Greetings,

I like it

But I can see the 'professional' up in arms over it.  We will have to simultaneously address the fact that they are ignorant and do not have any understanding of how we think and feel.  

In effect we will have to discredit every one of them.

They keep changing the definitions constantly.  The asperger's diagnosis may vanish entirely, who knows?  My main point is that we have to define ourselves, rather than letting the psychologists do it.  I don't want to exclude anyone, but I think it's possible to use "Aspergian" while making it clear that we mean to include all autistics.

No matter what we do with the word "autism," it's going to be like gays trying to attach positive meanings to "queer."  Too much negativity, too many stereotypes.

I don't disagree that clarity and communication are important, but as long as autism is defined as a mental disorder, that's the image people will get when we use the word.

It's a psychological term -- "autism spectrum disorder."  By using their language, it looks as if we're conceding that we are disordered.

no, it's like gays trying to get positive meanings to the word gay

queer is the homosexual equivalent of "retard"

let's remove the word disorder then

Autistics do feel excluded by the word asperger's, I have had direct complaints over using the word, instead of aspies and auties for instance, we do want to be completely inclusive with this.

Those in the gay community have reclaimed some negative words, so that may be a good example.

I do agree with not using the word disorder, but the word spectrum is very descriptive, and useful.

Autism doesnt sound like a medical word to me, when I hear it I think of my son and myself and "autistic pride" etc.

Some people have tried to use it positively.  There's one group called "Queer Nation," and of course there's the famous slogan, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

But I agree with you that it didn't work well, and that's my point.  Most people think "retard" when they hear "autism."  Yes, that's an ignorant stereotype, but it's very difficult to reclaim a word with so many negative images attached to it.

Bonnie- " Most people think "retard" when they hear "autism."

I wonder if that is more so in the US, the word retard is used much less here, certainly as an insult, and I think more people in the UK think "special needs" when they hear autism.

Hmm... As an Autie of color dealing with ethnic and cultural issues/identity, the idea of Autistics as a minority group makes my head spin even more! Now I'm a *double* minority?  
   So if autistics *were* a minority, would we be a racial, social (like gays), cultural/paradigmal (like Jews), disabled (like Deaf people) or some other type of minority group altogether?
   I have HFA rather than AS, so I feel that Autistic is a more appropriate word than 'Aspergian'. Besides, what's wrong with being retarded? I've been described as 'borderline retarded' since my IQ generally oscillates between 80 and 90 on the Binet exam, which skews higher. My IQ would be around 75-85 on another test. 'Retard' is an insult to those of us who are lacking in what the NTs term 'intelligence'.
    Many African-Americans have reclaimed the 'N Word' to remove much of it's harshness. The N word is currently used in hip-hop music as a colloquialism for friend or fellow man.
    Autistic doesn't have HALF as many negative connotations as the N word does. Besides, we ARE autistic. Aspies ARE autistic. It comes from the Greek word 'autos', which means self. Rejecting the word Autistic means rejecting yourSELF. We're autistic and we are sure as hell not ashamed of it!!!!

Racial, I'd say, because of the genetic difference.  (Of course, the same could be said of hereditary deafness, but autism isn't necessarily disabling.)

It's another category that society uses to justify throwing away people who are different.      I wouldn't use the word "retarded" to describe anyone because I don't believe a person can be reduced to a number on a test.

Many people didn't want to reject the word Negro in favor of Black or African-American because they looked at the issue that way.

As I see it, there isn't any shame or self-rejection involved in dumping that ugly old historical baggage.  Rather, it's a positive assertion of the right to define oneself.

As far as which minority group specifically we would be, I am not sure yet, as to prove that we another race would be very difficult, and could be a huge barrier, I am waiting to hear from the UN minority groups section, and hoping to get some technical advice back.

The word queer is still used in a negative sense, so is the N word sometimes.
But the word gay is never really that much of an insult to someone who is actually gay. (although it is used sometimes as in insult. "you are so gay" etc)

i believe we need to reclaim the word autistic, the word retard will always have a negative meaning (that of a low IQ) but the word autistic will change if we try.

I think it should be a social difference. I mean there's a possibilty of us being a different 'race' due to having Neanderthal genes and all that, but like Amy said, it'd be rather difficult.

Fortunately, I've never heard 'autism' being used as an insult before. I've heard 'gay' and 'retard' (in fact 'gay' is the most commonly used insult at my school, blegh) but not 'You autistic... erm, thing!'.

All right time for me to weigh in and make everything clear ! LOL (j/k)




I think  it is ok to use the word aspie or aspergian. Words often change their meaning. There is no reason in the world why aspie and aspergian must have the same meaning as asperger. They are of course related etymologically. There is nothing unusual about this if you know anything about  words and their history.

We just need to aspie/aspergian mean this to us  and thats it. I think that if we stick with that one or 2 complainers will eventually go away or just resign to use the not so new meanings while all the new people will just think it has always been like that

A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step; and this a great first step Amy!

I think we should also generate a statement (seperately?) that makes clear we are discriminated against, in the main, not due to any odd behaviour on our part, but rather because of the odd expectations the establishment impose on others. I can't see many NTs thinking too hard about issues based on how we see the world, but if we focus on things that a lot of NTs also see as pointles and stupid (especially in the work place) then they may well take notice?

The more I study the more sure I become that AS has become so distorted as to be beyond recovery, and the core issue is the classic definition of autism and the difference in outlook and attitude it implies (I'll see if I can get some of the early works on this, but as we are talking pre 1920 here, there's not much on the web; does anyone live close to a medical library? Here's some names to check when looking for relevant papers: Doncaster Humm, Guy Wadsworth and Aaron Rosanoff which should be enough to get one onto other luminaries?).

It should be core to our movement to emphasise this as it is uniformly positive; autism is essential, autism is part of being human, there's not the slghtest possibility that we would be where we are today (for better or worse) without autism (and it's equally clear that most of the World's problems come from the activities of the low autism types; it's a great shame the Neandertals didn't survive independantly from those grasping greedy "modern humans" ). The problem, once again, is the word itself; but I really don't like "Aspergian" either!

As for the question of categorising; imagine the degree of "colour" that's been used for discriminatory reasons in so many societies, or the caste systems such as that which is still rife in India. Surely if such pointless and arbitrary distinguishing features can be defined for the purpose of discrimination, then surely "autistic mindset" is sufficiently powerful a designant to use to protect us from discrimination? There's a downside (isn't there always?) insofar that, if this is to be valid, then we must begin to distinguish ourselves from those DSM Aspies who are not autisitic (let them keep the label if it makes them feel better, it's the non-auties who seem to care about such things) and I note that very few of you are prepared to tackle this issue. You think it's cruel? Discriminatory? Why, when if we can succeed, we can then help others of that kind, and will have helped them by setting a precedent! Until we acheive such seperation we'll get nowhere, to the detriment of both parties. This in part is why the DSM evolved such a woolly method of diagnosis, to prevent those of us who have the smarts from actually enforcing recognition! As long as we continue to accept this artificial imposition then we're stuck where we are.

Social minority with basis in neurological difference - the neurological difference must be stressed, autism can't be removed using ABA and other "therapys"

What are u talking about?

and who are DSM ASPIE who is not autistic? tell me who are u talking about?