• 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

The Way We See Low Functioning is Wrong!

I cannot stand the high-functioning label as well as the low-functioning one. A few days ago I came across a website for autistic women that did not allow use of the functioning labels. Why can't it be like that here as well?
 
I cannot stand the high-functioning label as well as the low-functioning one. A few days ago I came across a website for autistic women that did not allow use of the functioning labels. Why can't it be like that here as well?

Probably because that'd be really annoying.

For many, labels like those are just a convenient way to describe something. An easy and quick way to communicate a concept.

Instead of trying to get rid of them (which I promise you, wont work), just work on not being offended/bothered so easily. Just censoring labels, descriptions, or methods of talking simply so you dont have to hear them only ever leads to people fighting about stuff even more. And really, it's not like the concepts related to those labels wont get discussed. It's just that they'll get unnecessarily convoluted. Because every time someone would normally just say "high functioning" and instantly get their meaning across, they'll now have to use some screwball workaround, an unnecessarily complex way of communicating exactly the same idea/concept. It's not exactly logical. But it IS troublesome.

Note that I say this as someone that gets labels thrown at me all the time. But see, I dont care. Because why should I? Aint any reason for me to get offended or angry. It's not like they're throwing beehives at me.
 
I cannot stand the high-functioning label as well as the low-functioning one.
All autism is the same. High-functioning & low-functioning just describes the severity level of one's co-morbid conditions, which is a relevant distinction. In DSM5-speak, that is ASD1, ASD2 or ASD3.
 
Last edited:
Probably because that'd be really annoying.

For many, labels like those are just a convenient way to describe something. An easy and quick way to communicate a concept.

Instead of trying to get rid of them (which I promise you, wont work), just work on not being offended/bothered so easily. Just censoring labels, descriptions, or methods of talking simply so you dont have to hear them only ever leads to people fighting about stuff even more. And really, it's not like the concepts related to those labels wont get discussed. It's just that they'll get unnecessarily convoluted. Because every time someone would normally just say "high functioning" and instantly get their meaning across, they'll now have to use some screwball workaround, an unnecessarily complex way of communicating exactly the same idea/concept. It's not exactly logical. But it IS troublesome.

Note that I say this as someone that gets labels thrown at me all the time. But see, I dont care. Because why should I? Aint any reason for me to get offended or angry. It's not like they're throwing beehives at me.

Bee hives would definitely be worse and for the bees too! This topic reminds me a bit of how we once used the terms handicapped or mentally retarded and those were objected to but all that happens is new words get a stigma and we move on. We tried disabled and then differently abled and I don't even know what the current politically correct term is now.
 
There are real-world issues with these labels, and the Ivory Tower doesn't always effectively consider their usefulness and practical application.

Consider:

In my line of work, I help support three young women who, like me, are on the spectrum. However, they also have MR. In one awkward staff meeting, the subject of theft came up, and one of the people there said that the clients cannot understand the implications of their theft problems because they have autism. I pointed out that I, too, am on the spectrum, and I've never had any issues with understanding the problem of stealing or any of its ramifications.

The problem with the current system of placing people into three categories is that it doesn't account for these kinds of specific, analytic differences. Technically, I and one of the clients are labeled as moderate, type 2 autism. But I have a 115 IQ, two partial Master's degrees...whereas these girls have varying degrees of MR. I've worked with non-autistic, MR clients before as well, and I'd say it should be obvious that the MR has a much more pronounced effect on not understanding the meaning and results of theft/stealing than autism alone does (many who are MR genuinely do lack the cognitive capacity to understand any consequences of klepto tendencies they may have, much like the toddlers who steal cake at church family dinners--it's a sad truth that veteran direct support professionals observe all the time, for adult MR people function mentally on the level of younger children, cumulatively). But again, the current diagnostic methodology in the field of autism ignores situations like this, leading to even greater misunderstanding!

We've got to get more specific. Fear of offending, and overly broad focus on the more conceptual aspects of the spectrum (as opposed to how it works out in the day-to-day), do no favors when it comes to dealing with everyday realities like the one I mentioned.
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Top Bottom