"I am Autistic" / "They are Autistic" vs "I have Autism" / "They have Autism"

I have no legitimacy to answer but each time this question arises I cannot stop thinking of the order of self-development from Jane Lovinger hoping that autism will at some point no longer be defined by "symptoms" associated with a "condition" but sustained by an autistic theory of self-development. Any help in putting these steps into proper adding or removing some order would be insightfull!  en.wikipedia.org/.../Loevinger's_stages_of_ego_development

The concept of identity-first vs person-first language is something I'm familiar with but I hadn't joined the dots to connect that to how different people describe autism and I didn't know there was a tendency within the healthcare profession towards person-first language - so that's been good learnings for me.

Thanks!

I agree with you in ' my husband suffers from autism'. Discussions on here have helped me as saying I am autistic sounds so much more positive as a different way of thinking rather than a deficiency.

I sometimes think my husband suffers more from my autism than I do, haha! But yes they need to catch up with more recent research. Although there is so much in so many fields that it must be hard for them. Not that there is an excuse for something this basic and affecting so many people.

Yes, I can kind of forgive the "has Autism" on the grounds that they are often taught to say that, but "suffer from/with Autism" - and my GP wrote that in a letter too, does have me seeing red!  

It's like they are saying I am diseased and if a doctor does not understand that Autism is not a disease to be treated or cured there is very little hope they are going to get any of my care right.  It's not like I have flue here!

I prefer to say that I am autistic. However before I started frequenting forums such as this I was largely guided by the terminology used in the NHS, whom I sought my diagnosis through. 

The terminology 'has / have' and 'suffers from' derives from the pathological medical environment. There is a widespread lack of awareness and understanding, that seems to be extremely common among medical/mental health staff in particular. 

My GP wrote a letter recently and stated "Unfortunately x suffers from autism...." 

Well done for correcting people on it. The autistic community has to try and educate to improve awareness and understanding. However we are fighting an uphill battle when GPs, whom most people will assume knowledgeable, continue to use such terminology.

LOl. Love it.  You ask some great philosophical questions there.  Is it something other people lack?  Oh let me ponder that a while :-)

I have only been sure I was on the spectrum for a couple of years, so I am not quite sure how I feel about the descriptors. But I agree with you about it not being something I suffer from so much as it is just how my brain is wired, like my body is female. I have arthritis, I suffer from it, there are no upsides. Autism has ups and down and neutrals. I suffer from poor executive function. I enjoy hyperfocus. My hypersensitivity can be useful in early detection of gas leaks or enjoyable in noticing birdsong or the fleeting scent of lilac on a cycle ride or negative in causing needlephobia or being unable to enjoy my food when that woman on the next table has really strong perfume. I think autism can be beneficial to society as we are likely to be the inventors or composers etc and we often have a strong sense of fairness.

I like the word autist as a descriptor as it sounds like artist and doesn't have that slightly negative feel of an -ic word like spastic or arthritic. But I am OK with calling myself autistic or saying I have autism, just as I will say I am arthritic or I have arthritis, I am physically disabled or I have a physical disability. I will even call myself a cripple but am not mad keen on others doing so! It depends on the context. As for identity though, I do not regard arthritis a part of my identity although it is an important thing about my body which has to be taken into account. But I do think autism is part of my identity as it seems to intrinsic to how I think and feel and be.

Very nicely put.  This topic is often written about - rarely as well.

I recall one interesting quiz a form tutor put us through in senior school (he was interested in psychology). The questions were all rather random, like which of four things we liked better. The idea was to find who was more average and who least average. I was least average by a long way. The person who was most average was a boy who usually got overlooked and nobody really noticed. I guess he might have been normotic!

Deepcake said:

I don't understand other social norms like militarism, cruelty, listening to terrible music, building retail parks, and destroying the natural world in order to have exponential population growth. Is it necessary to explain what is wrong with me?

Exactly!

And if everyone is on the spectrum somewhere then their colour is grey! I prefer to think of it that we are the ones most likely to be on the edge of the bell curve, either end of it. The normotics are the ones always in the (boring) middle of the bell curve! So yes they are on the same bell curve as us, but not in any meaningful way.

No, not a dialectical variation - choice which sparks controversy.

Personally, it's identity first language all the way for me. I am Autistic in the same way I am a woman, I am British or I am a Spritualist. I have or suffer with IBS. IBS is an ailment I'd rather I didn't have. Autism is an intrinsic attribute of me I am happy with.

But to be fair many people see Autism as a misfortune or illness simply because they have little knowledge and are happy to be better informed if you offer that politely in the right spirit. What is more troubling is that many professionals have been actively taught that person first language is the more respectful: see the person, their Autism is just an adjunct. Since they are running our services, it is their view that is more important to correct.

Yes, abnormotic, that's the diagnosis for me!

Psychiatry is nice work if you can get it. You could take the rest of the day off after inventing a nifty word such as 'normotic'

Nice. Would the antonym be 'abnormotic', I wonder? Psychiatrists, almost as good at making up words as Shakespeare!

Sub-autistic... Very good!

I read that some psychiatrist coined the term 'normotic' for people who are abnormally normal. A useful word...

Deepcake said:

Clearly we understand very little. I expect that in a more enlightened future, we will be as concerned with how to classify those unfortunates who struggle to score highly in autism assessments, as how to describe ourselves.

I would vote for 'U-boat commander", as they are sub-autistic. Every diagnosis to come with a long black leather coat. Sorry!

I still struggle with either. Although I am clearly autistic. But is it something that I have? Or does it have me?

Or, again, is it something that other people lack? 

I don't understand social norms like feigning interest in what others are saying etc but on the other hand I don't understand other social norms like militarism, cruelty, listening to terrible music, building retail parks, and destroying the natural world in order to have exponential population growth. Is it necessary to explain what is wrong with me?

I strongly suggest that autistic people should be valued and listened to far more than we are. Because it is neither a disease, nor a deficiency. In many cases, it brings various riches of insight, talent, and moral and legal integrity.

We are told that everyone is on the spectrum somewhere. Clearly we understand very little. I expect that in a more enlightened future, we will be as concerned with how to classify those unfortunates who struggle to score highly in autism assessments, as how to describe ourselves. Controversially, I would suggest that this is the true nature of our project.

It probably comes down to preference. I tend to use identity-first language (autistic) rather than person-first (having autism/person with autism) although I have noticed that I sometimes use person-first out of habit. I have worked with autistic people for many years now and person-first used to be the go to language, hence why I sometimes use it. But I am trying to use identity-first as much as possible as previous surveys have shown that a slight majority of autistic people prefer it.

Hi, I think it is a matter of personal preference. I prefer, I am autistic, to say that I have autism sounds as if I’ve got something like the flu, as if I’ve contracted something.

It can be interpreted in different ways, I wouldn’t say I am cancerous, I would say, I have cancer. Another example is I am catholic, I wouldn’t say , I have Catholicism. For me I’m just happy with, Im autistic. It’s short and to the point. Im sure there will be different views and all are valid.