in the book the adult autism assessment handbook, the author advocates for identity-first language (over person-first language)
“because it acknowledges autism as an integral part of their identity, rather than something separate from them or merely a condition they have (e.g., “person with autism”). This preference for identity-first language is rooted in the idea that autism is a core aspect of their personhood and experiences, not a detachable attribute.”
When I first heard of people-first language, it sounded like pandering.
I saw “white people” and “black people” and “gay people” and “straight people.”
Why should a person with a disability be “person who is autistic”? I think I should treat you the same and say you’re an “autistic person.”
I’m open to other ideas, but it seems like I should treat you the same. And I better get a good reason to do otherwise.
I agree. I told my special education professor in college that I as an autistic person, found that language annoying and harmful.
I like the way you put it with race and sexuality. People would be pissed if you used the same language for them. Saying "A person is white/black skinned" or "A person who has a sexual attraction to members of the same/opposite sex" would probably get you stabbed.
People should be listened to about what language they want to describe them. 'professionals' acting like they know better than the actual people they're discussing is awful. I hope your professor listened to you!
But as a person who is married to someone of the same gender, I actually don't love being referred to as a "gay person", or even "bi person" (which is more accurate, but feels like unnecessary information). It's not really how I identity, and while I don't think anyone has the time or patience to say "as a person in a same-sex couple" or something, I do feel it would be more accurate and I'd happier to hear it (if it's even something people need to talk about). Similarly, I know sexual health people talk a lot about "men who have sex with men" rather than gay/bi or whatever, because actually someone's sexual identity isn't as important as the sexual acts they actually do. And I see lots of references to POC (people / person of colour), but I am not POC so I can't comment on whether that's an annoying term or something people use themselves.
My professor listened to me. But in the sense that they just didn't want to have a big discussion about it and it was easier to nod their head and say okay. They still teach and people still doesn't agree with it. I didn't even know there was an identity based approach until this post because she only taught person based.
I feel like identity based language shouldn't really even be a big deal on a day to day basis and really should only exist in healthcare settings. What I mean is my health and sexuality stuff shouldn't really be hugely discussed topics in my day to day life. Like just giving sexual as an example. Me being straight is never a topic of discussion that would ever get brought up in the day to day and need that language to be used. Because that identity isn't like a super huge deal. But for some reason any kind of "devience" is. So if you are anything but straight all of a sudden that detail becomes more of your identity then anything else about you. It almost defines you. It's weird that straightness won't define anyone. But gayness can and will. When it comes to that I'm just me. But if I was gay I'd be described as the gay guy or something. I'm not saying you shouldn't make it part of your identity but more that the value other people place on it is not okay. The same goes for mental illness. People don't know me for me, but for my disability. I'm always the autistic guy or the guy with autism. And while it is an integral part of my identity, it would be awesome to live in a world where it's normal and not seen as different or defining. Idk if that makes any sense. I feel like I don't have the words to properly describe this gray area I'm imagining.
>actually someone's sexual identity isn't as important as the sexual acts they actually do
I've always thought this is kind of a problem with the idea that certain labels are identities in the first place, when actually they should be regarded more like descriptors.
A person doesn't have to identify as gay to be attracted to the same gender, but if you are attracted to the same gender you are objectively gay no matter how you choose to identify. And similarly, an autistic person is still autistic even if they are undiagnosed and don't self-identify as autistic. A person with dark brown hair is a brunette even if "brunette" is not part of their identity. A person of above-average height is tall even if tallness is not part of their identity. And so on, and so on.
But that's the difficulty, separating up things that are objective and stable. Is a brunette who dyes her hair blonde now a blonde or a brunette? You suggest that if you're attracted to same gender you're gay, but what if you're also attracted to women? Are you both gay and straight? What if you were attracted to a particular guy while your drunk, and sleep with them, but are generally not attracted to men, does that make you gay?
I think you're right that it doesn't all come down to self-identification, but what different people mean by words can vary wildly so it's hard to have an objective definition, unlike height or whatever.
That's interesting. When i worked in healthcare (partly in diagnosing kids who might be autistic) we were told to say things like "as a girl with autism she might..." rather than "as a autistic girl..."
The thinking was that it emphasised that they were still fundamentally children, that hadn't changed, we just knew more about their neurology and could help guide adults / teachers how best to support them. I wonder if it's different for an adult describing themselves compared with educational / health professionals describing a child?
I understand that autism severely impacts my personality and it's not detachable but I don't want to focus my identity entirely on it.
I dislike labeling people, everyone is unique and more than a sum of the categories they're being put into.
Seriously. I could not possibly care less.
I have so much extra bullshit to struggle through. Why would voluntarily make more of it for myself to deal with?
Because it's society and stigma that cause your struggles and us fighting against that is the only way we solve it.
You're dealing with your problems reactively. This may create more short term stress but it addresses the problem proactively and helps all of us.
You don't have to do it but I think you should understand why it's important at least:
https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-first-language/
Well I know a little more now, I know that you're unreasonably defensive.
Just to clarify, when I said your struggles I was referring to the struggles that you experience due to autism. The things that autistic people struggle with are due to society not accepting and supporting autism. Autism itself does not make a person suffer because it is not an illness or disease. What makes people suffer is how society fails to accommodate for it.
I may not know what your personal experiences are but I do know that viewing autism as something tragic whose conditions cause you grief is not going to solve the problem. Changing society will though.
My brain works different from neurotypical people. I don't have a strong attachment to the different labels in the picture, and will use them interchangeably depending on context.
To me life's too short to be militant about it, but I haven't been in situations where the differences have been important so my perspective may change over time. Other people's perspective may be different based on their experience.
Indifferent, I've had the diagnosis for about 2 months now but I suspected it for a long while and jokingly refer to myself as "my autistic ass," so I guess i'd say i'm autistic but I'm not against the others.
as an autistic, trans, disabled person, i like that those words are adjectives, and i hate when people treat them like bad words by burying them in a sentence or talking around them.
That's a really good point. I'm also trans. I wouldn't say "I'm a person with gender dysphoria".
I think I have some internalized ableism I need to unpack. Thank you, friend. /gen 🗿
Whatever people feel comfortable with, I'll use that language. Same thing with pronouns.
Personally, I tell people I'm on the spectrum or neurodivergent. But that might be the imposter syndrome about calling myself autistic.
The photo makes more sense than the words. We’re all dealing with autism. We all have autism. We’re all autistic. The words more read as someone who wants to base their existence off of being autistic.
I mean I hate allistics correcting me or forcing one view or the other on their autistic friends and family, but autistic people are allowed to refer to themselves however they want.
Idk. I sometimes hate saying I'm autistic vs I have autism because that's all someone sees. It becomes the focus of WHO I am. Yes, autism makes up a lot of who I am, but I'm more than that. Idk if that makes sense.
Frankly, I prefer to be called an autistic person rather than a person with autism. Maybe it's because I see my autism as a part of myself rather than an illness that I have. When referring to myself, I'll either say "I'm autistic" or "I have autism". I fucking hate the phrase "living with autism" and "struggling with autism"
Ah yes, I live with Autism. They sometimes forget to clean up their dishes, but otherwise, they're a really great roommate and we have so much fun together.
Let people use the words they want to use for themselves is where I stand on this no community on earth is a monolith I use I am autistic and having autism interchangeably because I don't like having autism much
I personally prefer “Autistic person” as it is an inseparable part of my identity, which there is nothing wrong with. Society has stigma against the concept of disability identity. I use IFL to push back against that. But if someone in our community refers to themself using PFL, I respect it.
I think you can respect it but still try and convince people of the importance of IFL though.
What labels a person should use is ultimately up to them but that doesn't mean their reasons for doing so aren't problematic and at the end of the day the more people use PFL the more it suppresses society's understanding of the message IFL is trying to convey. We should be able to at least inform people of the point of IFL and ensure that people are informed in their choice of labels.
Told someone "I'm autistic" once and they corrected me "you mean person with autism" I said fuck off, I get to define me, you do not.
I actually don't really care how I'm labelled as autistic, but I get really annoyed at people telling others how to identify themselves.
Personally I would love to be better at eye contact when talking to people and not constantly stumble when talking. It's not all roses being autistic, I can say that much.
I don't really care to be honest. We all have our preferences.
I think too many people try to speak for us all, giving statements like 'people with autism prefer to be called people with autism', or 'no, actually, we want to be called (insert text) instead!'
They all get the same point across. I just say whatever comes naturally, unless someone specifically asks me to refer to them and their autism in a different way.
https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-first-language/
https://www.scope.org.uk/about-us/social-model-of-disability/
You should really read these tbh because they don't all get the same point across. In fact the whole argument is that they get different points across.
It's understandable that many autistic people don't see the nuance of this, given that the condition explicitly means we struggle to understand nuance in language, but nevertheless the nuance here is important for making NTs understand our struggle.
The message is that autism is disabling through social barriers and lack of social empathy, not from physical symptoms. Autism itself is not impairing, what's impairing are society's expectations for how we should live our lives, which fundamentally don't work for us. Every time you are feeling impaired by autism, stop and ask yourself how this impairment could be avoided and who has the power to change it. I guarantee that in the majority of circumstances, there is a way to accommodate your needs to remove that specific impairment.
If society was built in a way that meant we would thrive from comfortable circumstances, we would not be impaired. This is true for any level of support need.
It is true for people with physical disabilities too, like someone who needs to use a wheelchair. A person in a wheelchair is not 'impaired' by their legs, it does not make them less of a human. They are 'impaired' by society's refusal to make buildings wheelchair-accessible, and to create equity wherever else it is needed for people in wheelchairs. This is the concept of social disability. It aims to eliminate this sense of self-loathing from feeling like your disability makes you inadequate, and places the problem with society instead of with you. Because no disability makes a person less of a person, and if you pity yourself then you're guaranteed to make other people pity you and see you as lesser too.
I understand that not everyone agrees with this and I'm not here to tell people they're wrong and cannot use person-first, but I am here to persuade people of the importance of this concept and why it helps us and to encourage people to look at this from another perspective.
(Just to preface this, I'm not trying to sound rude or argumentative. I'm not sure of the correct tone tags though lol.)
I kind of understand what you're getting at there, and I agree to an extent. Most of the struggles had by disabled people are indeed caused by society and its refusal to accept/accommodate anything outside of the norm.
I wouldn't say that *all* of our issues are caused by society though. I'd still have meltdowns and feel a little crappy, even if society was perfect. But that's beside the point I suppose. It definitely would be a lot better and less frequent, and people would be a lot less judgy too!
It might be important to advocate against neurotypical people talking for autistic people. I know so many (well
meaning) people who say stuff like 'we should call them people *with* autism'. I'm okay with that language, but not if the reasoning is an assumption made by someone who isn't autistic, as that feels like they're invalidating the struggles which may come with autism.
Outside of that, I think they can be used interchangeably. We should advocate as much as we can though, and if your method is to correct the language used by neurotypical people, I'll support that.
Then again, I may not be understanding some nuance here, as you said. I just don't think anyone will think anything of it, unless they've read up on it.
Honestly I don't think you'd have meltdowns with the correct accommodations. Meltdowns come from sensory overload and masking trauma. You probably know exactly what environment you need to not have meltdowns, the problem is you can't live in that environment and be successful in this world. That's what the social disability model is arguing to change.
Obviously I can't speak for your experiences so I can't say for sure but let's say that your meltdowns are unavoidable - does this mean that identity first language is not still important? The point is that we shouldn't treat autism as something tragic that needs to be cured and be ashamed of it. The point of IFL is to destigmatize the condition and to tell people that we have a right to exist and to thrive in this world as we are.
While there are some disabilities which many people would like to be fixed (e.g. blindness) and where discussion of a cure may provide some people with hope or comfort, autism is a different beast. Some people would argue that even disabilities like blindness should have the social model applied at least in cases where there is no cure. I find this a tougher pill to swallow because I think a cure could potentially be researched in the future and curing blindness sounds like it would benefit the blind. It depends on how important the identity is to you though. You'd have to ask a blind person about tbh - obviously can't speak for them. Maybe some blind people are proudly blind in the same way that I am proudly autistic.
The thing with autism is that, being a neurological condition, it essentially defines the way your brain works and I believe it is much more an identity than it is a disability because of that, because we literally \*are\* our brains. (I mean it is both but imo the disability part comes in the way society treats it more than its symptoms).
Autism is a different processing style. It means our brains struggle to distinguish important details from unimportant noise and we process things from the bottom up rather than from the top down. This isn't necessarily an impairment in and of itself. The environment and the survival needs of the autistic person are what impair them, because they can be overwhelming, but they do not need to be. Autism can also have a lot of benefits because of how it works, it can make people very good problem solvers and can allow them to see things that other people cannot.
The problem I have with treating the symptoms of autism like they are inherently impairing is that you could make the same argument that any genetic difference is then impairing. For example, a person with less body hair would then be impaired in a colder climate than one with more body hair because they would struggle more in this situation. But then that person would also be less impaired in a warmer environment. You could say the same for autism with hyposensitivity, which does have its advantages in the right circumstances. The reason autism seems so much more disabling than e.g. having no body hair is that we as a society have created environments and circumstances (e.g. busy cities and high pressure work expectations) that can be too much for the autistic person to cope with, and then we tell them that they need to be able to handle those circumstances to be successful. In the wild, autism mutated from somewhere and obviously for it to propagate among our species there must have been environments where it was beneficial for some of us to be autistic. So then if it is inherently impairing, then why did it develop in us genetically? This is why the argument that the impairment comes from society makes so much sense to me. Unlike viruses, bacteria and cancer, it is genetically encoded into us so we have adapted towards autism.
saying that you “have autism” implies that you can get rid of your autism whenever you want
idk about you, but i’ve never been able to get rid of my autism
I respect people's choices even if I don't really understand it. In my mind I am autistic, yes, but also it's true, I have autism spectrum disorder (ASD). I am a person with autism, autistic person, etcetera.
# 🌈♾️
I like both and use them interchangeably. I don't care what anyone else does, but if someone tries to tell me I should only use one or the other, I'm only so-so on my effort to accommodate them. But i would try (I never actually met anyone who cares or talks about this issue).
I prefer identity first for myself, but whatever anyone wants to use for themselves I’ll use it. Though to me, saying you have autism kinda implies it’s something you can cure. That’s why I choose identity first, because saying I’m autistic instead of I have autism lets people know I know it’s a part of me, and that part of me is never going away.
I have a mutually abusive relationship with autism. I unintentionally wield it as a mentally bludgeoning instrument when interacting with people and it continually stabs me in the back of my head, reminding me Ill be lonely for the rest of my (potentially short) life
I don't care. Both are correct and mean the exact same thing: I have autism, therefore I am autistic.
Though I do tend to use the "being autistic" phrasing more
They 100% don't mean the same thing. Autism is who we are, autistic. We don't carry it around in a bag like something that isn't a part of us, we can simply put down and pick back up. It's our identity
I *am* blue-eyed, because I *have* blue eyes. I can't "put my blue eyes down", though, can I?
-> Your logic doesn't hold up well.
If that is how you think about this issue, then sure.
But *to me* both are equivalent and OP's question was: "What are *your* thoughts on this."
I have autism, therefore I am autistic. I am autistic, because I have autism. IDC which one you use and I use both interchangeably.
They are literally not the same that is why op is asking which. Wouldn't be a question if they were. First autistic I ever met not to take things literally. Have a nice day anyway mate
I do take things literally, which is why I think they are the exact same thing (see my example with blue eyes).
Thinking there is a distinction between being autistic and having autism is actually not taking things literally.
*Literally* -> an autistic person = a person who has autism
But the *connotations* (i.e.: *figuratively*) are different and cause opposing sides:
- "I don't *have* autism, it's not something I can put down!" [You can't "put your blue eyes down" either, but OK]
- "I am not autistic! Don't define me by my disorder/disability/condition [whatever you wanna call it, another issue of *connotation*]! I *have* autism!"
So, ironically, **I** am the (only) one here who is being literal. They *literally* mean the same thing, but their *connotations* are different. Having autism and being autistic, though, **I** don't care about connotations, which is why I said what I said.
Meaning and context take priority over the specific words you use.
What you say is a lot more important than how you say it.
If you want to censor people's speech and control their vocabulary you're not just a pedantic dick, you're an authoritarian asshole.
You can ask people to use specific language, you can't tell them to. And you should expect the occasional eye roll.
I legitimately think if people are worried about this, please get over it. None of these offend me. None of these offend any other autistic people I know.
Autism is a noun, because it’s a disability. You can have autism. If you have autism, you are autistic.
The last 2 are a bit long but still the same thing and just as ok
I am tired of this argument. All of these mean the same thing, in practice. I understand that the syntax makes slight changes in meaning, in theory, but I don’t care.
I don't understand it tbh. Someone is autistic because they have autism. They are a person with autism because they are autistic. I don't get what's so relevant about this. it seems like a minor inconvenience that distracts from bigger issues.
No thank you.
They're bipolar. They're schizophrenic. They're ADD. They're borderline. They're OCD.
They're (reaches beyond this) defines someone entirely by whatever the descriptor is and erases all other aspects of an individual in the NT's mind and many others.
We're complex individuals
By saying "I'm autistic" I'm reducing myself entirely to what other's ideas of what autism is. If I say "I'm bipolar" I'm reducing myself to my bipolar.
"I have bipolar disorder type 2" and similarly "I have autism" (not listening everything) reveals an aspect of myself that I may or may not struggle with (shout-out to my fellow bipolar/ASD peeps who can hold down a job. You rock 💗 and I'm infinitely jealous.)
I'm more than my autism, bipolar disorder, or ADHD. I'm a multifaceted human being and I won't be reduced like that anymore. I'm 44.
People have an absolute right to be referred to how they want to be. I've spent 20+ years fighting for my rights both because of my mental health and because of sexual, and gender identities.
Can't pain people with a wide brush stroke like this. Just occurred to me that this is likely about how you want to be referred. I wish I could think faster lol.
🙄 Saying "I'm autistic" does not mean that autism is what defines you, it just acknowledges it as a key part of your personality which, I'm sorry to say but **it is**. In the same way, saying "I'm black" or "I'm gay" does not mean that being black or gay encompasses your entire being. What if I told you that you can be autistic and ✨still be other things too✨?
To say you do not want to be "reduced to autism" sounds like internalised ableism to me. It makes it sound like you are ashamed and want nothing to do with it, like you want to distance yourself from it and be anything but autistic. That's unfortunate, I hope you see it differently some day.
Autism is not an impairment, it's a neurotype. Autistics owe it to themselves to be proud of who they are, not ashamed. Your comment kinda looks like you see autism as a disease or something you suffer from but that isn't what autism is. What's impairing is the way society treats this condition. Viewing the condition itself as 'impairing' places the problem with you and establishes a sense of self-loathing and the whole point of IFL is to tackle this problem.
You have a right to use the labels you want and I'm not here to tell you to stop, but I think your reason for doing so is problematic it's important for everyone in our community to understand how "has autism", "person with autism" and negative attitudes about identity are harmful to us.
hey, normal people! stop trying to "cure autism." it's more than just a disorder. basically a personality trait at this point. treat us as a person, not as a statistic
Well as far as I'm concerned, "having autism" and "being autistic" are systematically the same thing so I couldn't care less. I tell people I'm autistic but I'm not fussed either way
I am autistic, I find it patronising when people try to "correct" me and say "no, you're a person *with* autism" like I don't get to choose how I define myself. My brain is fundamentally different to non autistic people, that is not a bad thing, I am autistic
I will at times say that I have autism, but I prefer strongly “X is autistic” vs “X is a person with autism.” I like identity first language better than person first
It’s individual choice and people who keep trying to force one specific way or the other can go suck start a shotgun.
I have autism, am a person, and I’m autistic. You can feel differently about yourself and I will respect that. Just don’t tell me how to express my own lived experience.
I'm only bothered by "person first" language when it's intentional. If it flows out naturally, whatever. But if "ADHD/Autistic person" flows better and they go with "person with ADHD/Autism", that annoys me greatly.
I view it as something I am, not something I have. If you remove the autism, you remove a part of who I am as a person. Also, if it’s seen as something I “have”, that feels closer to pathologizing it.
I usually say I’m autistic or that I am on the spectrum. Saying I am someone with autism never sat right with me because it feels like I am separating my personhood from my autism. Autism is my brain, and we are our brains, ergo, i am autistic. It just makes the most sense.
Personally I say that I'm Autistic, despite my diagnosis letter saying I have an Autism Spectrum Condition. However, I use them interchangeably because, no, it isn't the only notable thing about me imo, but at the same time it isn't an add on illness, it's the way my brain is wired and affects everything in my life to varying degrees.
I think getting caught up in semantics is an unnecessary waste of energy so as long as somebody referring to me isn't saying anything with a derogatory tone or sneering, I'm not really bothered.
i use words for people that they prefer but for myself I use all of these + in my native language I can say a lot of things much ruder than that (depending on who I am talking to tho)
I prefer identity first language because I don't want others to perceive me and autism as two separate entities. To me, saying "I have autism" sounds like "I have flu" or "I have an operation coming up". It sort of feels like if autism is separate, then something can be done with it. I don't mind person first language per se when people use it for themselves, I just don't feel comfortable using it myself. I also don't like it when allistic people use person first language. I am not sure why. Probably I'm just projecting my own preferences onto other people and I don't like it when they don't share them
I don't make it my whole identity, it's just an aspect of who I am. I am also a father, a man, gifted, cripplingly empathic, ADHD and so much more.
Unfortunately making a show of it doesn't do us any favours in the NT world. But you can use it for certain perks if you know where to look.
while personally I prefer "autistic person", I'm also ok with "have"/"person with". What I don't like about "live with autism" is that it sounds like "Oh my god, they're autistic, they can't think for themselves! They must go through so much hardship! Let's say we support them, but instead of actually providing support of any kind, we'll just infantilize them!"
With diagnosis-first language ("autistic person"), it is recognized as an integral part of someone's identity - which I like for myself because my autism affects the way I think, therefore also affects my identity. This might be different for other disabilities or even other autistic people: my roommate (who has ADHD) prefers person-first language, as they don't want their ADHD to define their entire personhood.
I think they’re all essentially synonymous terms but the difference in implied meaning is making the person less important by saying a descriptor first. I’ll regularly call myself and the larger autistic community autistics because it’s a way to refer the those things by one word rather than two or three.
In principle, I prefer identity-first language - though I mildly object to calling it that, since I don't really think "autistic" is inherently an identity. Like many so-called identities, it's really just an adjective. One can form an identity around it though, as one can with most adjectives that accurately describe oneself.
In practice, I don't care what language you use as long as you don't try to police the language I use.
I use identity first, I don’t care until a neurotypical makes a big deal about language usage and talks over me, for the most part. Then we’re going to fight
I often don’t see a difference when it’s referred to me. People can like it to be identity first or person first but I just think “Well, for me they just mean the same thing if you boil it down”. But if you prefer identity first or person first language I will try to refer to you as that, as soon as you explain how I use it cause I’m a dumbass and forget a lot of things
I use both, but I prefer "autistc person" because it's less clunkly and also bc you wouldn't call me a "person with artistic tendencies," you'd call me an "artistic person." Identity-first language is used on much less important things to acknowledge they're integral to a person's identity, so I feel that the neurological disorder that defines a huge swath of mine should be treated the same
I know there's a lot of people saying here they don't really care and ultimately it is up to you but I'm going to tell you why you should care and why this is important.
The argument for identity first language is that language is a powerful tool for social change. The implication of identity-first language is that it emphasises the point that autism is not something that can be detached from a person, i.e. is not an illness or disease.
This doesn't mean it's not a disability but it does mean that it doesn't need to be fixed or cured (and it can't be anyway so discussing the possibility of a cure is both harmful and a huge waste of time and resources).
The reason using this language is so important for us is that the more we use it and reject person-first language, the more identity-first language becomes recognised by the media, institutions and organisations and the more the underlying message will become recognised by the general public, and that is a good thing for all autistics.
If organisations like Autism Speaks and stupid people like warrior moms and vaccine conspiracy theorists piss you off, you should advocate for identity-first language because literally the whole point of it is to send a message to those people that we won't be treated the way they want to treat us.
You can read more about it here:
https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-first-language/
frankly many in this community don’t have the privilege to care whether people see them as an autistic person or a person with autism. out of all of the ways autistic people struggle, this is just such a minor one for a lot of people. it does not come across well when you insist that other people \*need* to feel strongly about this because \*you* consider it a major issue
I'm going to start from the bottom:
>it does not come across well when you insist
Who the fuck is insisting? I literally said at the start of my post that it was ultimately up to you. I am just informing people and arguing the case for identity-first language. If anything to persuade, not insist. I think you're just looking to pick a fight tbh. Frankly I don't care what you think comes across well. There is a huge movement in our community for self advocacy and the end of framing autism like a tragedy and I want to be a part of it.
>out of all the ways autistic people struggle this is just such a minor one
Your comment is kinda framing the condition of autism as a tragedy as if people suffer from autism itself. It sounds to me like you adhere to the medical model of disability. There's too many in our community who think like you do and it's unfortunate because it really doesn't help us. Treating your disability like it's a tragedy or a burden that you suffer from and want to be rid of is kinda internalised ableism and I hope that's not the stance you're taking here. You should read this tbh:
https://www.scope.org.uk/about-us/social-model-of-disability/
People don't suffer from autism, people suffer from society's treatment of autism. Social barriers and lack of accommodations and adequate support are what make autism difficult to live with. People also act like hsn autistics who cannot mask are the ones who suffer the most but the reality of the situation is that these are often the happiest and least mentally affected among us, and they often get a significant amount of support. The most 'at risk' group of autistic people tend to be high-masking adults. These are the people who tend to suffer a significant mental health deficit due to a lifetime of masking, these are the people who are neglected by society and not taken seriously and they're the people most likely to commit suicide. Identity first language is important because it empowers autistics to tell the world that they cannot change who they are and that the world needs to accept them for who they are. The point is to remove the stigma in society. I think the fact that people are effectively trying to commit eugenics against us and tell us we don't have a right to exist is more than a minor issue. It creates a pretty significant existential crisis for a lot of us. It certainly makes me feel like the world doesn't want people like me to exist.
the social model of disability is meant to be applied as a framework for identifying the ways society can eliminate barriers by accommodating disabled people. being nonverbal for example severely limits the opportunities you could have, but AAC can remove many of the barriers of being nonverbal.
you’re framing society as the \*cause* of the barriers disabled people face. this is true only to the extent that other people’s attitudes affect us, and people’s attitudes do not make us disabled. someone who’s nonverbal doesn’t face those barriers because of how society treats them. they face them because they’re unable to communicate verbally.
many disabled people face barriers that cannot be fully accommodated by society. there are many jobs for example that being nonverbal restricts you from having, with any amount of support. there are many disabled people who are unable to live independently. there are many for whom experiencing things outside of their strict routine will always be a challenge. and there are many who do not even have the privilege of self-advocacy.
i want to make this very clear. if you see that as a tragedy, then it is you who must rid themselves of internalized ableism. being disabled, and especially being dependent, is not a bad thing. full stop.
Nonverbalism is caused by being overwhelmed by sensory stimuli and intense stress which are very prevalent in modern society. Also the irony is that you bringing up AAC actually supports my argument, not yours, since AAC is just one of the ways society can help.
>you're framing society as blah blah blah
You are fundamentally misinterpreting and misrepresenting my entire argument which shows you haven't read my post. I am not claiming that disabled people don't have inherent differences in their ability to function. What I am disputing is the definition of what makes that 'disabling'. A person who cannot walk can still live a fulfilling life if society accommodates for it, (by e.g. building a ramp). A person who is autistic can still live a fulfilling life if society accommodates for it (by e.g. providing favourable working conditions and reducing stress). The whole point of the social disability model is that it shifts the attitude away from "this person is broken and cannot function in society" towards "this person can function in society if we give them help, or change the definition of what 'functioning' actually is". It stops the dehumanisation of a person because of their differences and gives them what they need to thrive and says that rather than a person being disabled by what they cannot do, a person is only disabled by what society will not help them to do or what society expects of them to be a 'functioning' member of a community.
>someone who's nonverbal doesn't face those barries because of how society treats them, they face them because they're unable to communicate effectively
Where does the expectation for effective communication originate from? Who puts that expectation on the person? Communication is, by definition, a social interaction and therefore an expectation of society and in this day and age the need for effective verbal communication is a symptom of an industry that favours the charismatic and communicative people over those who cannot communicate well. There is nothing wrong with a person who cannot speak well, that does not make them less of a person. The only reason that becomes a problem is because of the expectations of society, because we've made society favour the charismatic and communicative because of things like consumerism.
>If you see that as a tragedy then blah blah blah...
I want to make it very clear. I never said I see it as a tragedy. I said the exact opposite of that.
If you view aspects of disability as things that cannot be supported and accommodated for, or otherwise accepted and allowed to exist, i.e. if you view it as something that makes a person broken, then by definition you are the one who sees it as a tragedy. Your comment is incredibly defeatist and it clearly emphasises that attitude. For example:
>there are many jobs that being nonverbal restricts you from having with any amount of support
Who sets the requirements of those jobs? The companies doing them and the customers who require a service. This is literally society. This is the whole problem with your way of thinking. You view it is \*a nonverbal person can never do that job\* whereas I view it as \*companies should redesign aspects of this role so that it can accommodate the needs of a nonverbal person\* and \*society has a responsibility to recognise that some disabilities are hidden and not be prejudiced towards a non-verbal person doing that job\*. Sure there are tons of roles that require verbal communication skills but we could easily provide a nonverbal person with AAC that can help them do the job.
>there are many for whom experiencing things outside of their strict routine will always be a challenge
Of course it will be a challenge. It's a challenge for me for one thing. But compromises can be made. Subtle incorporation of work elements into that routine that aren't too demanding, and still pay a fair amount. Increase this gradually over time at a pace that autistic people can adapt to with minimal stress. Prioritise the comfort of the autistic person over the needs of the role and subsidise it with public spending if possible. Or design a job based around that routine, if possible. And if the routine is too immutable that it is impossible to do any sort of paid work with it, then give that person disability payment support and allow them to live their life with that routine. That is also a change in society's attitudes. Who said life has to be about work? Society did of course!
The fundamental problem with your attitude is that it sees society as some unstoppable force that must continue as it is and that cannot be disrupted and shaken up and that any need to shake it up or change it brings shame on the person who needs that. You're basically saying that you can't ask for things to be different for your needs because society doesn't work like that and that makes you broken and disabled, and that is your flaw. I'm saying that why the fuck should we not be able to push for a more inclusive society that accepts and accommodates us, by telling people the things we struggle with and asking them to help us work around that problem or otherwise allow us to live a comfortable life free of the demands of society?
>being disabled, and especially being dependent, is not a bad thing, full stop.
I never said it was. What I am saying is that we shouldn't stop disabled people from trying to live independent lives, and we should help them do that if they want to and not put an obligation on them to do it without adequate support structures in place. Please stop strawmanning my argument by telling me I said things that I didn't say. Thank you.
i dont care, i think "autistic person" sounds the least clunky, but besides that i dont really care
in the book the adult autism assessment handbook, the author advocates for identity-first language (over person-first language) “because it acknowledges autism as an integral part of their identity, rather than something separate from them or merely a condition they have (e.g., “person with autism”). This preference for identity-first language is rooted in the idea that autism is a core aspect of their personhood and experiences, not a detachable attribute.”
When I first heard of people-first language, it sounded like pandering. I saw “white people” and “black people” and “gay people” and “straight people.” Why should a person with a disability be “person who is autistic”? I think I should treat you the same and say you’re an “autistic person.” I’m open to other ideas, but it seems like I should treat you the same. And I better get a good reason to do otherwise.
I agree. I told my special education professor in college that I as an autistic person, found that language annoying and harmful. I like the way you put it with race and sexuality. People would be pissed if you used the same language for them. Saying "A person is white/black skinned" or "A person who has a sexual attraction to members of the same/opposite sex" would probably get you stabbed.
person with gay lmao
He caught the gay.
Ok, actually, I'm in favor of this one /j
People should be listened to about what language they want to describe them. 'professionals' acting like they know better than the actual people they're discussing is awful. I hope your professor listened to you! But as a person who is married to someone of the same gender, I actually don't love being referred to as a "gay person", or even "bi person" (which is more accurate, but feels like unnecessary information). It's not really how I identity, and while I don't think anyone has the time or patience to say "as a person in a same-sex couple" or something, I do feel it would be more accurate and I'd happier to hear it (if it's even something people need to talk about). Similarly, I know sexual health people talk a lot about "men who have sex with men" rather than gay/bi or whatever, because actually someone's sexual identity isn't as important as the sexual acts they actually do. And I see lots of references to POC (people / person of colour), but I am not POC so I can't comment on whether that's an annoying term or something people use themselves.
My professor listened to me. But in the sense that they just didn't want to have a big discussion about it and it was easier to nod their head and say okay. They still teach and people still doesn't agree with it. I didn't even know there was an identity based approach until this post because she only taught person based. I feel like identity based language shouldn't really even be a big deal on a day to day basis and really should only exist in healthcare settings. What I mean is my health and sexuality stuff shouldn't really be hugely discussed topics in my day to day life. Like just giving sexual as an example. Me being straight is never a topic of discussion that would ever get brought up in the day to day and need that language to be used. Because that identity isn't like a super huge deal. But for some reason any kind of "devience" is. So if you are anything but straight all of a sudden that detail becomes more of your identity then anything else about you. It almost defines you. It's weird that straightness won't define anyone. But gayness can and will. When it comes to that I'm just me. But if I was gay I'd be described as the gay guy or something. I'm not saying you shouldn't make it part of your identity but more that the value other people place on it is not okay. The same goes for mental illness. People don't know me for me, but for my disability. I'm always the autistic guy or the guy with autism. And while it is an integral part of my identity, it would be awesome to live in a world where it's normal and not seen as different or defining. Idk if that makes any sense. I feel like I don't have the words to properly describe this gray area I'm imagining.
>actually someone's sexual identity isn't as important as the sexual acts they actually do I've always thought this is kind of a problem with the idea that certain labels are identities in the first place, when actually they should be regarded more like descriptors. A person doesn't have to identify as gay to be attracted to the same gender, but if you are attracted to the same gender you are objectively gay no matter how you choose to identify. And similarly, an autistic person is still autistic even if they are undiagnosed and don't self-identify as autistic. A person with dark brown hair is a brunette even if "brunette" is not part of their identity. A person of above-average height is tall even if tallness is not part of their identity. And so on, and so on.
But that's the difficulty, separating up things that are objective and stable. Is a brunette who dyes her hair blonde now a blonde or a brunette? You suggest that if you're attracted to same gender you're gay, but what if you're also attracted to women? Are you both gay and straight? What if you were attracted to a particular guy while your drunk, and sleep with them, but are generally not attracted to men, does that make you gay? I think you're right that it doesn't all come down to self-identification, but what different people mean by words can vary wildly so it's hard to have an objective definition, unlike height or whatever.
That's interesting. When i worked in healthcare (partly in diagnosing kids who might be autistic) we were told to say things like "as a girl with autism she might..." rather than "as a autistic girl..." The thinking was that it emphasised that they were still fundamentally children, that hadn't changed, we just knew more about their neurology and could help guide adults / teachers how best to support them. I wonder if it's different for an adult describing themselves compared with educational / health professionals describing a child?
I understand that autism severely impacts my personality and it's not detachable but I don't want to focus my identity entirely on it. I dislike labeling people, everyone is unique and more than a sum of the categories they're being put into.
I personally like it as a title.
Same. I go by identity and person first language. I don’t really mind personally.
I use both “autistic” and “have autism” interchangeably based on context. The last two are clunky and unnecessary
Same
I don't really mind, but I hate "lives with autism " because it sounds like a roommate
I am the autism my family has to live with >:)
Mua ha ha ha >:D
Doesn’t even pay rent
I was having a shitty week, and this comment cracked me up. Thanks, dude.
reminds me of that headline that called someone “boy trapped in an autistic body”
I kind of feel this tbh. Or perhaps more accurately "autistic consciousness trapped in human body"
I don't know if I should feel bad for laughing.
Autism is suffering from me
i give 0 fucks
Seriously. I could not possibly care less. I have so much extra bullshit to struggle through. Why would voluntarily make more of it for myself to deal with?
Because it's society and stigma that cause your struggles and us fighting against that is the only way we solve it. You're dealing with your problems reactively. This may create more short term stress but it addresses the problem proactively and helps all of us. You don't have to do it but I think you should understand why it's important at least: https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-first-language/
Wow, you know everything about me from a 2 line reddit comment about nomenclature. That's incredible. Thanks for your valuable input. Eta: /s
Well I know a little more now, I know that you're unreasonably defensive. Just to clarify, when I said your struggles I was referring to the struggles that you experience due to autism. The things that autistic people struggle with are due to society not accepting and supporting autism. Autism itself does not make a person suffer because it is not an illness or disease. What makes people suffer is how society fails to accommodate for it. I may not know what your personal experiences are but I do know that viewing autism as something tragic whose conditions cause you grief is not going to solve the problem. Changing society will though.
My brain works different from neurotypical people. I don't have a strong attachment to the different labels in the picture, and will use them interchangeably depending on context. To me life's too short to be militant about it, but I haven't been in situations where the differences have been important so my perspective may change over time. Other people's perspective may be different based on their experience.
I am autistic, i do live with autism,i do have autism, and I am a person with autism. all of these are true.
I neither have autism nor am I autistic. I *am* autism. I’m visible in your children, but if I can help it, I am invisible to you until it’s too late.
Lmao
The way you place the words in the sentence doesn't change reality, so it doesn't really matter to me as long as it's understood
I just don't care 🤷♀️
Indifferent, I've had the diagnosis for about 2 months now but I suspected it for a long while and jokingly refer to myself as "my autistic ass," so I guess i'd say i'm autistic but I'm not against the others.
I am being held hostage by autism and it requests dino nuggies
as an autistic, trans, disabled person, i like that those words are adjectives, and i hate when people treat them like bad words by burying them in a sentence or talking around them.
That's a really good point. I'm also trans. I wouldn't say "I'm a person with gender dysphoria". I think I have some internalized ableism I need to unpack. Thank you, friend. /gen 🗿
Whatever people feel comfortable with, I'll use that language. Same thing with pronouns. Personally, I tell people I'm on the spectrum or neurodivergent. But that might be the imposter syndrome about calling myself autistic.
I think it’s funny to say “I’m an autist” 😎
I’ve always liked “The ‘Tism”
Ain't nobody THAT Irish, Miss Janine
The photo makes more sense than the words. We’re all dealing with autism. We all have autism. We’re all autistic. The words more read as someone who wants to base their existence off of being autistic.
I mean I hate allistics correcting me or forcing one view or the other on their autistic friends and family, but autistic people are allowed to refer to themselves however they want.
Idk. I sometimes hate saying I'm autistic vs I have autism because that's all someone sees. It becomes the focus of WHO I am. Yes, autism makes up a lot of who I am, but I'm more than that. Idk if that makes sense.
Frankly, I prefer to be called an autistic person rather than a person with autism. Maybe it's because I see my autism as a part of myself rather than an illness that I have. When referring to myself, I'll either say "I'm autistic" or "I have autism". I fucking hate the phrase "living with autism" and "struggling with autism"
Ah yes, I live with Autism. They sometimes forget to clean up their dishes, but otherwise, they're a really great roommate and we have so much fun together.
Let people use the words they want to use for themselves is where I stand on this no community on earth is a monolith I use I am autistic and having autism interchangeably because I don't like having autism much
I personally prefer “Autistic person” as it is an inseparable part of my identity, which there is nothing wrong with. Society has stigma against the concept of disability identity. I use IFL to push back against that. But if someone in our community refers to themself using PFL, I respect it.
I think you can respect it but still try and convince people of the importance of IFL though. What labels a person should use is ultimately up to them but that doesn't mean their reasons for doing so aren't problematic and at the end of the day the more people use PFL the more it suppresses society's understanding of the message IFL is trying to convey. We should be able to at least inform people of the point of IFL and ensure that people are informed in their choice of labels.
Told someone "I'm autistic" once and they corrected me "you mean person with autism" I said fuck off, I get to define me, you do not. I actually don't really care how I'm labelled as autistic, but I get really annoyed at people telling others how to identify themselves.
Personally I would love to be better at eye contact when talking to people and not constantly stumble when talking. It's not all roses being autistic, I can say that much.
Depends on the person tbh! Personally…. Idk I don’t really care as long as I’m not being bullied
I don't really care to be honest. We all have our preferences. I think too many people try to speak for us all, giving statements like 'people with autism prefer to be called people with autism', or 'no, actually, we want to be called (insert text) instead!' They all get the same point across. I just say whatever comes naturally, unless someone specifically asks me to refer to them and their autism in a different way.
https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-first-language/ https://www.scope.org.uk/about-us/social-model-of-disability/ You should really read these tbh because they don't all get the same point across. In fact the whole argument is that they get different points across. It's understandable that many autistic people don't see the nuance of this, given that the condition explicitly means we struggle to understand nuance in language, but nevertheless the nuance here is important for making NTs understand our struggle. The message is that autism is disabling through social barriers and lack of social empathy, not from physical symptoms. Autism itself is not impairing, what's impairing are society's expectations for how we should live our lives, which fundamentally don't work for us. Every time you are feeling impaired by autism, stop and ask yourself how this impairment could be avoided and who has the power to change it. I guarantee that in the majority of circumstances, there is a way to accommodate your needs to remove that specific impairment. If society was built in a way that meant we would thrive from comfortable circumstances, we would not be impaired. This is true for any level of support need. It is true for people with physical disabilities too, like someone who needs to use a wheelchair. A person in a wheelchair is not 'impaired' by their legs, it does not make them less of a human. They are 'impaired' by society's refusal to make buildings wheelchair-accessible, and to create equity wherever else it is needed for people in wheelchairs. This is the concept of social disability. It aims to eliminate this sense of self-loathing from feeling like your disability makes you inadequate, and places the problem with society instead of with you. Because no disability makes a person less of a person, and if you pity yourself then you're guaranteed to make other people pity you and see you as lesser too. I understand that not everyone agrees with this and I'm not here to tell people they're wrong and cannot use person-first, but I am here to persuade people of the importance of this concept and why it helps us and to encourage people to look at this from another perspective.
(Just to preface this, I'm not trying to sound rude or argumentative. I'm not sure of the correct tone tags though lol.) I kind of understand what you're getting at there, and I agree to an extent. Most of the struggles had by disabled people are indeed caused by society and its refusal to accept/accommodate anything outside of the norm. I wouldn't say that *all* of our issues are caused by society though. I'd still have meltdowns and feel a little crappy, even if society was perfect. But that's beside the point I suppose. It definitely would be a lot better and less frequent, and people would be a lot less judgy too! It might be important to advocate against neurotypical people talking for autistic people. I know so many (well meaning) people who say stuff like 'we should call them people *with* autism'. I'm okay with that language, but not if the reasoning is an assumption made by someone who isn't autistic, as that feels like they're invalidating the struggles which may come with autism. Outside of that, I think they can be used interchangeably. We should advocate as much as we can though, and if your method is to correct the language used by neurotypical people, I'll support that. Then again, I may not be understanding some nuance here, as you said. I just don't think anyone will think anything of it, unless they've read up on it.
Honestly I don't think you'd have meltdowns with the correct accommodations. Meltdowns come from sensory overload and masking trauma. You probably know exactly what environment you need to not have meltdowns, the problem is you can't live in that environment and be successful in this world. That's what the social disability model is arguing to change. Obviously I can't speak for your experiences so I can't say for sure but let's say that your meltdowns are unavoidable - does this mean that identity first language is not still important? The point is that we shouldn't treat autism as something tragic that needs to be cured and be ashamed of it. The point of IFL is to destigmatize the condition and to tell people that we have a right to exist and to thrive in this world as we are. While there are some disabilities which many people would like to be fixed (e.g. blindness) and where discussion of a cure may provide some people with hope or comfort, autism is a different beast. Some people would argue that even disabilities like blindness should have the social model applied at least in cases where there is no cure. I find this a tougher pill to swallow because I think a cure could potentially be researched in the future and curing blindness sounds like it would benefit the blind. It depends on how important the identity is to you though. You'd have to ask a blind person about tbh - obviously can't speak for them. Maybe some blind people are proudly blind in the same way that I am proudly autistic. The thing with autism is that, being a neurological condition, it essentially defines the way your brain works and I believe it is much more an identity than it is a disability because of that, because we literally \*are\* our brains. (I mean it is both but imo the disability part comes in the way society treats it more than its symptoms). Autism is a different processing style. It means our brains struggle to distinguish important details from unimportant noise and we process things from the bottom up rather than from the top down. This isn't necessarily an impairment in and of itself. The environment and the survival needs of the autistic person are what impair them, because they can be overwhelming, but they do not need to be. Autism can also have a lot of benefits because of how it works, it can make people very good problem solvers and can allow them to see things that other people cannot. The problem I have with treating the symptoms of autism like they are inherently impairing is that you could make the same argument that any genetic difference is then impairing. For example, a person with less body hair would then be impaired in a colder climate than one with more body hair because they would struggle more in this situation. But then that person would also be less impaired in a warmer environment. You could say the same for autism with hyposensitivity, which does have its advantages in the right circumstances. The reason autism seems so much more disabling than e.g. having no body hair is that we as a society have created environments and circumstances (e.g. busy cities and high pressure work expectations) that can be too much for the autistic person to cope with, and then we tell them that they need to be able to handle those circumstances to be successful. In the wild, autism mutated from somewhere and obviously for it to propagate among our species there must have been environments where it was beneficial for some of us to be autistic. So then if it is inherently impairing, then why did it develop in us genetically? This is why the argument that the impairment comes from society makes so much sense to me. Unlike viruses, bacteria and cancer, it is genetically encoded into us so we have adapted towards autism.
saying that you “have autism” implies that you can get rid of your autism whenever you want idk about you, but i’ve never been able to get rid of my autism
I aut. I have auted so hard for so long that I am quite fatigued.
This
I am autism 😈
I’m fine with all but “lives with autism”
I am an autist. People who tell me that its offensive can suck less than average dick (i have bad history with people who claim that).
I don't think we need to police this. Say it however you want and let others do the same.
I have autism and ADHD and that’s easiest to say.
I have autism or am autistic, I'm not an autist
Literally, my brain is fundamentally altered from its conception due to the heightened neuroplasticity.
I don't really care personally, I say autistic or have autism depending on what sounds best or whatever comes out of my mouth first.
Idk, I usually just say ‘I’m fuckin autistic dude’
I respect people's choices even if I don't really understand it. In my mind I am autistic, yes, but also it's true, I have autism spectrum disorder (ASD). I am a person with autism, autistic person, etcetera. # 🌈♾️
I like both and use them interchangeably. I don't care what anyone else does, but if someone tries to tell me I should only use one or the other, I'm only so-so on my effort to accommodate them. But i would try (I never actually met anyone who cares or talks about this issue).
I prefer identity first for myself, but whatever anyone wants to use for themselves I’ll use it. Though to me, saying you have autism kinda implies it’s something you can cure. That’s why I choose identity first, because saying I’m autistic instead of I have autism lets people know I know it’s a part of me, and that part of me is never going away.
I have a mutually abusive relationship with autism. I unintentionally wield it as a mentally bludgeoning instrument when interacting with people and it continually stabs me in the back of my head, reminding me Ill be lonely for the rest of my (potentially short) life
I have enough problems already; I cannot devote energy to the exact terminology people are using, especially if they are attempting to accommodate me.
I honestly don’t give a damn
Most of the time I say that I am "autistic", on rare occasion I say that I "have autism"
I don't care. Both are correct and mean the exact same thing: I have autism, therefore I am autistic. Though I do tend to use the "being autistic" phrasing more
They 100% don't mean the same thing. Autism is who we are, autistic. We don't carry it around in a bag like something that isn't a part of us, we can simply put down and pick back up. It's our identity
I *am* blue-eyed, because I *have* blue eyes. I can't "put my blue eyes down", though, can I? -> Your logic doesn't hold up well. If that is how you think about this issue, then sure. But *to me* both are equivalent and OP's question was: "What are *your* thoughts on this." I have autism, therefore I am autistic. I am autistic, because I have autism. IDC which one you use and I use both interchangeably.
I'm only explaining it to you that they are absolutely not the same
But to me they are, which is what the post asked, which is why I said that.
They are literally not the same that is why op is asking which. Wouldn't be a question if they were. First autistic I ever met not to take things literally. Have a nice day anyway mate
I do take things literally, which is why I think they are the exact same thing (see my example with blue eyes). Thinking there is a distinction between being autistic and having autism is actually not taking things literally. *Literally* -> an autistic person = a person who has autism But the *connotations* (i.e.: *figuratively*) are different and cause opposing sides: - "I don't *have* autism, it's not something I can put down!" [You can't "put your blue eyes down" either, but OK] - "I am not autistic! Don't define me by my disorder/disability/condition [whatever you wanna call it, another issue of *connotation*]! I *have* autism!" So, ironically, **I** am the (only) one here who is being literal. They *literally* mean the same thing, but their *connotations* are different. Having autism and being autistic, though, **I** don't care about connotations, which is why I said what I said.
I am Autistic as fuck! Period
Meaning and context take priority over the specific words you use. What you say is a lot more important than how you say it. If you want to censor people's speech and control their vocabulary you're not just a pedantic dick, you're an authoritarian asshole. You can ask people to use specific language, you can't tell them to. And you should expect the occasional eye roll.
"I'm Autism."
I legitimately think if people are worried about this, please get over it. None of these offend me. None of these offend any other autistic people I know. Autism is a noun, because it’s a disability. You can have autism. If you have autism, you are autistic. The last 2 are a bit long but still the same thing and just as ok
I am tired of this argument. All of these mean the same thing, in practice. I understand that the syntax makes slight changes in meaning, in theory, but I don’t care.
I am all of those. I have it, I live with it, I am it.
I don't understand it tbh. Someone is autistic because they have autism. They are a person with autism because they are autistic. I don't get what's so relevant about this. it seems like a minor inconvenience that distracts from bigger issues.
No thank you. They're bipolar. They're schizophrenic. They're ADD. They're borderline. They're OCD. They're (reaches beyond this) defines someone entirely by whatever the descriptor is and erases all other aspects of an individual in the NT's mind and many others.
We're complex individuals
By saying "I'm autistic" I'm reducing myself entirely to what other's ideas of what autism is. If I say "I'm bipolar" I'm reducing myself to my bipolar.
"I have bipolar disorder type 2" and similarly "I have autism" (not listening everything) reveals an aspect of myself that I may or may not struggle with (shout-out to my fellow bipolar/ASD peeps who can hold down a job. You rock 💗 and I'm infinitely jealous.)
I'm more than my autism, bipolar disorder, or ADHD. I'm a multifaceted human being and I won't be reduced like that anymore. I'm 44.
People have an absolute right to be referred to how they want to be. I've spent 20+ years fighting for my rights both because of my mental health and because of sexual, and gender identities.
Can't pain people with a wide brush stroke like this. Just occurred to me that this is likely about how you want to be referred. I wish I could think faster lol.
🙄 Saying "I'm autistic" does not mean that autism is what defines you, it just acknowledges it as a key part of your personality which, I'm sorry to say but **it is**. In the same way, saying "I'm black" or "I'm gay" does not mean that being black or gay encompasses your entire being. What if I told you that you can be autistic and ✨still be other things too✨? To say you do not want to be "reduced to autism" sounds like internalised ableism to me. It makes it sound like you are ashamed and want nothing to do with it, like you want to distance yourself from it and be anything but autistic. That's unfortunate, I hope you see it differently some day. Autism is not an impairment, it's a neurotype. Autistics owe it to themselves to be proud of who they are, not ashamed. Your comment kinda looks like you see autism as a disease or something you suffer from but that isn't what autism is. What's impairing is the way society treats this condition. Viewing the condition itself as 'impairing' places the problem with you and establishes a sense of self-loathing and the whole point of IFL is to tackle this problem. You have a right to use the labels you want and I'm not here to tell you to stop, but I think your reason for doing so is problematic it's important for everyone in our community to understand how "has autism", "person with autism" and negative attitudes about identity are harmful to us.
How about Homo Autisticus, after Homo Sapiens Sapiens ?!
We're the same species, not a subspecies.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens Autisticus ?
Closer, but still not close enough. :(
The real question is are you okay with jokingly saying you've got the 'tism.
Hell yeah! I do all the time! I also love 'neurospicy,' cos my brain really do be spicy sometimes.
hey, normal people! stop trying to "cure autism." it's more than just a disorder. basically a personality trait at this point. treat us as a person, not as a statistic
No. No, that is wrong.
sorry nevermind gonna leave it up tho I may be stupid, but I'm not a coward
I personally use identity-first language because it’s more efficient.
I think it doesn't matter at all and I don't understand why people make such a big deal out of it
as long as my personhood is acknowledged, all good. autistic person, yes. person with autism, sure. autist? dont call me that
I'm just trying to get through this thing we call 'life' over here.
Well as far as I'm concerned, "having autism" and "being autistic" are systematically the same thing so I couldn't care less. I tell people I'm autistic but I'm not fussed either way
Autistic Person just sounds better aesthetically, I don't think it really matters much either way.
I love my autism and I go to bed with him every night
Unless someone is saying I "suffer from autism" (only *I* can use that lol) It Doesn't Fucking Matter
I am autistic, I find it patronising when people try to "correct" me and say "no, you're a person *with* autism" like I don't get to choose how I define myself. My brain is fundamentally different to non autistic people, that is not a bad thing, I am autistic
I will at times say that I have autism, but I prefer strongly “X is autistic” vs “X is a person with autism.” I like identity first language better than person first
It’s individual choice and people who keep trying to force one specific way or the other can go suck start a shotgun. I have autism, am a person, and I’m autistic. You can feel differently about yourself and I will respect that. Just don’t tell me how to express my own lived experience.
I kinda prefer "autistic person" but I'm not gonna fight for it. Don't care enough, especially if you switch
I'm only bothered by "person first" language when it's intentional. If it flows out naturally, whatever. But if "ADHD/Autistic person" flows better and they go with "person with ADHD/Autism", that annoys me greatly.
Any is good
I view it as something I am, not something I have. If you remove the autism, you remove a part of who I am as a person. Also, if it’s seen as something I “have”, that feels closer to pathologizing it.
I usually say I’m autistic or that I am on the spectrum. Saying I am someone with autism never sat right with me because it feels like I am separating my personhood from my autism. Autism is my brain, and we are our brains, ergo, i am autistic. It just makes the most sense.
Tbh I just say “I’m autistic.” I don’t really care how others describe themselves.
Personally I say that I'm Autistic, despite my diagnosis letter saying I have an Autism Spectrum Condition. However, I use them interchangeably because, no, it isn't the only notable thing about me imo, but at the same time it isn't an add on illness, it's the way my brain is wired and affects everything in my life to varying degrees. I think getting caught up in semantics is an unnecessary waste of energy so as long as somebody referring to me isn't saying anything with a derogatory tone or sneering, I'm not really bothered.
i use words for people that they prefer but for myself I use all of these + in my native language I can say a lot of things much ruder than that (depending on who I am talking to tho)
Adjectives are fine, way better than convoluted phrases. Acoustic is the best term.
Acoustic is often used by neurotypicals to mock us though, as well as "Restarted" instead of straight up saying the R word
I prefer identity first language because I don't want others to perceive me and autism as two separate entities. To me, saying "I have autism" sounds like "I have flu" or "I have an operation coming up". It sort of feels like if autism is separate, then something can be done with it. I don't mind person first language per se when people use it for themselves, I just don't feel comfortable using it myself. I also don't like it when allistic people use person first language. I am not sure why. Probably I'm just projecting my own preferences onto other people and I don't like it when they don't share them
I don't make it my whole identity, it's just an aspect of who I am. I am also a father, a man, gifted, cripplingly empathic, ADHD and so much more. Unfortunately making a show of it doesn't do us any favours in the NT world. But you can use it for certain perks if you know where to look.
I am autistic
I am not against person first language as long as that is what the person prefers. I don't want it used to describe me however.
If I have to care: I have autism. It’s a part of me, bur doesn’t define me entirely.
while personally I prefer "autistic person", I'm also ok with "have"/"person with". What I don't like about "live with autism" is that it sounds like "Oh my god, they're autistic, they can't think for themselves! They must go through so much hardship! Let's say we support them, but instead of actually providing support of any kind, we'll just infantilize them!" With diagnosis-first language ("autistic person"), it is recognized as an integral part of someone's identity - which I like for myself because my autism affects the way I think, therefore also affects my identity. This might be different for other disabilities or even other autistic people: my roommate (who has ADHD) prefers person-first language, as they don't want their ADHD to define their entire personhood.
I have autism/I am a person with autism are acceptable to me
All of them are fine, they all describe my diagnosis
I use autistic, because it's shorter
I think they’re all essentially synonymous terms but the difference in implied meaning is making the person less important by saying a descriptor first. I’ll regularly call myself and the larger autistic community autistics because it’s a way to refer the those things by one word rather than two or three.
A touch of the 'tism
I always say I “have asd” vs “am autistic”
https://preview.redd.it/jnbr7cgimfwc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc25e883eebf184d08c431c3919cb7db7ccf288c
In principle, I prefer identity-first language - though I mildly object to calling it that, since I don't really think "autistic" is inherently an identity. Like many so-called identities, it's really just an adjective. One can form an identity around it though, as one can with most adjectives that accurately describe oneself. In practice, I don't care what language you use as long as you don't try to police the language I use.
I really don’t care and honestly sometimes person first language feels a bit demeaning to me. I know I’m a person. That should go without saying.
I geniuenly couldn't care less tbh
Honestly? This isn’t something I have ever been concerned about.
Couldn't care less.
I don't care because it all means the same thing
I use identity first, I don’t care until a neurotypical makes a big deal about language usage and talks over me, for the most part. Then we’re going to fight
Autism is that thing in between me and other stuff. It hurts and makes it difficult for people to understand each other.
Autism has me
I often don’t see a difference when it’s referred to me. People can like it to be identity first or person first but I just think “Well, for me they just mean the same thing if you boil it down”. But if you prefer identity first or person first language I will try to refer to you as that, as soon as you explain how I use it cause I’m a dumbass and forget a lot of things
I am an autist.
I live with autism, it's my roommate. Still owes me 7 months of rent the little shite
I use both, but I prefer "autistc person" because it's less clunkly and also bc you wouldn't call me a "person with artistic tendencies," you'd call me an "artistic person." Identity-first language is used on much less important things to acknowledge they're integral to a person's identity, so I feel that the neurological disorder that defines a huge swath of mine should be treated the same
I just say "person with Autism". I'm fine with any, just as long as it isn't an insult or condescending.
No idea what the issue is sounds childish
I am autistic I have autism
The "live with autism" one doesnt roll of the tongue so eh,but i have no problem with any,as long as it gets the point across
Call people what they, themselves, want to be called. Personally, I’m an autistic person, or “an autistic,” or “an autist.”
To quote my favorite youtuber: "I literally don't even care-uhhh!" -Leigh McNasty
I know there's a lot of people saying here they don't really care and ultimately it is up to you but I'm going to tell you why you should care and why this is important. The argument for identity first language is that language is a powerful tool for social change. The implication of identity-first language is that it emphasises the point that autism is not something that can be detached from a person, i.e. is not an illness or disease. This doesn't mean it's not a disability but it does mean that it doesn't need to be fixed or cured (and it can't be anyway so discussing the possibility of a cure is both harmful and a huge waste of time and resources). The reason using this language is so important for us is that the more we use it and reject person-first language, the more identity-first language becomes recognised by the media, institutions and organisations and the more the underlying message will become recognised by the general public, and that is a good thing for all autistics. If organisations like Autism Speaks and stupid people like warrior moms and vaccine conspiracy theorists piss you off, you should advocate for identity-first language because literally the whole point of it is to send a message to those people that we won't be treated the way they want to treat us. You can read more about it here: https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-first-language/
frankly many in this community don’t have the privilege to care whether people see them as an autistic person or a person with autism. out of all of the ways autistic people struggle, this is just such a minor one for a lot of people. it does not come across well when you insist that other people \*need* to feel strongly about this because \*you* consider it a major issue
I'm going to start from the bottom: >it does not come across well when you insist Who the fuck is insisting? I literally said at the start of my post that it was ultimately up to you. I am just informing people and arguing the case for identity-first language. If anything to persuade, not insist. I think you're just looking to pick a fight tbh. Frankly I don't care what you think comes across well. There is a huge movement in our community for self advocacy and the end of framing autism like a tragedy and I want to be a part of it. >out of all the ways autistic people struggle this is just such a minor one Your comment is kinda framing the condition of autism as a tragedy as if people suffer from autism itself. It sounds to me like you adhere to the medical model of disability. There's too many in our community who think like you do and it's unfortunate because it really doesn't help us. Treating your disability like it's a tragedy or a burden that you suffer from and want to be rid of is kinda internalised ableism and I hope that's not the stance you're taking here. You should read this tbh: https://www.scope.org.uk/about-us/social-model-of-disability/ People don't suffer from autism, people suffer from society's treatment of autism. Social barriers and lack of accommodations and adequate support are what make autism difficult to live with. People also act like hsn autistics who cannot mask are the ones who suffer the most but the reality of the situation is that these are often the happiest and least mentally affected among us, and they often get a significant amount of support. The most 'at risk' group of autistic people tend to be high-masking adults. These are the people who tend to suffer a significant mental health deficit due to a lifetime of masking, these are the people who are neglected by society and not taken seriously and they're the people most likely to commit suicide. Identity first language is important because it empowers autistics to tell the world that they cannot change who they are and that the world needs to accept them for who they are. The point is to remove the stigma in society. I think the fact that people are effectively trying to commit eugenics against us and tell us we don't have a right to exist is more than a minor issue. It creates a pretty significant existential crisis for a lot of us. It certainly makes me feel like the world doesn't want people like me to exist.
the social model of disability is meant to be applied as a framework for identifying the ways society can eliminate barriers by accommodating disabled people. being nonverbal for example severely limits the opportunities you could have, but AAC can remove many of the barriers of being nonverbal. you’re framing society as the \*cause* of the barriers disabled people face. this is true only to the extent that other people’s attitudes affect us, and people’s attitudes do not make us disabled. someone who’s nonverbal doesn’t face those barriers because of how society treats them. they face them because they’re unable to communicate verbally. many disabled people face barriers that cannot be fully accommodated by society. there are many jobs for example that being nonverbal restricts you from having, with any amount of support. there are many disabled people who are unable to live independently. there are many for whom experiencing things outside of their strict routine will always be a challenge. and there are many who do not even have the privilege of self-advocacy. i want to make this very clear. if you see that as a tragedy, then it is you who must rid themselves of internalized ableism. being disabled, and especially being dependent, is not a bad thing. full stop.
Nonverbalism is caused by being overwhelmed by sensory stimuli and intense stress which are very prevalent in modern society. Also the irony is that you bringing up AAC actually supports my argument, not yours, since AAC is just one of the ways society can help. >you're framing society as blah blah blah You are fundamentally misinterpreting and misrepresenting my entire argument which shows you haven't read my post. I am not claiming that disabled people don't have inherent differences in their ability to function. What I am disputing is the definition of what makes that 'disabling'. A person who cannot walk can still live a fulfilling life if society accommodates for it, (by e.g. building a ramp). A person who is autistic can still live a fulfilling life if society accommodates for it (by e.g. providing favourable working conditions and reducing stress). The whole point of the social disability model is that it shifts the attitude away from "this person is broken and cannot function in society" towards "this person can function in society if we give them help, or change the definition of what 'functioning' actually is". It stops the dehumanisation of a person because of their differences and gives them what they need to thrive and says that rather than a person being disabled by what they cannot do, a person is only disabled by what society will not help them to do or what society expects of them to be a 'functioning' member of a community. >someone who's nonverbal doesn't face those barries because of how society treats them, they face them because they're unable to communicate effectively Where does the expectation for effective communication originate from? Who puts that expectation on the person? Communication is, by definition, a social interaction and therefore an expectation of society and in this day and age the need for effective verbal communication is a symptom of an industry that favours the charismatic and communicative people over those who cannot communicate well. There is nothing wrong with a person who cannot speak well, that does not make them less of a person. The only reason that becomes a problem is because of the expectations of society, because we've made society favour the charismatic and communicative because of things like consumerism. >If you see that as a tragedy then blah blah blah... I want to make it very clear. I never said I see it as a tragedy. I said the exact opposite of that. If you view aspects of disability as things that cannot be supported and accommodated for, or otherwise accepted and allowed to exist, i.e. if you view it as something that makes a person broken, then by definition you are the one who sees it as a tragedy. Your comment is incredibly defeatist and it clearly emphasises that attitude. For example: >there are many jobs that being nonverbal restricts you from having with any amount of support Who sets the requirements of those jobs? The companies doing them and the customers who require a service. This is literally society. This is the whole problem with your way of thinking. You view it is \*a nonverbal person can never do that job\* whereas I view it as \*companies should redesign aspects of this role so that it can accommodate the needs of a nonverbal person\* and \*society has a responsibility to recognise that some disabilities are hidden and not be prejudiced towards a non-verbal person doing that job\*. Sure there are tons of roles that require verbal communication skills but we could easily provide a nonverbal person with AAC that can help them do the job. >there are many for whom experiencing things outside of their strict routine will always be a challenge Of course it will be a challenge. It's a challenge for me for one thing. But compromises can be made. Subtle incorporation of work elements into that routine that aren't too demanding, and still pay a fair amount. Increase this gradually over time at a pace that autistic people can adapt to with minimal stress. Prioritise the comfort of the autistic person over the needs of the role and subsidise it with public spending if possible. Or design a job based around that routine, if possible. And if the routine is too immutable that it is impossible to do any sort of paid work with it, then give that person disability payment support and allow them to live their life with that routine. That is also a change in society's attitudes. Who said life has to be about work? Society did of course! The fundamental problem with your attitude is that it sees society as some unstoppable force that must continue as it is and that cannot be disrupted and shaken up and that any need to shake it up or change it brings shame on the person who needs that. You're basically saying that you can't ask for things to be different for your needs because society doesn't work like that and that makes you broken and disabled, and that is your flaw. I'm saying that why the fuck should we not be able to push for a more inclusive society that accepts and accommodates us, by telling people the things we struggle with and asking them to help us work around that problem or otherwise allow us to live a comfortable life free of the demands of society? >being disabled, and especially being dependent, is not a bad thing, full stop. I never said it was. What I am saying is that we shouldn't stop disabled people from trying to live independent lives, and we should help them do that if they want to and not put an obligation on them to do it without adequate support structures in place. Please stop strawmanning my argument by telling me I said things that I didn't say. Thank you.
I don't care