• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

"Autistic" or "Person with Autism"?

I also dislike the term Disorder. I always believed I was blessed and better off than most. From my point of view it's about 95% of the populaion that have a disorder and I'm one of the lucky few that skipped.
 
This is where I tend to step back. I don't have feelings, either way, about the language, and will just as easily flip back and forth from autism, autistic, ASD, Asperger's, and so on. I know a lot of people like to have an "identity", as if that is somehow important, but to me, it's not a thing that I think about or throw around in conversation on a daily basis.
 
The murky past of Hans Asperger seems to be one reason for the move away from the term Asperger's syndrome. The term syndrome is also loaded.
Asperger's "murky past" is a completely fake modern hit-job.
It's not even clear why it was originally done, or why it survives, unless perhaps it was part of a wider program.

FWIW I use Aspie, but I rarely bother to tell people. It's really difficult for NT's to understand anything about ASD, to the point that a simplifying falsehood is better than an accurate explanation anyway :)

I agree with Outdated about words like Disorder or Syndrome.
 
I prefer to say "I am autistic" more than something like "I am a person living with autism".

I don't use Aspie as I was diagnosed in 2017, when Asperger's Syndrome was already out of usage where I was being diagnosed at.

I received a diagnosis of "Autistic spectrum disorder" and I wasn't informed of what level I was as some other people seem to have been?
 
I received a diagnosis of "Autistic spectrum disorder" and I wasn't informed of what level I was as some other people seem to have been?
I think how your diagnosis gets professionally described largely depends on whatever legislature exists in your country or state. The Australian government officially recognises the three tier system.
 
I never know which word to use out of disorder, disability, or condition. If I use one of those there's always going to be someone who doesn't agree. But it is called Autism Spectrum Disorder so that's what I go by. I am not going to call it a difference, because to a lot of people on the spectrum it is a disability, not a difference, and it's best we respect that.

I heard getting rid of the Asperger's label was to do with people diagnosed with that weren't getting the support they needed or something. But if people on the spectrum insist that autism is a difference and not a disability then the support services aren't going to take a "difference" very seriously as they would a disability. But calling myself "disabled" feels too strong too. But it's not about me, it should be about the majority and science.
 
...and I wasn't informed of what level I was as some other people seem to have been?
For practical purposes (in the US),
  • if you need a court-ordered Guardian (of Person), you are a 3;
  • if you need a court-ordered Conservator [a.k.a. Guardian of Estate or equivalent], you are a 2;
  • a 1 requires neither.
 
Asperger's "murky past" is a completely fake modern hit-job.
It's not even clear why it was originally done, or why it survives, unless perhaps it was part of a wider program.

FWIW I use Aspie, but I rarely bother to tell people. It's really difficult for NT's to understand anything about ASD, to the point that a simplifying falsehood is better than an accurate explanation anyway :)

I agree with Outdated about words like Disorder or Syndrome.
More on Asperger: The truth about Hans Asperger’s Nazi collusion
 
I think where I come from, where you are on the spectrum is a matter of opinion, from both a professional and your family and friends. With me, everybody's opinion of my ASD was level 1, Asperger's syndrome, PDD-NOS, BAP, mild, high-functioning, even "just autism traits". And it feels very true to me too.
I think it's how you are socially, in development, learned, and instinct. As a level 1 Aspie, I had no social developmental delays in early childhood, learnt a lot of social skills naturally, and some learned social skills came from trial and error a little later than my peers. Otherwise I've always been articulate, engaging, communicative, made normal eye contact, and able to express my feelings and understand non-verbal social cues. It's all very easy to me.

I don't really require any support, but if I will need any support it'll probably be later on in life when a lot of my relatives are gone and I'm living alone, I might just need some support with managing my finances. But that still doesn't make me low-functioning. This kind of support would probably just involve me going to a citizens advice bureau or claiming something. And lots of people go to citizens advice bureaus for support, autistic or not. Otherwise, I wouldn't need significant support unless I get dementia or something.
 
IIRC, he ended up losing his position at his own institute because he didn't collude. He was never a Nazi party member despite considerable pressure. He ended up on the Western Front as a medic while real Nazis pushed their final solution.

It is easy to sit in a comfy chair in complete security and criticize people struggling under a totalitarian madman waging a war that killed 40 million - just in Europe. You do the best you can with what you've got while trying to stay alive.

A central tenet of modern physics is the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Werner Heisenberg was the lead on the Nazi nuclear bomb project. I won't hold it against him or ask to revoke his Nobel Prize.
 
@Masaniello

The article is inaccurate about Asperger.

All of that material is much the same. There have been many clones of the original, and it's all "guilt by association". of the worst sort.

It comes up here now and then of course - one of the mods may have a link.

Otherwise just read the short article. There is no actual data there (not even on the two actual claimed cases).
And the linking to "unrelated <bad thing>" is very obvious.

Honest writers don't use that technique. Liars don't do it by accident.
 
I don't care honestly. I can tell if somebody is more or less knowledgeable about the community based on the words they use but the only terms I don't like are the euphemistic ones like "on the spectrum". There are many spectrums - I am on the autism spectrum. Also I prefer that other people not call me an aspie or an autist though I will sometimes use those terms for myself.
 
Personally I don't mind autistic, aspie, or even person with autism. I draw the line at some of the more disgusting terms for disabled people which I won't spell out. I don't want to 'reclaim' them.
 
Read again what I said: I said Asperger's past was murky.
That is not a neutral statement. And then you linked another hit-piece.

Perhaps you didn't notice that Asperger's reputation was restored based on "newly translated German-language material" (or something like that)? Material in the only language the guy worked in during that time, so there can't have been much (if any) original material in any other language.

That level of "research" is another reliable indicator of a hit-piece, along with the absence of supporting data. The writer of the original didn't bother checking the actual source material because they had already decided on the result they intended to present.
The lack of facts is convenient for a scandal-monger. And similarly attractive for anyone one else reworking the same source material to sell the same story for a new cycle of outrage and "clicks".
 
The lack of facts is convenient for a scandal-monger.
I perceive the problem with using the name Asperger are the public associations, not the man himself.
While he may deserve to be lauded not hated, that shouldn't impact autism and those who are autistic either way, there's a need to separate the political from the actual. Otherwise it's all too easy for the ignorant or biased to paint a black picture against autistic people using disingenuous narratives. Discrimination is already bad enough, we need to try and remove added triggers as best as possible, however fair or unfair that may be to people like Asperger.

Also, while I rather liked the diagnosis, in that it was beginning to become a little more socially understood and acceptable (who knows, maybe the label itself was preferred by the public than something like ASC/ASD?) it also was diversionary toward other less socially visible autistics who generally may need more care and support, so maybe in the end a more homogenous spectrum description is better for all in the spectrum? Spectrum itself isn't a bad word to use, as for 'autism' itself, I think that one's stuck and it's down to improving perception of what it really means.
 
That is not a neutral statement. And then you linked another hit-piece.

Perhaps you didn't notice that Asperger's reputation was restored based on "newly translated German-language material" (or something like that)? Material in the only language the guy worked in during that time, so there can't have been much (if any) original material in any other language.

That level of "research" is another reliable indicator of a hit-piece, along with the absence of supporting data. The writer of the original didn't bother checking the actual source material because they had already decided on the result they intended to present.
The lack of facts is convenient for a scandal-monger. And similarly attractive for anyone one else reworking the same source material to sell the same story for a new cycle of outrage and "clicks".
Here's another one: The aftermath of the Hans Asperger exposé | BPS
 
This is difficult stuff to process, and it's terribly easy to make the case either way depending on whom makes it and their underlying motives. I suspect we can never know his true motives for being involved with the Nazis. In some ways he could be considered little different to the majority who were simply cowed into submission for fear of themselves becoming one of the victims (something rather easy that happened a great deal there and then).

Just because he was an intellectual means little in matters like these. I choose to try and be open minded about his true nature (as we'll never really know) and just cherish the fact he at least brought the subject to the attention of others, whatever the reasons. Just as we would never have had the moon landings (and all that came out of them) without Werner Von Braun, but equally, he advanced the production of ballistic missiles and made thermonuclear weapons and global mass destruction possible, maybe even inevitable.

Trying to assign good and/or evil to people is never a productive thing in the end. We should just try to learn from what has gone on before, the good, and the bad, but it's only evidence based facts that matter when it comes to forming opinions (imho). Even his published material does not give a definite insight into the man himself, it tends to lend itself to an existing opinion.

Ergo, it was better in the end to remove his name from the condition.
 

New Threads

Top Bottom