What do you think - 'autistic child' or a child 'with autism'?

[everynameistaken]

Not posted for a while. But just asking this as I sometimes come accross this at work. I prefer to say thay my DS has autism rather than DS is autistic.

Taking over some work from a colleague and all over the paperwork is says 3 autistic children and it kind of gets my back up a bit. I want to start as I mean to go on and say 3 children with autistic spectrum disorder.

Without sounding too AIBU, am I being unreasonable??

Am I overthinking this? Is it just me it upsets?

I agree with lots of ArthurPewtys points.

I always used to think child first, but speaking to and reading the views of older teens and young adults with autism made me think more on it, I have read lots of strong arguments for saying 'is autistic' some saying it is more about a positive 'identity' than an 'add on' describing a negative condition, I also think it depends who is saying it.

If someone with autism wants to say 'I am autistic' then how can that be wrong?

If I hear someone else talking about my child my ears are quite possibly in defence mode and I don't want to hear anything perjorative or negative, but when it comes down to how my child himself chooses to identify, it's his call. We have discussed the pros and cons for both ways of saying it. He and I in different scenarios have said both.

This is about context. Referring to DS generally as "the autistic boy" if the context doesn't require it is indeed offensive because it emphasizes just this one aspect as something that defines him and suggests this characteristic is the most important. However, describing DS as autistic or having autism in the SEN annual review in the context of the sentence can be totally appropriate and I can't see how one term could be better then the other, unless one has misgivings about the whole disability.

There was similar thread about how to use language in relation to black people but I couldn't find it, maybe anyone could post a link?
The discussion went like this: is's ok to say "black" people in the appropriate context even to identify people, for example: "the black friend of yours,that we met at the party had a lovely dress". However it is less clear why one would emphasis that the friend is black in a more general context.

emphasize. sorry

I just don't get this. I really can't see that me saying "DS is autistic" can cause offence, it's just an adjective.

It seems to me as though there are two separate issues here, one is whether the primary description is that of the autism ahead of another characteristic, eg autism or cleverness.

The second is the exact way it is said. Is it wrong to say "the clever one" instead of "the boy who is clever" too? If not, why isn't it OK for someone to describe someone as "the autistic one" instead of "the one with autism"

I was reacting to Polter's example of unease when other people's attitude transpires through the use of the word.

Ultimately the more the words "autistic", "with autism" are used in any context and any sense the better as it will further the debate and put the onus on the speaker to justify themselves.

What can possibly be not right with "I'm Autistic"?

Do you really believe autistic DC are defective and less equal or are they equal and it is the society that needs to change? This is fundamental and the attitude of the parents will shape the self concept of autistic children.

but for me someone saying "I'm Autistic" having autism it doesn't make it right purely by virtue of them having that disability. In the same way I find the "I can use racist terms because I am not white", frankly odd

I get your point but I don't think it is even remotely the same.

I don't agree with the notion of black people 'reclaiming' the N word either [it was never theirs in the first place!] but I don't think that can be compared to saying 'Im autistic'

I would say that it is right purely by virtue of them having that disability. Because why should someone else get to deem what is right when they are not autistic?

I don't know, I just think everyone should listen more to what the people concerned actually want, rather than deciding what they should be called and criticising/saying they are wrong, if they choose otherwise?

I think it is down to the individual if they are capable of making that choice of course and not the place of parents of children with autism to decide, though I of course understand why it can be an important issue for some parents.

Sorry, I know you weren't saying they were the same, just how you feel about the argument.

Thanks Arthur.

When you describe a child with autism, you are giving personification to the autism, giving it entity and completeness, as if it is an additional thing, not a part of the child

Yes. That's the bit that doesn't sit right with me.

My son said to me that saying 'has autism' reminds him of 'has cancer' and that as autism won't kill him, isn't an illness and can't be cured then it doesn't make sense to him.

If he is happy to say 'I am autistic' then I'm happy with that, I want him to be as happy and proud of himself as possible, if him viewing it that way enables him to see it in a positive way and something that now and as an adult he can state without any shame or embarrassment, then even better.

It's not really something I've actually given a lot of thought to really. I usually just say DD is autistic, or DD has ASD. I suppose if someone referred to her as "that autistic child" then I wouldn't like it, so far haven't come across anyone who has though.

Thank you!

this is interesting thread, making me think... I think I tend to say 'has autism', but don't have a problem with 'is autistic' . So I am comfy with 'name' has autism, or 'name' is autistic, for ds but I am not ok with "oh yes I know 'name' he is the autistic child" as that seems to limit the definiton of ds to only his autism, it is a factor of who he is, but not the only one.

OK, so no clear cut answer for me.

I think the thing is they are children 'on paper' at work, so they are being described as 'the autistic children' as a way of differentiating them.

My colleague who I'm now working with has started calling them "my liddle (gender of children)" in a silly voice which has made me even more

Even if only a minority of people with ASDs don't like being described as 'autistic' we have to respect that.

This implies that being autistic should be invisible, is something to be shy of. That would be denying self respect to all those who do not accept that.

Or do you mean some people on the spectrum are almost "normal" , "indistinguishable", so they don't want to be counted with the autistic lot?

Please do explain what is the logical implication of not liking to be described as 'autistic' in an appropriate context, because I don't understand.

I always say my son has autism. Never that he is autistic.

I don't think it compares in the slightest with diabetes. But incidentally I say my mother has diabetes, not that she is a diabetic. I wouldn't reduce either of my loved ones to a condition.

If people with ASD or any other conditions can speak for themselves that's all well and good and they can choose whatever the hell they want to be called. But I don't accept that they can speak for my son