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 thought you probably were Polter, but on first reading it did strike me differently. It all depends on context too.

I am going to have to bow out at this point, I'm supposed to be studying tonight and am not getting a lot done. You have all given me food for thought, thank you.

Probably sticking a hefty foot in it because I haven't read all the thread, just the first two pages, but our preference is to use 'is autistic' rather than 'has autism', because autism isn't something he 'has' like measles; it is a fundamental part of who he is. There isn't a non-autistic son hiding away underneath who would be there if only we could remove the aspergers. Autism is part of his personality and all through him to the core. At work I have to use 'has autism' because politically correct is to use 'person first' but it does grate on me a bit. I don't like 'that autistic boy' or even worse 'that autistic', but I view those as different. I'm not defining him by his condition by saying he is autistic, I am accepting (in my head) that autism is not what he has, it is who he is. I hope I make sense..! You wouldn't say a gay person 'has homosexuality', you would say 'he is gay', because it is accepted (mostly) as a neutral character trait, and whilst it causes DS many issues it also confers advantages to him to be an aspie. I don't regard it as wholly negative.

On the other hand, he 'has selective mutism', because that is an add on, that could be changed and altered and would make a massive positive difference if we could get rid of it. I wouldn't say he 'is a selective mute' because it isn't fixed and immutable. him being autistic is (though of course the manifestation of that autism may change over time).

Ohh, that was a well written post IlikeMySleep I completely get what you are saying. Now I am confused again. .

Well, I have read a bit more of the thread and it looks like it has got a bit scratchy, my apols, just expressing our preference. I wouldn't berate any other family for the terminiology they use, just explaining why we use the language that we choose.

ilikemysleep, I agree with all you have said there, that is very much my take on things too.

zzzzz, yes I do think it is interesting to discuss. I would never expect everyone to agree either!

Going back to the original post, to put the cat amongst the pigeons, I don't really like '3 autistic children', because that is defining a child autism first. But I don't like '3 children who have autistic spectrum disorder' either, because it is not an 'add on' to them. I would write '3 children who are on the autism spectrum' myself

and actually, polter, now I think about it I do tend to say DS 'is on the autism spectrum' rather than 'is autistic' because, well, its a bit gentler I suppose.

Semantics, tricky blighters.

It is absolutely wrong to say I don't feel that people with autism shouldn't have their views respected. Very, very wrong.

However I do strongly feel that they cannot necessarily speak for my own son. Who is largely non verbal and at the 'lower functioning' end of the spectrum. I hear people like Temple Grandin speak, and she may as well have a completely different condition to my son. Little of what she says resonates with our particular experience of autism. Yet because she is articulate and 'high functioning' (for want of a better term) some would presume she can speak for and on behalf of people like my boy, a spokesperson for 'the autistic experience' as it were.

That is what I was trying to say

I am only speaking for myself, not trying to do so for anyone else. I don't mean to bruise anyone personally, I am just trying to understand why is this so sensitive and emotive and why are people so determined to build fences between word.

The problem with insisting that one expression is offensive and the other is better has repercussions to other people on the spectrum, because it does talk for them indirectly.

To depersonalise, is the problem with the description of autism? I never heard anyone identifying with it, everybody says their DC [or themselves] are nothing like the description, be they high or not so high functioning.

Why does one want to make a distinction that DD is clever and funny on one side and is autistic on the other? What does it mean for other autistic people ? can they be clever and funny?

For me there is a tension between the idea that

"because autism isn't something he 'has' like measles; it is a fundamental part of who he is. There isn't a non-autistic son hiding away underneath who would be there if only we could remove the aspergers."
and
the idea that autism is just a facet of a person and not all that she is.

To me insisting that there is a ?non-autistic? part to people ?with autism? and an autistic part is rejecting this autistic part. It degrades people on the spectrum as second rank individuals.

For me rather then discussing which word hurts less, it might be worth discussing why does it hurt.

Good morning to everyone :)

It is not a fight indeed. We are discussing profound issues.

If it's not emotional and sensitive, why is the OP question what it is and why are there 121 posts, even now early in the morning?