thoughts on functioning labels

[fern_77]

all autistic people need support, and some need support in different areas than others. but labeling autistic people as high functioning or low functioning based on what support they need is harmful because it can cause people who are referred to as high functioning feel as if they don't struggle enough to deserve support and can cause people who are referred to as low-functioning to be infantalized and not listened to by allistic people. not only that, but the needs of an autistic person can change day by day, so they may need more or different supports on one day than another

 

[Crossbreed]

ASD severity levels, if accurately assessed, help the person to get the support that they need.
I do not see a down side to that model.

 

[Storm Hess]

I don't like the 'puzzle logos' for Autism. Are we puzzles to be solved? I don't like it.

 

[fern_77]

ASD severity levels, if accurately assessed, help the person to get the support that they need.
I do not see a down side to that model.

here are some articles about why functioning labels should not be used:
Large study supports discarding the term ‘high-functioning autism’
Here's Why You Should STOP Using Functioning Labels

 

[fern_77]

I don't like the 'puzzle logos' for Autism. Are we puzzles to be solved? I don't like it.

i don't like the puzzle logos either. i prefer the infinity symbol

 

[Crossbreed]

here are some articles about why functioning labels should not be used:
Large study supports discarding the term ‘high-functioning autism’
Here's Why You Should STOP Using Functioning Labels

No one uses functioning labels since the adoption of DSM-5, just "severity" levels which are different.

The former factored in IQ.
The current model does not.

I don't like the 'puzzle logos' for Autism. Are we puzzles to be solved? I don't like it.

My ideal symbol would be a "circle surrounding a square" for "thinking outside of the box," but I cannot find a Unicode image of such.

 

[Gerald Wilgus]

I think that functional descriptions can be useful in understanding aspects of ourselves, but also think that labels, expressing something more complex in shorthand, can be misused.

In my life I had severe social deficits, yet my intellectual capacity led people to believe that I was normal. Though people in my life could see my isolation, this was a time when autism was not diagnosed frequently, and so people thought that what I was experiencing was a deliberately thought out choice. Could a functional label have helped me? I don't know, but I recognize now that appropriate help may have made a positive difference in my life, though at the time I did not know how to appropriately ask for help.

 

[OkRad]

As they say, follow the money. Telling someone they can function when they can't just diverts money to those deemed "worthy".

However, keep in mind that a large portion of those deemed "worthy" also have others taking charge of their entire lives at great payments to those "taking care of them." It's not all about helping the autiee. It's how to make money off them, at least in the US.

Well, in Canada, too. The real estate industry got a huge boon when Disability was cut into two segments. Cash and HOUSING as if housing was more important than, oh....food! What a great boost to the housing market!

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

I'm living a great life, Thank you, just leave me alone. maybe in ten years when am in a home. not a big fan of labels.

 

[Tom]

I think some form of differentation is necessary in a clinical and practical sense, but agree the terms 'low' and 'high' have a degrading aspect. It also can be deeply inaccurate in the sense of blindly assuming because a person can't speak, or does not do something well that they don't think or are not capable of doing it. Time and again, under the right circumstances things are revealed that the people around them never imagined.

 

[Greatshield17]

all autistic people need support, and some need support in different areas than others. but labeling autistic people as high functioning or low functioning based on what support they need is harmful because it can cause people who are referred to as high functioning feel as if they don't struggle enough to deserve support and can cause people who are referred to as low-functioning to be infantalized and not listened to by allistic people. not only that, but the needs of an autistic person can change day by day, so they may need more or different supports on one day than another

I more or less agree in regards the term "functioning" and the like, but I think there needs to be some kind of distinction; without a distinction like the level system, our enemies are free to maneuver and continue portray Autism as though Level-3 Autism is "true Autism," and that the more debilities and negative traits an Autistic person has, the "more Autistic" they are.

If we stick to some kind of labeling system like the level system, even it isn't the most accurate; we will gain a beachhead to advance on, and hold our enemies' feet to the fire.

 

[BrokenBoy]

Are we puzzles to be solved?

We are though.

 

[Storm Hess]

We are though.

I have to disagree. We are humans that are different from the majority of the population. I do not like the connotations that I'm someone that needs to be studied and figured out. Again, it's just my opinion.

 

[fern_77]

No one uses functioning labels since the adoption of DSM-5, just "severity" levels which are different.

The former factored in IQ.
The current model does not.

My ideal symbol would be a "circle surrounding a square" for "thinking outside of the box," but I cannot find a Unicode image of such.

maybe it's used less by psychologists and such, but i have heard plenty of people who do not work in the field still refer to the functioning labels. and from what i have read about the "severity" levels, you are right, they do not refer to IQ

 

[fern_77]

I think some form of differentation is necessary in a clinical and practical sense, but agree the terms 'low' and 'high' have a degrading aspect. It also can be deeply inaccurate in the sense of blindly assuming because a person can't speak, or does not do something well that they don't think or are not capable of doing it. Time and again, under the right circumstances things are revealed that the people around them never imagined.

yes, i agree with you that some differentiation is needed. i think the three levels is a bit better, as it does not make a blanket statement that autistic people function either well or poorly, like the terms "high functioning" and "low functioning" do

 

[Nitro]

If we stick to some kind of labeling system like the level system, even it isn't the most accurate; we will gain a beachhead to advance on, and hold our enemies' feet to the fire.

We have enemies?

 

[Nitro]

yes, i agree with you that some differentiation is needed. i think the three levels is a bit better, as it does not make a blanket statement that autistic people function either well or poorly, like the terms "high functioning" and "low functioning" do

I tend to agree that there really isn't a lot of demarcation, but where do you draw the line to say what is enough?
So here is yet another angle to look at.
Even if you add more steps to it, aren't they all still technically labels?

 

[fern_77]

We are though.

i disagree with you. why do you think that we're puzzles

 

[tree]

My ideal symbol would be a "circle surrounding a square" for "thinking outside of the box," but I cannot find a Unicode image of such.

Do you mean, like this?

 

[Crossbreed]

Do you mean, like this?

Yes, with the circle not touching the corners and the outer area filled in.
Unicode has character symbols that are part of a font (like ◐, ◙, etc.), but does not include the symbol that I envision.
Think "square-drive screw..." Scrulox symbol