Opposition to DSM-V" and it's on the Autism Speaks blog. If you just google the title in quotation marks, it should come up right away. It's very interesting.

I find it factually incorrect and freighted with reinforcement of negative assumptions about autistic people.

Also, everyone I've mentioned I have AS to immediately says "That's a kind of autism, right?" or some variation. Where are these people who don't connect AS to autism because they have different names?

Here's a link for the article: http://blog.autismspeaks.org/2010/09/04/itow-fjeldsted/

I do completely agree with the author of this article.

While I agree with a few of her points my first reaction is, How convient for Autism Speaks when aspergers is a separate diagnosis from autism, and vice versa. When those annoying aspies challenge them, just say they don't have autism,they're not qualified to comment.

While I agree with a few of her points my first reaction is, How convient for Autism Speaks when aspergers is a separate diagnosis from autism, and vice versa. When those annoying aspies challenge them, just say they don't have autism,they're not qualified to comment.

The majority of people diagnosed with AS also fit the criteria for autism. There is no "separate Asperger's spectrum."

Her reasons for not wanting to be called autistic are because she views autistic people in extremely negative ways, and doesn't want other people to think of her in those negative ways. I don't find this a convincing argument at all.

The change in the name doesn't take away the "aspie" identity. No one has to stop calling themselves "aspie" just because the DSM-V doesn't include the name any longer.

I saw it when it was first posted and commented on it then. I found it quite ill informed and offensive. I think she uses her diagnosis as an excuse to be obnoxious. (I also agree with everything Verdandi said.)

I just don't like the ring of Asperger's. I don't know really know why, it just doesn't roll off the tongue for me. And when talking names, that's about all that matters to me.

I also thought that she was too interested in trying to distance herself from 'those autistics', like it's alright to have one-dimensional stereotypes as long as they're not about me. The argument that made me think was the one that said, severe aspergers isn't mild. I thought, okay there is a point in that one. What are the holes in that? I'm asking seriously in the hope of seeing this from more angles.

How is "severe Asperger's" distinguished from an autistic person diagnosed with autism of a similar severity?

When you give the same thing two different names and then rank those labeled one way in a particular way and those labeled another way in a particular way, does the distinction really count for anything? How does "severe Asperger's" become a thing separate from autism when the person who is diagnosed with severe Asperger's is extremely likely to fit the criteria for autism as well?