What is the politically correct term for severe autism?

[Lecka]

Thanks, Daria.

 

Good points about age equivalencies.

[luuknam]

My daughter's medical conditions are NOT her identity. They are things she HAS, not things she IS.

 

I really don't know how many autistic people you need to tell you that they prefer 'autistic' rather than "person with autism" before you'll cease being a person with an unwillingness to comprehend and become an understanding person instead.

[Daria]

That's an acceptable rule when the person in question cannot express a preference, but if they can, then their preference is what counts - not their parents'. I know we all think we know that, but sometimes it's easy to forget.

 

 

Thank you so much for saying this.  

 

I'll add that if someone cannot express a preference, we need to ask

 

1) Is that, in fact, we aren't adept enough at listening or paying attention to be able to comprehend what they're expressing?

 

2) How we can help them express their own preference?

 

before we default to accepting the preferences of others in their place.  I work with some students with either no or very limited spoken language, sometimes combined with severe receptive language challenges, so I know that determining people's preferences is not always easy, but it needs to be a high priority.

[chocolatechip]

I hate, hate, HATE the term "autistic". You wouldn't use the terms "Multiple Sclerotic" or "Cerebral Palsic" to describe someone with those neurological disorders so it is offensive to me to use the term "autistic" to describe my child's neurological disorder.

 

While I would of course defer to the personal preferences of each individual, it gets confusing. 

 

My cousin is blind. She would never say she "has blindness" or "has vision impairment". Blind gets the point across. Same with deaf.

 

Another example: diabetes. Though you can say "has diabetes" plenty of people opt to just say "I'm diabetic." What about "dyslexic"? I hear that more often than "has dyslexia".

 

If you think about it we identify ourselves like this all the time: "My daughter is a redhead" not "my daughter has red hair" though it could easily go that way as well. I mean, she's not LITERALLY her red hair. But that's a convention of speech to describe her having red hair.

Edited January 31, 2017 by chocolatechip

[Seeking Squirrels]

I often use identity first language and see no real problem with it. We use identity first language all the time, it doesn't mean it is one's *sole* identity. If someone asks why DD isn't present I may say "She's sick", I don't say "She has an illness". Right now, I'm cold. I am not a person feeling temperatures below comfort level. 

 

 

I think severe autism works.  I'm baffled by "slightly autistic" (heard that one recently), but I understand "severe autism". 

 

I have used this term before in a way. "....she seems slightly autistic." DDs dxes add up to look a lot like HFA, but the psychologist did not give her that dx. On the few occasions it's come up that I'm discussing DD, there can be a pause after her dx as they try to think what that "looks" like, so I will add this and it seems to help pull it together for them. Even the psychologist said that yes, she presents as though she has HFA, but because she feels each individual dx has it's own root cause and can be helped (and in some cases overcome), that it is not ASD. (For curiosity sake if anyone cares, she has ADHD, SPD, GAD, SCD, and an expressive language delay)

[Guest]

Well, I learned something.  This isn't settled.  I didn't know that.  So basically, it's the same thing you do in a lot of other situations:  if it is personal, you adhere to the person's wishes.  If you're just talking, or if the person has not expressed a preference, do the best you can to speak kindly (whatever terms you use) about people.  

 

I appreciate those who contributed because believe it or not, this was clarifying for me.

 

In this and in so many other cases, I think it would do the world a lot of good to assume that decent people are doing the best they can, not trying to be offensive, and give people the benefit of that assumption.  

 

 

 

[Tanaqui]

Well, I learned something. This isn't settled. I didn't know that. So basically, it's the same thing you do in a lot of other situations: if it is personal, you adhere to the person's wishes. If you're just talking, or if the person has not expressed a preference, do the best you can to speak kindly (whatever terms you use) about people.

 

Exactly. And, seriously - 99% of the time, I don't care all that much. I prefer "autistic", but if you use that other terminology in any conversation other than one about the terminology, I won't jump in and correct you, because OMG HOW RUDE. I've had that happen to me - I review a book with an autistic character, or I type up a long comment about how autism affects *me* personally - and then a top-level reply is "Don't you mean person with autism?" No. I do not mean that. If I had meant that, I would have said that, and if you're so fond of putting the person first then maybe you can put my personhood first and ask yourself if your comment is really necessary. (And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why, when I do express an opinion on this subject, I can be so vehement. Seriously, when this happens to me, I see red.)

 

But I really can't stand people acting like PFL is God's gift to human discourse. It just ain't.