• Replies 24 replies
  • Subscribers 89 subscribers
  • Views 3241 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

Is "autist" offensive?

Bunny

The suggestion in this article is that use of the term is "outdated at best and offensive at worst":

https://www.autismparentingmagazine.com/is-autists-offensive/

Some other notable comments from the article:

"Today, “autist” is rarely used by researchers, doctors, or autistic people themselves—but it can be found in edgy online spaces." 

"Because it’s often used in poor taste in modern Internet culture, I would avoid it unless someone with autism specifically tells you it’s his/her preferred term."

Re Wall Street Bets (which seemingly brought the term back into modern usage, with the opposite meaning to how they used “retards”): "The guide doesn’t explain how this terminology developed, but it’s probably rooted in the stereotype that every person with autism is a high-functioning, obsessive expert on certain topics, or even a savant-level genius."

Personally, I don't like it. For some reason, it irritates me. Having learned more about its modern usage, it now also feels either derogatory (when used by others) or too snobbish and aligned with "Aspie supremacy"-style thinking. I prefer "autistic person" or just “autistic” which can also be used as a noun.

Parents

  • 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.

  • in reply to Martin
    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.

  • in reply to Bunny

    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".

  • in reply to Martin
    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.

  • in reply to Bunny

    '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.

Reply Children
  • in reply to Martin
    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.