Aspies For Freedom

Now I've read things similar to this a couple times:

Are you a person who are affected by a *thing* called autism?

Or are you different as a whole with many traits similar to others who are autistic?

I remember I asked a similar question at the norwegian parents' forum.

I know in school the teachers ask you to say "they have autism" instead of saying "they are autistic"

Huh?

In what kind of setting would the teacher say something like that?

If desribing to other pupils why there are some children that are better than others, and those children, they have autism xD xD xD

I think I consider myself both, really, its logically difficult to have one without the other.

I would describe myself as being a condition and having the symptoms of that condition, where the word condition applies to my genotype, I suppose. If anyone can think of a better word I would be very grateful! Examples:

I am autistic. ('Condition')

SO........

I have difficulties understanding social clues etc. ('Symptoms')

Just as:

I am Celtic Caucasian. ('Condition')

SO........

I have pale skin, blue eyes etc. ('Symptoms')

Also:

I am heterosexual. ('Condition')

SO........

I have a sexual attraction to the opposite gender. ('Symptoms')

I am Autistic.  I have no problem being identified as an Autistic.  But then, I've always thought we're in the process of splitting off from the NTs as a viable human subtype.  I've never thought of Autism as a disorder in any way.  NTs reactions towards me are the only irritating little problem I face.  
Alison

The way I see things, I *have* autism, and I am (being) autistic.

I take pride in both

Since we need have some name........ we name ' normal people ' NT's

I feel the same way..I have autism & am being autistic.

Friend at the topix autism news forum commented me on using "autistics" as a word for people with autism. I feel confident about what I wrote in this reply:

http://www.topix.net/forum/health/autism...CKJG/post9

I say/write that I am autistic. This doesn't mean I define myself entirely or centrally around my autism. To assume this would be akin to assuming that someone who says/writes "I am gay" revolves their identity around homosexuality. The one doesn't follow from the other.

For me the reason of there being a distinction, is that people who hear the person-first terminology think of it as being more politically correct because autism is viewed as something awful, something that one is grateful that they or their family/friends don't experience. If you think of something as awful, you wouldn't want to be identified as this being an inherent characteristic of the person. (the example of not identifying people as 'leukemics', in continuing with the autism-cancer equation, illustrates this point)

I used to not care which way it was. It seemed the same to me. But I have noticed, since I started looking at the pro-cure organizations and statements from their proponents, that there is consistent use of "have autism" rather than "autistic". There was a clip on YouTube from an Oprah autism show where the guest said emphatically that her child is not autistic, he has autism. To which was followed huge clapping reaction. This is a big deal to those who see autism as something to be eradicated, and it does seem to make more sense now that I review it that I am autistic, and I have autistic traits.

It is a bother, the subtlety of the language, but nonetheless, it is an interesting craft to explore.

A very good point.  What a pity mainstream shows such as Oprah don't show those of us autistics who are *not* the "drain on society poor little wretched souls who need constant care and charity" that so many NTs seem to think makes up the majority of the autistic community.  Probably it's the fact that we do manage to fly under the radar so well, that you only hear about the worst-case scenarios from the "poor me" brigade of parents.
Alison

I think the "they have autism" versus "they are autistic" is just a manner of proper english... politically correct, people-first kind of thing...  naming someone by their condition (autistic) is akin to judging them before you know them, whereas someone with a condition (have autism) is emphasising the humanity of the person and not their "affliction".

I don't personally see a big difference, but I guess since I don't see autism as an affliction neither have a negative connotation.

I'm Aspie, it's something I am, not something I have, it's integral to me, my character, my personality, it's not an adjunct that I want to get rid of, it's not a disease.

From an objective standpoint, I am none of these things, I am a human being born with a large collection of different attributes, some of which society has decided to splice out and refer to as "autism."  

Having autism and being autistic are the same.  It is rediculous to say that "He's autistic" is defining him by his condition.  If you are the kind of person who defines people in that manner, then switching your words around is not going to magically make it all better.  Change attitudes, not words.