Is "autist" offensive?

I know what you mean FM, no sooner does a term become acceptable than someone objects and the whole debate starts again.

Is someone a flautist or a flute player? I raise this example because it is both what someone is and what they do, maybe an autist is someone with autism or an autistic person who dosen't mask and try and hide themselves from NT society?

I find it hard to keep up with what is subjectively seen as an appropriate phrase or word to use.

Martin said:

"He is an autist" works, "He is an autistic" does not.

... in your opinion. :)  It's not a black and white matter, with only one "correct" answer.

I'm an asthmatic and a (recovering) alcoholic. Some might view me as an eccentric. I'm not a diabetic (but soon will be, if I keep packing away chocolate at my current rate), nor am I either a Catholic, a heretic, or a psychic. I've never worked as either a paramedic, an academic, or a mechanic, but I was definitely a workaholic.

I feel that being an autistic sits comfortably enough alongside my existing "ic"s. 

It's perhaps also worth considering how easily other people would understand each word, if used when talking to people who aren't particularly familiar with autism.

In my opinion, someone would likely find it much easier to deduce the meaning of "autistic", when used as a noun, versus "autist". With the latter, I feel people would need clarification that I didn't say or mean "artist" or "flautist", for example. The former, on the other hand, feels sufficiently self explanatory to me.

Martin said:

I would not by preference trust a US dictionary over other available ones.

"Autist" does not appear in either the Oxford or Cambridge dictionaries.

It does appear in the US's Mirriam-Webster dictionary (which you say you prefer not to trust), where it's linked to the word autistic (which, as we've seen, is listed as both an adjective and a noun), to explain its meaning and accompanied by a warning about potentially causing offence:

autist
noun
au·​tist ˈȯ-ˌtist
plural autists
sometimes offensive
NOTE: While this term is used by some autistic people to refer to themselves, it may be considered offensive when used by someone who is not autistic.

Lest anyone misunderstand my intentions, I'm not trying to police anyone else's use of the word. I just found it curious that some people here use it. Which is why I looked into it and then posted this thread to explore others' thoughts. The only person I'm trying to police is myself.

'Autist' still works better as a noun than 'autistic', because 'autistic' is an adjectival form, possessing an adjectival suffix. "He is an autist" works, "He is an autistic" does not.

Thank you for your kind words Debbie Debbie temp . They mean more to me than I can adequately express.

Lotus said:

I actually prefer any of those three to "person with autism".

I'm also definitely not a fan of that one! :)

It's feels too suggestive of autism being a disease or illness that can be caught and/or cured and/or will pass, rather than it being a permanent, integral part of who we all are.

Eg "X has mumps". "X has COVID". "X has autism".

But, as always, each to their own in respect of how they prefer to describe it.

I quite like it, it has artistic connotations. But there again, I'm happy being called a "sperglord" by my friends.

I have had a  few people call me "sperg" which I'm not so keen on, but it seems to make them happy, so who cares? 

Once I realised I could pick my own pronouns, in fact that is the essence of the thing (PYO) and that they could be used to correct peoples misunderstanding about who I actually AM versus who I APPEAR to be to them, the whole thing became a lot more sensible and attractive a proposition. Some people don't like my pronouns, but they is just becasue they are just bigots. 

The word 'autistic' is in adjectival form (-ic), which is important. Consider 'majestic' another -ic word, you could not really say, "It is a majestic", likewise, in my opinion, saying, "He is an autistic" is far from ideal grammatically. My mind would be reacting by thinking, "He is an autistic what?" I would not by preference trust a US dictionary over other available ones. Mostly due to the American habit of converting words from nouns into verbs and otherwise changing grammar. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, autistic is an adjective; while I found the following online, "In modern English, “autistic” is primarily used as an adjective to describe individuals on the autism spectrum".

Bunny said:

Personally, I don't like it.

We live in an age when it only takes a few people who are offended about a word to start a movelemt to have it cancelled unfortunately (I'm not suggesting this is your intention, but there are plenty of other paper tigers out there who will make a fuss and try to get something "done" about it).

My opinion is that we all have rights, including the right to be offended. I don't believe we have the right to have the thing we are offended with cancelled though - we just have to learn to co-exist with people who have different opinions, vocabularies or ideologies, however offensive we may find them.

Once they cross the line of a law then that is when something should be done.

However offensive I find some opinions on some subjects here I will always defend their right to have that opinion.

To me that if true freedom of speech.

Martin said:

No it isn't offensive in the least.

Thank you for sharing your view. :)

Martin said:

In fact it is better than 'autistic', when referring to people, as it is a noun, while 'autistic' is an adjective and to be grammatically correct requires a noun to refer to, as in 'autistic person'.

Autistic serves as both an adjective and as a noun, so it is grammatically correct (according to the Mirriam-Webster dictionary, for example).

I’ve seen it used as a noun many times. Whereas I can’t recall having seen “autist” used anywhere other than here.

I don't see it as offensive either, it just is.

No it isn't offensive in the least. In fact it is better than 'autistic', when referring to people, as it is a noun, while 'autistic' is an adjective and to be grammatically correct requires a noun to refer to, as in 'autistic person'. 'Autist' is therefore more efficient.

Not offensive to me. I'm quite happy with Autistic person, Autist, or Aspie.

I actually prefer any of those three to "person with autism".

Debbie?

Well, I tried to post too in response to this above, but couldn't.......I would imagine it will appear one day.

I've been chucked out by just making 2 changes to a post.

Trying to take part in this forum is beyond frustrating.

Here is a copy of my post to Number and Bunny that I screenshot beforehand as I could see what was going to happen re the spam filter.

Test

Unknown said:

I referred to this as an "impossible topic" because it is one that can readily descend into word ping-pong and become hijacked by various opposing cultural warrior camps.  For the record, I belong in no ones tent so I do find "impossible topics" fearful!  There is no "right answer", so let's keep it polite....is always my only hope.

Again, you have neither bored nor irritated me by raising the topic, but yes, this word salad about how we can/should/must refer to ourselves has often been discussed here over the years.....and it has often deteriorated relations here.

I must disagree with you here N.

I don't remember a single time that this (Autist) has been discussed, and if it has, I don't remember any descent into 'cultural warrior camps'.

The threads that have become arguments have been on the subjects of s*x, s*xuality, gender and women's 'place in society'.

I know as I've taken part in these threads.

I shall always stand up for what I believe in and this isn't 'hijacking' threads but just not being silent when the views of others horrify me.

 Bunny I find you a very valuable member of this forum who is always very helpful, polite, calm and kind.

Thank you for this thread.

Good to know.  Thank you.

Unknown said:

The extreme dissonance in your "original" post (as below) did seem fair and reasonable to point out though?

Can you see the dissonance yourself?

In the context in which I used the terms (and to which I referred in both versions of my post), no to both points.