Thursday, 03 December 2009
-
ASD terminology: "Autistic" vs "Individual with Autism"
What’s in a name? Apparently, everything, if you are a person with an autism or Asperger’s Syndrome diagnosis. At issue is whether or not to use ‘autistic’ as an adjective or to keep the traditional PeopleFirst language of an ‘individual with autism.’ The reasoning for both have great merit.PeopleFirst fans would claim that a person would never call an individual with cancer a ‘cancerous’ person, so why wouldn’t the diagnosis always be listed last? Thus, a person with a cognitive disability or a person with a cold or a person with an autism spectrum disorder deserves the same respect by placing the name of the individual first.
To their credit, the neuro-diversitivists who prefer the term ‘autistic’ agree that PeopleFirst language is courteous and respectful for persons with significant disabilities. However, many neuro-diversitivists, particularly those with high-functioning autism or Asperger’s Syndrome, prefer the term ‘autistic’ because they believe that their differences are strengths, and are not related to a disorder. Further, they would like to see Asperger’s removed from the DSM-IV classifications for autism spectrum disorders, because of the societal stigma, misunderstanding and discrimination that is generated by the diagnosis.
On a personal level, my son doesn’t like to be called ‘autistic’ or ‘a child with autism,’ but he doesn’t mind using the term autism to explain his differences. My adult Asperger friends prefer the term autistic. As a writer, an advocate, a friend and a mother, I’m stuck. I want to respect everyone, and I care deeply about their feelings, but I’m not exactly sure what to do. PeopleFirst language can be unwieldy, so it is easier to use the adjective when writing, but for all the individuals who have worked their tails off to remove the R word from government organizations and to implement PeopleFirst language, I feel like a traitor for abandoning it.
Recently, I saw a wonderful brochure about people with disabilities finding ‘real jobs’ in our state. The term ‘autism’ was never used. Instead, the individual was described as having a ‘learning disability.’ I think the authors were on to something. Perhaps when we talk about challenges, we could be much more specific, such as an individual with special sensory needs or speech or social delays. (Or in my case, as I sit here with a sprained ankle, perhaps individuals with balance issues! ) Kudos to the state of Missouri Planning Council for Developmental Disabilities for creating a humane, respectful and much more descriptive solution.
But more importantly, I think we need to do a much better job of recognizing and celebrating an autistic person’s strengths. Our kids, our friends, our colleagues and our relatives with autism diagnoses have abilities — attention to detail, memory, creativity, musical, artistic, mathematical and other skills — that are enviable, admirable and valuable to society.
Post a Comment
- Back to autisable's Autisable Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in autisable's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)

Recommend


Comments (13)
As a person with Asperger's, neither term bugs me. It's who I am, and if I can't embrace that, I'm not a very strong, self-worthy person to begin with.
Just my $0.02
I understand the reasoning behind the PC terminology, but I think it's unnecessary.
from a technical perspective, "autistic" is shorter and therefore superior.
A cancerous (also the technically superior term) person just has cancer. It's a temporary state. They'll be cured or they'll die. The cancer is wholly seperable from the person.
Autism isn't like cancer. It's not something you contract or something you can recover from. It's who you are. You wouldn't refer to a homosexual as a "person with homosexuality." That would be offensive (and technically inferior.)
I don't mind being referred to as a person with Asperger's. If someone was referring to me as a person with a learning disability, I'd be bothered I think. They might think it means retarded or something along those lines when that's not really what it is.
Hello
This is really a good post and I do agree with it that a person would never call an individual with any of disease.You have well written that last paragraph and I also believe it.People should really understand about it.
I wrote a similar piece back in October pondering the terminology but also some of the wider implications as they tie into current genetic research and the possible development of a genetic test for autism. This is definitely a tricky issue and one I haven't broached with my 7-year old son whose official diagnosis is the catchall, PDD-NOS, though his therapists feel that he will probably settle out as Aspergian. That conversation is one that's on my radar for sometime in the next 2-3 years as he becomes more aware of his difference.
One thing that concerns me about the push to remove Asperger's from the DSM-IV is that right now, many states tie their funding for support services to an autism spectrum diagnosis. If Asperger's is removed from the DSM-IV, what does that mean for kids currently receiving very needed services to help them learn life and coping skills through state and school-district based programs? If Asperger's were to be removed from the DSM-IV, I think that alternate provision would need to be made to ensure continuity of services and allocation of dollars so that families and children in need of the support wouldn't lose it by striking Asperger's from the classification.
All I have to say is that I have Tourette's and find the term "Ticker" to be my favorite. :)
really seems like people worry too much about the labels. while there will always be connotations attached to words, its more important that you have the label so you can get across who exactly the fuck youre talking about. i personally like the word system much better than a numerical system when it comes to human identification.
I think people just shouldnt focus on labels.
You wouldnt call a black person "a person with increased melanin" :l
People are just people, not labels, and words shouldn't take such importance.
I heard this tossed about a few months back. It was talking about people with diabetes. Medical workers prefer to call them "People with diabetes" and not just "Diabetic." They say that describes them as humans who have a particular medical condition and not:just stuck with a label.
Well... there are asthmatics, diabetics, -phobics...
@ilenaholder@xanga - I haven't heard that. Maybe medical workers will talk like that to lay people, but among each other... labeling is sometimes done. We like to keep things short and simple. For example, "The CVA (cerebrovascular accident) in room 10" for a stroke patient or "The SOB (shortness of breath) in room 5" for someone with difficulty breathing.
I think it's absolutely feasible. I suffer from depression, but I would never say "I'm depressed" just like a person suffering from anorexia nervosa (likely) wouldn't refer to his or herself as "I'm anorexic". If it's relevant to say, then "I have autism" makes a lot more sense than "I'm autistic".
@scruth@xanga - And I say this because the disorder, illness, or what have you is not the person. It's a facet of the person, but not what defines the human being as a stand-alone type of deal.