Aspies For Freedom

"Autistics are dysfunctional" I find offensive, calling autism a disorder I don't as long as it is used properly without a friggin undertone.

I'm actually the other way around, Erk - although "dysfunctional" depends on the context.

Look at it this way - families that aren't "normal" (ie both parents, happy family etc) are labelled "dysfunctional". Now I know cases where being called that is seen as a compliment - because they are happy with their lot, whatever that may be. I can see why we don't like it - taking the word literally as such. But when the use of the word just seems so out of place in the modern world, it's effect is approaching non existant - if you see what I mean.

"Disorder" on the other hand is an insult. It's a difference. That's the problem with Autism Speaks - their determination to paint the Spectrum as a bad thing.

I guess it's an example of their two faces.

I think you'll find that the DSM is written with the law in mind, Bob, to make sure that the law recognised the Spectrum under Disability law to counter intolerant behaviour - given that the same law seeks to define "normal" (for which there is no real definition). That's why I let that fact go.

Once the world learns properly - the DSM will change to "difference".

Disability is a relevant word to autism, I believe most can agree upon that. People might discuss whether autism itself is a disability though, and whether the difficulties associated with autism should be defined only as associated disabilities.

"People who are autistic" is according to some, mostly curebie associated groups, defining people from autism which is apparently seen as disrespectful to these groups.  Personally I don't find "autism" to be offensive at all, but "dysfunctional" might be found offensive to some, at least I do from the background I have and I dislike "defining" people from the meaning of that word like I see it.

They're not necessarily the majority of those with interest in autism.

If "dysfunctional" means "doesn't fit into society", then yeah, we're dysfunctional. But so was Martin Luther King Jr...

Autistics aren't necessarily "dysfunctional" even if they're considered LFA. It's not OK to deem autistic (future) lives as dysfunctional which I feel calling autistics dysfunctional does.

Actually, Gnosis, I think Callista got the correct definition of dysfunctional (doesn't fit into society). It's pretty much what I said earlier as well;

And I'm talking about NT families when I say that as well as Spectrum ones.

Disease I definitely find inaccurate and offensive, as I think most of us here would.

Difference is universally true, and inoffensive.

Disability is fine, as it is inoffensive, but it isn't universally true amongst autistics (as some autistics do not consider themselves disabled)

Disorder is better than disease, but I don't think it's entirely accurate, as it suggests 'badly ordered' rather than 'differently ordered'

Dysfunctional doesn't seem to be descriptive of being autistic, but a reference to functioning, which is highly individual and changes over time, and varies according to what skill the functioning is measured in. It would be inaccurate to describe as dysfunctional, and I would guess that the connotation is not good either.

Gnosis - with all due respect - the dictionary meaning doesn't translate into society with such accuracy.

Which is why, since not all autistics are disabled by virtue of being autistic, that disability, while an inoffensive term, is not universally applicable among autistics.

I am disabled by virtue of being autistic. I live a fulfilling a productive life and would not want to change who I am. Fulfilling in that I am emotionally and otherwise satisfied, and productive in that I can contribute various things in various ways. I am employable (though not as much as I will be after college), but of course only if people will get past their prejudices and hire me.

Exactly. This is the #1 thing that organizations like Autism Speaks fail to get.

True that being autistic doesn't mean you're necessarily disabled. Just as having an eye can make you see, but not all people who have eyes can see, and those who can use their eyes to see don't all see things with an equal level of focus.

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics, but I am "satisfied with [my] ability to live [my] life the way [I] prefer", yet I am disabled. Like I said, perhaps it's only a matter of semantics that trips me up here.

Anywhere outside the dictionary. That little booklet is not the be all and end all of what words mean. Like everything else - it's a tool that depends on how it's used. That is - interpretation. And I pick up this quote from you.....

Society does not work objectively - it works subjectively. So it appears to me that you just "buttered both sides of the bread" (if you understand the metaphor).

I'm sorry, but my experience of the use of the word is different to yours. Generally - in my experience - the word is NOT used like that. It is applied a lot more generally than that.

To me it says "functioning incorrectly"