"Functioning" Labels

It's definitely better. But as society currently is I think low support needs very much translates into no support needs as far as those responsible for allocating support see it.

It dosen't help that so many forms, especially anything to do with benefit's don't actually mean what any normal person would think, they're full of trick questions designed to make inelligable.

I think "low support needs" is easily distinguished from "no support needs". That's something that "high functioning" doesn't really capture.

I get that with forms at times. I think beforehand that it's going to be easy, but then I get stuck wondering, "OK, but what exactly do they mean by X?" I just go round and round and can't answer.

I had to (legally) fill in a government workplace survey before and one of the questions was something like, "What is your attitude to change?" The options were something like "Very Positive", "Positive", "Neutral", "Negative", "Very Negative". I just couldn't get past what they meant by "change". What? A pay rise? A pay cut? Getting fired? Longer hours? A 4-day week? More pot plants? Free lunches? WHAT!? I had to leave it blank after consulting with HR (who consulted with the relevant government agency). It reminded me of Yes, Minister on TV where the civil service considered any change to be unconscionable.

I would fit into the category of high functioning but I don't like it as a label. It suggest I function well and whilst in certain circumstances I do, there are probably more that I don't. Low functioning just sounds insulting.

I guess the support needs labels make more sense but I'm still not sure I like them. Yes there are people that need way more support than I do I don't discredit that for a second. But me being low support needs suggests I don't really need support. And I do need some level of support both in and out of work. In work I get some, out of work I get none which causes me a lot of stress and difficulties. But I'm able to work so therefore I mustn't need support according to those who make such decisions.

I don't know what the alternative is though.

Damojo said:

What are your thoughts on the "high functioning" and "low functioning" labels?

They are not part of the DSM-5 so should not really be part of diagnoses at this time as I understand it.

The DSM-5-TR subtypes autism into three levels based on support needs. Autism Level 1 has the least support needs. Would you feel better using these words instead?

There is a more comprehensive description of the outdated term High Functioning Autism here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-functioning_autism

I'm high functioning except with tech and maths then I just just sit and stare at it and don't understand and I do it when I have to fill in forms too, give me a 10k word dissertation to research and write and I'm fine, a form and I go to pieces

I agree.

High functioning sounds like a person is superhuman rather than one who needs less support than some.

Low functioning sounds like they aren’t a real person.

We are all humans so better to respect our humanness and refer to our support needs. I think that is closer to an accurate way of describing us.

This is helpful. I am still on the waiting list for assessment. I would describe my IQ as average. The word functioning is definitely unhelpful, as I feel very low functioning on some days when my brain is struggling to process things.

If I had to pick one or the other, I suppose "high functioning" would be the one, but only if I had to pick and the conditions just happened to be right at that moment (and the odds would be in my favour, there).

If a person were to try to predict whether 100 Autistic people would pick "high-" or "low-functioning" to describe themselves, that person would probably not get it right in every case. They would be basing their decision on the mask that each Autistic person presents (or not), rather than on each Autistic person's lived experience.

Damojo said:

What are your thoughts on the "high functioning" and "low functioning" labels?

I agree with the NAS's position on them:

• DO say:
  • autistic person with high/low support needs
  • an autistic person with/without a learning
    disability

• DON'T say:
  • 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

I am high functioning but the term is outdated.

I heard this distinction used by Temple Grandin and others, and I didn't like it at all.

It reminds me "valuable vs not" in some of their speeches. And I do not subscribe to this classification.

That being said, it is also not intolerable, just would prefer no such labels unless it is really needed (maybe within the medical context.)

I apply the same par above to low / high support needs, but it is slightly less bothering.

 Your analysis in the post is also one I subscribe to (related to the "spiky" profile.)

I prefer high support / low support. We all need support to some degree, it just depends on how much you need.

If I recall correctly I believe high functioning just means your IQ is above 70.

Edit: I gather the term was used historically in clinical settings, but hasn't ever been used in either the DSM or ICD.