• Replies 25 replies
  • Subscribers 72 subscribers
  • Views 423 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

What are your thoughts on the term "High Functioning"?

Jalapeno

I've noticed quite a few autistic people on this forum describing themselves as "high functioning." I'm genuinely interested in hearing why people choose to use this label.

Personally, I dislike it and would prefer not to see it being used.

From the outside, based on my qualifications and career, many people would probably describe me as "high functioning." Yet I still struggle with many aspects of daily life and work, and I worry the label makes those difficulties seem less significant or suggests I need little support or reasonable adjustments, which isn't the case.

I'm also not convinced that the Levels 1, 2 and 3 always solve the problem, as our support needs can vary enormously depending on the environment we're in.

I also wonder whether some people use "high functioning" simply to mean they don't have a learning disability. If so, wouldn't it be clearer just to say that?

For those who do use the term, what benefit do you feel it provides—for yourself or when explaining your autism to other people? I'm genuinely interested in hearing different perspectives.

NAS - any thoughts on running a poll on this ?

Parents

  • I don't like it, but it's necessary. Peoples perception of the word autism greatly differ, and the older the person, the more autism is seen as (their words not mine/paraphrasing) non verbal and "slow". Likewise the older the person the more likely they are to have a position of power and I've heard everything from "How can you talk if you have autism?" to "I wouldn't employ an autistic person but am doing so as my nephew is", and I'll back that one up, a manager told me that at Poundstretcher at my very first job some ten years ago.

    It's why I tend to use the term "Aspergers" (which I detest with every fibre of my being) around new people as well. Maybe down south and in more affluent areas the perception is different but from my experience using the term "high functioning" makes them think you're the "nerdy" style of autism ala Sheldon Cooper (and I also detest big bang theory as well).

  • in reply to DarkElf

    With huge apologies, I've just realised that - in my first reply at the bottom of this page - I forgot to include what the NAS does recommend using instead of "high functioning" or "low functioning" ! Scream [horror / scream]

    I can't edit that reply now, but perhaps it might be helpful to share the full entry now - perhaps one of the suggestions might work for you in situations like that:

    "Based on based on our language research on the preferences of autistic people, their families and professionals, as well as the feedback and insight we get from our supporters and wider work: 

    Do say:

    - autistic person with high/low support needs
    - an autistic person with/without a learning disability"

    Avoid saying:

    - high/low functioning autistic person
    - mild/severe autism

    Explainer: functioning and severity labels are inaccurate and considered offensive; they fail to capture how a person’s needs may vary (they may excel at certain things while finding others very challenging) and fluctuate (according to the situation), and because they locate all challenges innately within the person’s ability rather than due to a societal or situational failure to meet the person’s access needs. "

    NAS - How to talk and write about autism

  • in reply to Bunny

    That does seem like a much better way of classifying need away from the whole 'functioning' thing, which I think is a crude term.  

    I've found the American based levels system interesting, though suspect if I were to dig deeper I'd find it's probably also rather flawed?

Reply Children
  • in reply to Bunny

    What I find complicated is how to deem support needs: I wonder how tied into current individual circumstance they are? For example my own support needs would be currently classed as very low, but take my partner away and I fear they would be much higher.

    Suppose my point is needs are transient (while appreciating I'm very lucky to have my partner).  

    Regardless, hopefully the system continues to evolve for better. 

  • in reply to Acquiesce

    The levels (from the US-based DSM) actually indicate differing levels of support needs, so are similar to what the NAS found in respect of the preferred wording to use instead of "functioning" labels:

    3 - Requiring very substantial support
    2 - Requiring substantial support
    1 - Requiring support

    It does also suggest that it might be helpful, where they differ, to provide separate levels for each of a) social communication and b) restricted, repetitive behaviours.