Re: What is the 'PC way to refer to those on the spectrum?

[Guest guest]

This exact subject recently came up on a parenting list that I finally got

sick of. The parents were all talking about how offended they get when

somebody calls their child " autistic " , and prefer to only say " he has

autism. " Like there's really a difference. It's like making a big deal out

of differentiating between " she's blonde " and " she has blonde hair. " Or

like the term " visually impaired. " My husband is blind, dammit, not

" visually impaired, " and he hates that PC BS. All these people who think

the language matters so much never bother to ask the actual disabled people

how *we* feel about it, do they?

Elayne

http://www.huntfamilyhome.net

" The government thinks you're an idiot. " -- Radley Balko,

www.theagitator.com

[Guest guest]

Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> ...I'm getting chewed on about this in another list,because of my use of

> the term 'autistics'. basically,it isn't on some PC list terminology,and

> frankly,I'm way too tired and stressed to give a turkey if it is PC or not.

> Has anyone else ever heard of this being fussed over?

>

> Here is a snip from one of the post...

> " As a friend on this list serve, I'm sending you some

> info on a website with wonderful guidelines on writing

> and reporting about people with disabilities (using

> " people first " language. I've found that it makes a

> tremendous difference when teaching staff and the

> community. The website is below:

>

> http://www.lsi.ku.edu/lsi/internal/guidelines.html

>

> I find it offensive seeing people on a listserve

> related to disability issues refer to " autistics " .

> When we use terms like this, WE are the ones

> dehumanizing people. "

Someone has their head up their ass, and it isn't you.

Person-first language is used by people who want to pretend that autism

is a disease instead of a difference. Don't let this person intimidate

you. Tell them they can't tell you what you're going to refer to

yoruself as.

I'm an autistic, not a person with autism. Person-first language chaps

my ass.

Griff

--

.... " There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a

longer shelf life. " - Zappa

[Guest guest]

On Nov 19, 2005, at 9:19 PM, Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> ...I'm getting chewed on about this in another list,because of my

> use of

> the term 'autistics'. basically,it isn't on some PC list

> terminology,and

> frankly,I'm way too tired and stressed to give a turkey if it is PC

> or not.

> Has anyone else ever heard of this being fussed over?

Yes, it's quite commonly fussed over.

It's a way for staff to feel that they are " more enlightened " then us

mere disabled people, as the staff use the right terms.

To be fair, some people with disabilities do prefer the people first

language. My usage guidelines are typically:

- If I am talking about a specific person, and I know their

preference, I respect it. It's not more respectful to use people

first language if someone wants to be called autistic. Instead, it

is denying them the right to call themselves what they want.

- If I'm talking about a group (autistics for instance), and I know

the term most people diagnosed as such use to refer to themselves, I

use the same term.

- If I don't know, I typically use people-first language, but I try

not to get too caught up in it one way or another. I try to be

willing to be corrected by someone with the actual disability however.

[Guest guest]

Elayne wrote:

>This exact subject recently came up on a parenting list that I finally got

>sick of. The parents were all talking about how offended they get when

>somebody calls their child " autistic " , and prefer to only say " he has

>autism. " Like there's really a difference. It's like making a big deal out

>of differentiating between " she's blonde " and " she has blonde hair. "

Sometimes there *is* a difference, I think. If the underlying

attitude is good, it doesn't matter what terms are used. But

sometimes the choice of terms tells a lot about what the underlying

attitudes are.

A child " with autism " may have a parent who wants to destroy autism,

who sees autism as a cancer, a horrible disease that has taken over

an otherwise " normal " (and therefore loveable) child. That kind of

attitude forces the child to strive to " overcome " xyr true self in

order to be seen as loveable.

A child who is autisitc is a child who can be xemself, whole, not

trying to isolate/drown those aspects (or manifestations) of xemself

that don't fit in with what's considered " normal. "

Jane

[Guest guest]

At 11:56 PM 11/19/2005, Gail & her Service Dogs wrote:

> ...one of the recent comebacks on that post is this snip:

>

> "

>

>I think *****'S point is well taken. All groups have their own,

>

>in-house terms. Like family, these terms are often none too laudatory

>

>but are okay because they are in house.

Ick.

None too laudatory? Aspie? HELLO?

Zola the Aspie who wants to be called an Aspie like she is.

INTP

Generation X

68.44181% - Geek Goddess

Right. Okay, people, you have to tell me these things, alright? I've been

frozen for 30 years, okay? Throw me a freakin bone here--Dr. Evil

[Guest guest]

Jane Meyerding wrote:

a child who can be xemself,

What the hell is an xemself? I've never seen this term before.

Red

[Guest guest]

>Jane Meyerding wrote:

> a child who can be xemself,

and Red responded:

>What the hell is an xemself? I've never seen this term before.

In another forum, it is common (though not universal) to use

genderless pronouns when appropriate (i.e., when referring to an

intersexual person or when writing about a person whose gender is not

known -- in this case, because the child is hypothetical). The three

pronouns are xe (for he/she), xem (for him/her), and xyr (for

his/hers).

Jane

[Guest guest]

> > a child who can be xemself,

>

> and Red responded:

> >What the hell is an xemself? I've never seen this term before.

>

> In another forum, it is common (though not universal) to use

> genderless pronouns when appropriate (i.e., when referring to an

> intersexual person or when writing about a person whose gender is not

> known -- in this case, because the child is hypothetical). The three

> pronouns are xe (for he/she), xem (for him/her), and xyr (for

> his/hers).

>

> Jane

>

To heck with PC. Just say what you think works

Jerry

[Guest guest]

>

> Autie, autistic, aspie...don't matter to me. And I always had a

> problem with PC. It's anti-freedom of speech.

Sure is. People today are dumb enough without dumbing them down

further with PC facism.

I would say " I'm autistic " but I am not. But how do I say the same

thing with aspergers? " I hate the term " aspie " so that is out. I don't

like saying " I have aspergers " because it sounds like I carry it around

in a suitcase and can just check it at the hotel desk if I need to act

NT for a while.

Jerry

[Guest guest]

....I used to say I have AS,but I find it much easier to just say I'm

autistic....and man,does that ever freak out Aric's IEP team!! Their whole

attitude is one of 'WHY would you say that about yourself!! And especially

since AS isn't on the spectrum! You are really sick! " they tried to argue

that since the state doesn't regard AS as on the spectrum,it isn't autism..

yeah,right! Since when has any government gotten things like that right

especially since in this case it is a differentiation made because of

funding... What bothers them the most is that I have no problem with it,and

that we teach Aric it is a strength,not something to hide or be ashamed of.

Damn them! They are so stupid-they are obsessed with making him 'fit in',and

are paranoid about him being seen as 'different'.....he IS different,for

God's sake! And what is wrong with different,I asked them....strength is in

diversity!

....sorry,now I'm back in defensive mode...too many months of fighting

Gail, Anja & Mullen,

my German Shepherd & Greyhound

Service Dogs

& Flicka the MinPin EmoSD.

DePorres Service Dog Trainers Guild

»§«.,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«

Live simply. Love generously.

Care deeply. Speak kindly.

Leave the rest to God.

-- Re: What is the 'PC " way to refer to those on

the spectrum?

>

> Autie, autistic, aspie...don't matter to me. And I always had a

> problem with PC. It's anti-freedom of speech.

Sure is. People today are dumb enough without dumbing them down

further with PC facism.

I would say " I'm autistic " but I am not. But how do I say the same

thing with aspergers? " I hate the term " aspie " so that is out. I don't

like saying " I have aspergers " because it sounds like I carry it around

in a suitcase and can just check it at the hotel desk if I need to act

NT for a while.

Jerry

[Guest guest]

> I would say " I'm autistic " but I am not. But how do I say the same

> thing with aspergers? " I hate the term " aspie " so that is out. I

> don't

> like saying " I have aspergers " because it sounds like I carry it

> around

> in a suitcase and can just check it at the hotel desk if I need to act

> NT for a while.

Once you can find me two professionals who, upon seeing a panel of

adults diagnosed with different labels on the autistic spectrum, can

agree one which ones are autistic and which ones are asperger's, I'll

believe there is a difference.

Until then I'll stick with saying " Asperger's " is simply a synonym

for " Autism " , but very context dependent and dependent upon the

biases of the person making the distinction. Once the label doesn't

need addition context, then I'll believe it's valid.

[Guest guest]

Jerry wrote:

> I would say " I'm autistic " but I am not. But how do I say the same

>thing with aspergers? " I hate the term " aspie " so that is out. I don't

>like saying " I have aspergers " because it sounds like I carry it around

>in a suitcase and can just check it at the hotel desk if I need to act

>NT for a while.

Some people say, " I'm on the autistic spectrum. " (The image in my

mind is of a person riding a rainbow. Don't know where that image

came from.) I'm not advocating the phrase (for or against), just

mentioning it as one way some people handle the " label " problem.

Jane

[Guest guest]

> ... What bothers them the most is that I have no problem with it,and

> that we teach Aric it is a strength,not something to hide or be

> ashamed of.

> Damn them! They are so stupid-they are obsessed with making him 'fit

> in',and

> are paranoid about him being seen as  'different'.....he IS

> different,for

> God's sake! And what is wrong with different,I asked them....strength

> is in

> diversity!

Bravo! I use the word " autistic " when describing myself. I try to

educate people about the spectrum, but once people associate a word

with something, which is always something narrow, as in the case of

autism, when you say you're autistic, people always think of the

" classic " definition, you know, like " Rainman " , and that's what's so

frustrating about it. They can't believe that you have autism and be

able to function just like they do. But are they seeing and

experiencing things as we are? Of course not, and to them you are

either normal or you are not, and if you aren't normal, you should do

your best to imitate what is considered normal. Because they wouldn't

have the guts to stand up and be proud of any differences they could or

do have, they think you should bury your head in the sand. too. The

human race has a tendency to want all of us to share the same religious

beliefs, the same like and dislikes, follow the same trends, reject

what is passe and call people who think " outside the box " as out to

lunch.

When you think of all the most famous thinkers and inventors in

history, how many sound autistic? (Speaking of which, has anyone seen

the special feature about Roald Dahl on the Charlie and the Chocolate

Factory DVD? He struck me as being on the spectrum...beautiful man,

nice piece about him.)

Whoops, I digress...

I've always been fascinated in evolution, have read scores of books

about it, and think about in relation to our lives. I very much

believe in the idea that autism is evolution in action, and that by and

large, autistic people are a major aspect regarding the future of the

human race, should there be a future. If we are happy with who we are

(especially so) and allowed to BE ourselves, autistic people are the

most creative, imaginative and forward thinking humans on the planet.

I always despised the sheep mentality that I see in most people.

Autism doesn't lend itself to this, outside of those that are trying to

be NT. It's like evolution is trying to veer us away from the herd

mentality for the sake of the race as a whole. It works for wolves and

sheep, but for people it seems to always get in the way of real

progress. If this herd mentality doesn't get tamed down, how is it

we're ever going to evolve where we no longer have wars over every

little thing? The population is exploding. If we don't learn how to

cooperate soon, it's all going to go to hell. And if autistic people

don't get the recognition and acceptance we deserve, I'm afraid

evolution's going to be thwarted by the herd, resulting in

de-evolution, when it could have been a beautiful thing...

Okay, now it was my turn to rant. And to dream a little...

Ultimately, I'm so very happy to know who I am, to hell with those that

remain unenlightened or who can't accept differences or new information

that appears contrary to what they've been taught. People who don't

accept others most often can't accept themselves either. I've never

been allowed in any of their " clicks " , not that I'd ever want to be. I

much prefer being me. It's so VERY uncomfortable for me to try and

become one the the " crowd " . Just makes me feel all icky. So as a

consequence, I didn't have that many friends as a kid, at times none at

all. But now I do - all great people who are no more normal than I am,

thank god. We can have good arguments and interesting conversations.

I'm so glad I stuck to my guns in that I didn't seek false friendships

just for the sake of fitting in. **shudder**

Sorry, all over the place tonight. I can't quite make a point, so I'll

stop now!

[Guest guest]

....hey,rant on! You sound just like me,and all the things I have been

trying to get over to people all these years! I tell Aric that for

politeness,we have to learn a few scripts,and have a few social masks that

we will have to drag out on occasion. But it is better that we are honest to

ourselves and to others,to be who and what we are,and help them understand

as they help us understand them

Gail, Anja & Mullen,

my German Shepherd & Greyhound

Service Dogs

& Flicka the MinPin EmoSD.

DePorres Service Dog Trainers Guild

»§«.,¸¸,.·´¯`·.,¸¸,.»§«

Live simply. Love generously.

Care deeply. Speak kindly.

Leave the rest to God.

-- Re: What is the 'PC " way to refer to those on

the spectrum?

> ... What bothers them the most is that I have no problem with it,and

> that we teach Aric it is a strength,not something to hide or be

> ashamed of.

> Damn them! They are so stupid-they are obsessed with making him 'fit

> in',and

> are paranoid about him being seen as 'different'.....he IS

> different,for

> God's sake! And what is wrong with different,I asked them....strength

> is in

> diversity!

Bravo! I use the word " autistic " when describing myself. I try to

educate people about the spectrum, but once people associate a word

with something, which is always something narrow, as in the case of

autism, when you say you're autistic, people always think of the

" classic " definition, you know, like " Rainman " , and that's what's so

frustrating about it. They can't believe that you have autism and be

able to function just like they do. But are they seeing and

experiencing things as we are? Of course not, and to them you are

either normal or you are not, and if you aren't normal, you should do

your best to imitate what is considered normal. Because they wouldn't

have the guts to stand up and be proud of any differences they could or

do have, they think you should bury your head in the sand. too. The

human race has a tendency to want all of us to share the same religious

beliefs, the same like and dislikes, follow the same trends, reject

what is passe and call people who think " outside the box " as out to

lunch.

When you think of all the most famous thinkers and inventors in

history, how many sound autistic? (Speaking of which, has anyone seen

the special feature about Roald Dahl on the Charlie and the Chocolate

Factory DVD? He struck me as being on the spectrum...beautiful man,

nice piece about him.)

Whoops, I digress...

I've always been fascinated in evolution, have read scores of books

about it, and think about in relation to our lives. I very much

believe in the idea that autism is evolution in action, and that by and

large, autistic people are a major aspect regarding the future of the

human race, should there be a future. If we are happy with who we are

(especially so) and allowed to BE ourselves, autistic people are the

most creative, imaginative and forward thinking humans on the planet.

I always despised the sheep mentality that I see in most people.

Autism doesn't lend itself to this, outside of those that are trying to

be NT. It's like evolution is trying to veer us away from the herd

mentality for the sake of the race as a whole. It works for wolves and

sheep, but for people it seems to always get in the way of real

progress. If this herd mentality doesn't get tamed down, how is it

we're ever going to evolve where we no longer have wars over every

little thing? The population is exploding. If we don't learn how to

cooperate soon, it's all going to go to hell. And if autistic people

don't get the recognition and acceptance we deserve, I'm afraid

evolution's going to be thwarted by the herd, resulting in

de-evolution, when it could have been a beautiful thing...

Okay, now it was my turn to rant. And to dream a little...

Ultimately, I'm so very happy to know who I am, to hell with those that

remain unenlightened or who can't accept differences or new information

that appears contrary to what they've been taught. People who don't

accept others most often can't accept themselves either. I've never

been allowed in any of their " clicks " , not that I'd ever want to be. I

much prefer being me. It's so VERY uncomfortable for me to try and

become one the the " crowd " . Just makes me feel all icky. So as a

consequence, I didn't have that many friends as a kid, at times none at

all. But now I do - all great people who are no more normal than I am,

thank god. We can have good arguments and interesting conversations.

I'm so glad I stuck to my guns in that I didn't seek false friendships

just for the sake of fitting in. **shudder**

Sorry, all over the place tonight. I can't quite make a point, so I'll

stop now!

[Guest guest]

> > I would say " I'm autistic " but I am not. But how do I say the

same

> > thing with aspergers? " I hate the term " aspie " so that is out.

I

> > don't

> > like saying " I have aspergers " because it sounds like I carry it

> > around

> > in a suitcase and can just check it at the hotel desk if I need

to act

> > NT for a while.

>

> Once you can find me two professionals who, upon seeing a panel of

> adults diagnosed with different labels on the autistic spectrum,

can

> agree one which ones are autistic and which ones are asperger's,

I'll

> believe there is a difference.

>

> Until then I'll stick with saying " Asperger's " is simply a synonym

> for " Autism " , but very context dependent and dependent upon the

> biases of the person making the distinction. Once the label

doesn't

> need addition context, then I'll believe it's valid.

>

, I was only talking about myself and I am not one of those

in the broad, grey area between autism and aspergers. There is no way

you can put me in the same boat with other extremes of the spectrum

who are obviously autistic and just as obviously not aspergers, such

as Sue Rubin for example. It is not a question of " better " , just

different.

Jerry

[Guest guest]

> , I was only talking about myself and I am not one of those

> in the broad, grey area between autism and aspergers. There is no way

> you can put me in the same boat with other extremes of the spectrum

> who are obviously autistic and just as obviously not aspergers, such

> as Sue Rubin for example. It is not a question of " better " , just

> different.

I disagree. That's like saying someone only has the flu if they

don't die from it, as if someone dies from it they " clearly " have

something else.

It's very possible to manifest autism differently. I wouldn't

gaurantee every shrink would label you as Asperger's instead of

autism either - it very much depends on their personal diagnostic

criteria.

[Guest guest]

--- In AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse , " Gerald Newport "

> , I was only talking about myself and I am not one of those

> in the broad, grey area between autism and aspergers. There is no way

> you can put me in the same boat with other extremes of the spectrum

> who are obviously autistic and just as obviously not aspergers, such

> as Sue Rubin for example. It is not a question of " better " , just

> different.

I use " Asperger's " for two reasons:

1. I am not convinced that Asperger's and Autism are the same thing,

though I believe that they are related. This may not be a PC opinion,

but there it is.

2. Using the term " autistic " to describe myself is likely to generate

a negative reaction (i.e. disbelief, assuming that I am " joking " ,

assuming that I am a hypochondriac/hystrionic/borderline, etc.). If I

desired to counteract these assumptions, I would have to go into a

long explaination about my neurology, and frankly, I don't always feel

like doing that. (Some people, of course, choose a more activist

stance, which I also feel is quite appropriate.)

The upshot is that people generally have a very narrow conception of

what it is to be autistic. I do not resemble this conception and as a

result, I would also have to counteract the person's

contempt/suspicion of me for claiming to be autistic *as well as* cope

with my own difficulties in the areas of social

communication/interaction.

There aren't enough hours in the day. No thanks.

L.

[Guest guest]

Lairie wrote:

>The upshot is that people generally have a very narrow conception of

>what it is to be autistic. I do not resemble this conception and as a

>result, I would also have to counteract the person's

>contempt/suspicion of me for claiming to be autistic *as well as* cope

>with my own difficulties in the areas of social

>communication/interaction.

>There aren't enough hours in the day. No thanks.

I understand about not having enough hours in the day. And I also

understand (from my own experience) being unable or unwilling to

expend energy, either at a specific time or all the time, on

difficult interpersonal dialogues. So I am not saying anyone or

everyone " ought " to do otherwise.

I will say, however, that saying " I am autistic " and not putting up

with guff about it is one way to advocate for all autistics,

including those unable to say " I am autistic. " Seems to me that the

people perceived as " severe " or " low-functioning " or " classic " or

" kanners " or whatever, they are the ones most likely to be most

hurt/oppressed by the " very narrow conception of what it is to be

autistic. " So the more that narrow conception is widened, the better.

Jane

[Guest guest]

> I use " Asperger's " for two reasons:

>

> 1. I am not convinced that Asperger's and Autism are the same thing,

> though I believe that they are related. This may not be a PC opinion,

> but there it is.

Fair enough. I think they are different versions of the same thing,

but I respect the opinion of those who disagree.

> 2. Using the term " autistic " to describe myself is likely to generate

> a negative reaction (i.e. disbelief, assuming that I am " joking " ,

> assuming that I am a hypochondriac/hystrionic/borderline, etc.).

BTDT, no question. I have found though, that as time goes by and

understanding of autism becomes more widespread, people are less

inclined to doubt me when I say that I'm autistic. I even had one

person a couple of weeks ago whose face just lit up when I said I'm

autistic: " Really? Wow, that's so cool! How are things different

for you? " It was quite a breath of fresh air.

> If I desired to counteract these assumptions, I would have to go

> into a

> long explaination about my neurology, and frankly, I don't always feel

> like doing that. (Some people, of course, choose a more activist

> stance, which I also feel is quite appropriate.)

True, it's a big PITA and not easy to deal with.

> The upshot is that people generally have a very narrow conception of

> what it is to be autistic. I do not resemble this conception and as a

> result, I would also have to counteract the person's

> contempt/suspicion of me for claiming to be autistic *as well as* cope

> with my own difficulties in the areas of social

> communication/interaction.

>

> There aren't enough hours in the day. No thanks.

People do have a lot of preconceptions about autism (and most of them

are false, of course), but those preconceptions are slowly starting

to change, and they're being changed the only way that they *can* be

changed -- by autistics " coming out of the closet " and challenging

those notions. It's slow going, and it can definitely be pretty

miserable, but I do try to " come out " as autistic at least every once

in a while to help the process along, even though I often feel the

same weariness that you do. Even so, though -- once in a while,

you'll get a very pleasant surprise, like I did a couple of weeks

back, so you never know.

--Parrish

[Guest guest]

>

> > , I was only talking about myself and I am not one of

those

> > in the broad, grey area between autism and aspergers. There is no

way

> > you can put me in the same boat with other extremes of the

spectrum

> > who are obviously autistic and just as obviously not aspergers,

such

> > as Sue Rubin for example. It is not a question of " better " , just

> > different.

>

> I disagree. That's like saying someone only has the flu if they

> don't die from it, as if someone dies from it they " clearly " have

> something else.

No, there is a difference between aspergers and autism. You just

don't want to see it. If there wasn't any difference, why would they

both have seperate definitions? Why does the last thing in the DSM-IV

for Aspergers clearly state that if you have aspergers, you don't

meet criteria for autism? Explain that

>

> It's very possible to manifest autism differently.

Where have I said it isn't possible? Of course it is. That

is true for aspergers too.

I wouldn't

> gaurantee every shrink would label you as Asperger's instead of

> autism either - it very much depends on their personal diagnostic

> criteria.

>

Probably best to agree to disagree on this one. I can gaurantee

that given the choice of aspergers or autism, NO professional would

put me in the autism category.

Jerry

[Guest guest]

> , I was only talking about myself and I am not one of those

> in the broad, grey area between autism and aspergers. There is no way

> you can put me in the same boat with other extremes of the spectrum

> who are obviously autistic and just as obviously not aspergers, such

> as Sue Rubin for example. It is not a question of " better " , just

> different.

Believe it or not, I've actually seen people try to define Sue away as

" Asperger's " online in the past. Not joking. In an attempt to

discredit her of course, since " Asperger's " for some reason is used to

do that a lot. (I guess " Asperger's " isn't autistic enough for some

people. But she doesn't fit the definition for it at all regardless

of stereotypes or whatever.)

[Guest guest]

Jerry wrote:

> No, there is a difference between aspergers and autism. You just

>don't want to see it. If there wasn't any difference, why would they

>both have seperate definitions? Why does the last thing in the DSM-IV

>for Aspergers clearly state that if you have aspergers, you don't

>meet criteria for autism? Explain that

Any instrument like the DSM should be an attempt to *describe*

reality. It does not in itself constitute a reality to be imposed on

the real lives of real individuals.

Jane

[Guest guest]

> Person-first language chaps my ass.

Can I use that in a random .sigfile?

[Guest guest]

--- In AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse , Jane Meyerding

> I will say, however, that saying " I am autistic " and not putting up

> with guff about it is one way to advocate for all autistics,

> including those unable to say " I am autistic. " Seems to me that the

> people perceived as " severe " or " low-functioning " or " classic " or

> " kanners " or whatever, they are the ones most likely to be most

> hurt/oppressed by the " very narrow conception of what it is to be

> autistic. " So the more that narrow conception is widened, the better.

I think that is a very legitimate way to advocate, and I admire those

that do it. I just don't usually feel like being an advocate/activist. :-)

As for " who is hurt more " , I suppose that one could argue that the

" classic " autistics are probably far more vulnerable than " Aspies " in

that the " classics " because they are (probably) less likely to live

independently, hold jobs, and have a significant social network. As

such, they are more likely to be disregarded in any sort of

self-advocacy that they might attempt. This is a horrible state of

affairs, and I can't even imagine what it must be like.

At the same time, the " passing Aspie " (such as myself) is often at a

disadvantage as we are EXPECTED to be " fully functional " (as NT

defined) in NT settings. Failure to function in this fashion results

in negative character judgements (i.e. lazy, careless, thoughtless,

selfish, nasty) or mental health assumptions (i.e. personality

disorders). Attempts at explaining Aspergers/Autism is met with

suspicion, as one is regarded as making excuses for bad behavior. It's

a real catch-22.

I have two NT friends who each have a " hidden " medical condition. One

suffers from chronic pain problems and the other has a serious heart

condition. They get the same sort of crap from people who make

negative character/mental health judgements about them when they

express their limitations. As another friend once said: " People don't

respect your disability if they can't see it. "

L.

[Guest guest]

> Any instrument like the DSM should be an attempt to *describe*

> reality. It does not in itself constitute a reality to be imposed on

> the real lives of real individuals.

Exactly.

I have described it in the past as this:

What if, instead of Kanner and Asperger, we had totally different

people who originally described autism? With totally different

interests of course than Kanner and Asperger necessarily had.

What if we had, say, sen's Syndrome?

sen's syndrome would be characterized by (among all the standard

autistic- " spectrum " traits as well) social passivity, particular

difficulty with initiating, slowness of movement (outside, possibly,

of stimming), and other things like that.

Under that definition I'd probably have sen's syndrome (where Dr.

sen simply concentrated on a particular group of autistics that I

happen to belong to). I am diagnosed as autistic under the real life

definitions. There are people who are diagnosed as Asperger under the

real life definitions who would also be diagnosed as sen's syndrome.

What if we were having this conversation, and I said, " Surely I cannot

call myself autistic. Because I have this similar condition called

sen's syndrome. And see the traits are right there in the DSM. "

Would that make sense? Just because one doctor at some point in time

had emphasized a particular kind of motor and social passivity as the

important overriding feature of the group of autistic people he was

looking at? To just cut myself off from the whole definition of

autism because some guy in history found certain traits more

interesting or useful to document than others?

Meanwhile, of course, in this scenario, plenty of people now called

aspies and auties would have sen's syndrome, those with that kind

of motor/social passivity. Those without it (whether aspie or autie

in our world) would have just plain autism, real autism, that we

wouldn't want to confuse with sen's syndrome of course, apparently.

That is why I don't divide us in two. Because I can see other ways to

split us in half just as easily. On some other line. And I do not

think that just because Asperger and Lorna Wing both happened at one

point to find a particular pattern interesting, that this means that

this pattern is set apart from other autistics in reality. Any more

than I would set myself apart from other autistics/ " aspies " who do not

have the particular trouble initiating that I do.

I'm not sure if what I'm saying makes sense or not, but I hope I'm

getting my point across (background: several days of migraine with

vomiting, very little food in system because I don't want to upchuck

it, getting dizzy -- meaning I do have a point buried in here

somewhere but I hope it's readable). To me the autism/AS line is

arbitrary and I can see lots of other lines and would rather see the

whole thing as a many-dimensional landscape than splitting it in half

in such a crude jagged way based on some people's importance-giving of

speech acquisition and such.

I do think there are delineations in the autism

spectrum/landscape/multidimensional grid, but I don't agree with the

way the lines are drawn currently. Hence I use autism for all of them

until someone comes up with a better set of words that make more sense

(if they ever do). I just don't view age of speech acquisition and

such as *the* dividing line, or the most important dividing line,

between autistic people, so I don't use it.