[...]Dan Olmsted, over at Age of Autism has been ruffling feathers because he believes we need to abolish the use of the word, "autistic." He is on the right track.

I have two children, as you know. They have autism. They are not autistic.[...]

http://tinyurl.com/4pyuzw

Rethink the use of the word 'autistics'? Have you even talked to an autistic who describes himself as autistic? I refer to myself autistic and it's not a derogatory term. Self advocates have used the term autistic to describe ourselves and we have quite a few reasons to do so.

Since autism is a neurological difference (and no one would deny this, even you guys), the word "autistic" makes the most sense. Another group of people with neurological differences is the gay community. I've never heard an accepting person describe a gay person as "a person with gayness."

I tell people my son has vaccine-induced autism.

I was recently in my health food store here in Florida, where we live 3 months out of a year, and I have a relationship with the owner of the store. I was there with my completely perfect 6 year old who was diagonsed PDD-NOS at age 4 1/2 after returning from living 3 years in Europe (didn't receive MMR at target age... instead age 4 to start preschool- she tanked)...and I was loaning out my DVDs from the Autism One conference (which I attended) and a lady standing in line saw the DVDs as the HFS lady and I were talking and she said... "Oh,... do you have an autistic child??" I cringed and replied..."No, I am blessed to have 3 very healthy, perfect children". Liv, my oldest and recovered beyond belief child responded..."and you can take that to the bank." I about lost it. I have no idea where she got that phrase from. But I think that she could see in my eyes that I wasn't happy about what someone had said about someone and somehow she just backed me up. I think that if the lady had said... "Oh dear Lord, did you have a child that was toxic and loaded with viruses and was Dx with autism?" Or even... "is your family effected by autism?" I would have been okay... but I know I froze when I heard "autistic"...

"'Autistics' simply do not exist."

Dan, wouldn't that be, "Autistics" simply does not exist? Not to be pedantic or anything. But autistics do exist, even if the word "autistics" doesn't.

We use descriptions of people as nouns all the time - I might be referred to as a woman, a mother, or a lawyer, though that doesn't mean I'm not also a human being. Well, except maybe for the lawyer part.

To me, the issue isn't using descriptions of people as nouns, it's using pejorative descriptions, like "retard." The description "autistic" isn't pejorative. Or is it?

I agree with Ms. Hines that there is a possibility that some people, not being familiar with autism, may think of autistic folks in a dehumanizing way. However, I don't think person-first language goes very far to remedy that. To me, it would go further for a non-autistic journalist to get some opinions from people with autism diagnoses about what they want to be called.

Although you had some fun ridiculing Dr. Chew, the issue she raised wasn't irrelevant. If you had corresponded with the people at autistics.org to get their opinion about the use of the word "autistics," you would have been treating them as people first rather than just giving lip service to the idea. Those people are worth talking to. Their opinions matter. They really are people first.

I only describe my son one way to people when in public or when the need arises:

"He's recovering from autism."

It alwasy sparks an interesting conversation, and it feels appropriate and respectful to my son who was born NT and regressed after vaccines.

JB

Most times I feel I need to defend my son. Within our school district, community, medical community...heck even within my family...I feel I have to 'fight' to get people to think of my son as a little boy first...autism second...if a child is diabetic, the general population thinks of a child...who suffers from diabetes...my experience with the general public has been the vast majority thinks of the autism first...which dehumanizes individuals...additionally, the general population is aware of what diabetes is...whereas they believe what they watch on Lifetime regarding autism...I agree with this article completely...thank you, Dan!

Timely article... I spoke to the new person who is transporting my son (who has Autism) to his Adult program. I was explaining about his Autism and some of the things Andy likes or how he might react if confused or frightened. They guy interupted me and said "don't worry I have experience... I drive Autistics on the school bus."
My only thought was "Oh great! he has experience with 'Autistics'"
I can honestly say that I felt less secure not more.

"Autistics" categorizes our children. It defines them by their condition. Then it becomes easy to assign characteristics to this group and see them as different.

While there are stories in the news today about affected children being forced off planes, banned from church, and asked to leave restaurants, we can only guess what the future will hold for the upcoming adults on the spectrum. Will "autistics" be seen as unwanted burdens or as victims of unsafe vaccines?

Anne Dachel
Media editor

"If Mr. Olmsted has spoken to an autistic individual at autistics.org, it would be well of him (if he chooses, of course), to indicate such." -- from Kristina Chew.

What is it with Kristina Chew? She seems to be drawn like a homing pigeon to false and irrelevant issues and to pose them in the most precious, accusatory and upside-down-and-backward way possible. Here we are instructed that IF I had talked to an individual at autistics.org, it would be well of me to say so, IF I so chose. OK, Kristina, I think I can tease out the point here: I didn't talk to anyone at autistics.org. I guess this has something to do with anything because ... well, why, exactly? The only way I can cope with this kind of rhetorical reverse-back-flip sniping is to say, Since I did not talk to anyone at autistics.org in exercising my first Amendment Rights to discuss my own views about the proper use of a word that does not appear in my dictionary, I would be unable, well of me as it might be, to indicate such, even if I so chose. Can we now talk about something that really matters? For example, is calling people "autistics" actually fine with Kristina Chew? That is the issue at hand. It would be well of her, if she believed that it is, and if she so chose, to say so. -- dan olmsted

Because at this point in time, "autistic" is used to describe individuals with autism, whereas the word "retarded" is said in a way to mean "stupid" --not "a stunting of growth or development".

There is a big difference.
If it catches on that calling someone "autistic" is a way to make fun of their behavior, then I will reconsider my opinion of it. If it becomes an insult, sure, but right now that is just not the case.

FOR OTHER REASONS I am for ditching the word. Let's call this disorder what it is... metabolic disorder.

Whenever I'm obliged to describe Michaela's condition, I say "she has a diagnosis of autism." But she is not defined by that diagnosis, she is her own person and autism is something, as we all know here, that happened to her. Unfortunately, some rather sad folks have decided that they like having autism as their identity. That's their business, but just like the rappers who like to use the N word, that doesn't make their conduct something that the rest of us should accept as respectable.

True success in the science of this issue will come when we can put the Kanner/Rutter formulation of this developmenal brain injury behind us and define the problem more precisely in terms of its causation and biology. In the meantime, the notion that there is a single disease entity here (and not an amorphous set of genetic mutations tha produce "autisms") is the one durable concept in autism science, so we'll need to stick with Kanner a while longer and just make sure we get the grammar right when we use the A word.

Our son does not have Autism...Autism has him. He is not "Autistic" he has been damaged. I would say this to the Neurologist everytime we saw him. I would also tell the Dr. "look into his eyes he is in there, I can see him, he is in there."
Last year after 10 years of treating our son and watching us with our son the Neurologist took my hand and told me I was right that he was in there.
We did not ask for this title "Autistic" or "Autism", it was placed on our son by those supposedly smarter than us. It is not the Autism that our parents heard about. If the rate of Autism continues to climb, there will be few families unaffected. It is not something to make fun of, it is not something that should be the butt of a joke. Your are so correct there is plenty of humor our there without using the most vulnerable of our citizens as the joke.

After reading some posts, I have to add to mine. I would even say that the description-"she/he has autism" is not correct. There is "no autism" as Dan said, it is a list of behaviors. My daughter does not have autism. It is a term for having the behaviors--but that's the issue. The behaviors really describe an injury for many. For most, a vaccine or environmental assault.

My daughter is a redhead which is a description of her hair color. Calling her a term, like autistic is naming her for a group of behavioral descriptions-
It also does not describe the biological mechanisms going on inside the body. Like addiction..the "disease concept" vs a "mental disorder" of the weak willed. Behaviors unfortunately do not give justice to the real illness. Recovery from both is the goal.

I understand the idea behind person first language, and I often do use it to describe my son out of sensitivity to the audience I'm addressing, but calling him autistic doesn't make me view him as a disability instead of a person any more than calling him a blondie means I'm ignoring his personhood for the sake of his hair color.

I think in this case, it's parents and care givers that are setting the terminology agenda, not the people in question. Every adult with autism I've asked about this (and I've asked a lot) is just fine with the term autistic. In fact, most of them are even ok with "Aspie" and "Autie," which are words I have a hard time getting behind.

I don't think it's the same as the word "retard" which has become so charged with negative connotations that even people who fit the clinical definition are now referred to as having "MR."

But at the end of the day, I do still have an adorable person with childhood, person of Caucasian, person with blondness, person with maleness, person with autism to hug and kiss - no matter how you want to refer to him.

"Why don't you try contacting the people who own autistics.org and ask their opinion?"

The true real autistics can choose to call themselves whatever they want. My son is vaccine-injured, NOT autistic, and as a parent, I strongly object to ANYONE referring to him this way. See the comment made by the 10 year old? He's not autistic, he is vaccine-injured and by golly he objects!! Point taken??

I visited autistics.org, the ‘Voice of Autism’, and looked around a little bit.

I notice they talk about ASA referring to themselves as the voice of autism. ASA isn’t the voice of autism. They’re the voice of Autism Speaks. Which is, in turn, the voice of pharma and the public health bureaucracies. They’re sort of like the little scrawny kids that do the bidding of the big bully partly because they benefit (to a lesser degree than the bully, but a little) and partly because they’re afraid not to. If I’m able to see eye to eye about anything with most of the people who’ve created the page—they are self proclaimed of the ‘neurodiversity movement’—I suspect that this is as far as it goes.

I did also like ‘the real meaning of autism prevention’.

But right below that I see a green poster on the page which I really don’t like at all that says ‘odds of an autistic person feeling like garbage when reading autism epidemic hype’.

I’ve never really cared much about the use of the term ‘autistic’, versus saying ‘a person with autism’. Seems to me there’s too much else to be really angry about. Lord knows I don’t speak for all people with autism. I don’t believe that any one does, or any organization. I don’t think they all think all that much alike. What follows are just my own personal thoughts on the matter.

As one who strongly believes that environmental triggers contribute greatly to autism, I can’t help but draw a parallel between this situation and that of the discovery, widely publicized when I was a child back in the sixties, that cigarettes contributed greatly to lung cancer. I can’t help but ask myself “would anyone with lung cancer have ever pretended that it was a perfectly normal thing.” Oh sure, there were people whose cancer wasn’t so severe at first. In that sense, there was the same spectrum as you have with autism. But who would have said, to themselves or to anyone, “there’s nothing wrong with me. I’m just different.”

So much of what I see those in the neurodiversity movement doing involves assuring themselves, over and over again, that they’re fine. That there’s nothing wrong with them. They can tell themselves, it seems to me, that it’s normal for a toddler to be non-verbal, to bang their head against the walls, to smear their feces on the walls. I guess I’m just not autly enough but I’m sorry, I just can not and will not go there.

Would you ever have heard of a person with lung cancer, especially after discovering that the two packs of cigarettes they smoked for twenty years was the major cause of their lung cancer, going on about how it’s only their own genes that should be considered—“and oh by the way, there’s nothing at all wrong with my genes and there’s nothing at all wrong with me and anyway we’re not sick at all”? I don’t remember ever seeing or hearing people like that.

Were there people with lung cancer who felt like garbage because there were those who were upset about the fact that cigarettes cause cancer and that there were so very many people being diagnosed with it, more and more as years went by? I don’t remember them. It seems to me that it would be absurd. If I had lung cancer and knew that I’d gotten it from the cigarettes I’d smoked all those years, I would say that the people who made me feel like garbage were the people who’d profitted from the sale of cigarettes. Not the people who were upset about it.

"Thus speaks a man who has not spoken to one autistic adult on the subject."

Kev, how could you possibly *KNOW* whether Dan has done this or not, unless of course, you have All-Knowing-I-See-Everything-And-That-Includes-You-Dan-Olmsted Superhero powers we don't know about.

"Why don't you try contacting the people who own autistics.org and ask their opinion?"

Why should he? Dan also has an opinion and he just expressed it.

Ain't the First Amendment grand?

Thus speaks a man who has not spoken to one autistic adult on the subject.

Why don't you try contacting the people who own autistics.org and ask their opinion?