• 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 term "Aspie" --is it offensive? What do you call yourself?

"Aspie" - is it an acceptable term? (Up to 2 responses)

  • Yes it's fine

  • I don't mind it but it's out of date

  • I wouldn't use it but I don't mind it if others do

  • I find it a bit in poor taste

  • I find it personally offensive

  • I find it offensive to all autistic people

Results are only viewable after voting.
Unless someone is speaking directly to me using their words to insult or evoke anger in me I don't even think about it. There is a thing called our First Amendment Right and anyone telling me what words I can or can't use is in violation of that right. It is for that reason I don't tell others "Don't use that word" There will always be easily offended people that like to cry victim over trivial things.
 
The only people who would get offended are the loony left Guardian readers who think everything is potentially offensive.
 
I'd rather call myself aspie than having high-functioning autism. Every time the the functioning labels are mentioned I think I age prematurely by one year. I'm proud to call myself "aspie", even though other people have told me it's wrong.
 
To illustrate the kind of silliness going on, this is one of the tamer Twitter exchanges that has been going on. Others have included far more "colourful" language and personal insult, but it gives an idea...
Notice that the "aspie is disrespectful" side of the conversation started getting "likes" almost immediately.

TP2.png
 
I don't mind Aspie and found it conveinent but am moving away from its use. One reason is that the term does seem obsolete, and another is the negative associations some make with the namesake Hans Asperger.

I am not really sure about the various forms of autism and how they all fit together. I don't think science understands it yet either. Its in the process of research. The term 'spectrum' seems just a convenient way to give a broad name to the whole kaboodle. I don't mind that approach, as I don't mind the puzzle piece symbol, which still seems fitting. Perhaps one day they will divide it up differently based on more evidence/data. Besides the basic low/medium/high divison it mainly seems still quite spectulative to me. People can come up with all sorts of theories, but they are just that, and often quite baseless.
 
Last edited:
My view on all terms I can think of:

Dislike and would prefer not to be called, but will not say anything if someone refers to themselves as: Aspie, Autie

Seem very oddly worded and forced: "55853 is a person with [autism/ASD/ASC/Asperger's (disorder/syndrome)]", "55853 is an Autistic"

No problems with: "55853 is autistic", "55853 has [term for autism]", "people with [term for autism]", "autistic people"

What I'd prefer: not to have my autism spoken about by someone else (this is slightly "tongue-in-cheek")

To summarise: I don't have any issues with the "disorder" label, I have no issues with saying I "have" autism, I have no issues with the label "Asperger's". Insisting on including "person" seems forced, but so does refusing to include it. I'm personally really not a fan of "cute" labels like "Aspie".

I selected the "poor taste" option, as I thought it was that I don't like the "taste" of the term. I thought this as being strange, but I have seen members of this site refer to "flavours" on things that do not have taste, such as the autism spectrum. But searching the term, it apparently means "offensive". This would mean that there are two options for offensive, and I have selected the wrong option. Could you please clarify?
 
When we refer to good or bad taste in such terms it is not an autistic phenomenon, it's just a common English language idiom. If something is "in good taste" our personal opinion is one of approval. Something which is "in bad taste" we disapprove of or may be offended by. Something which is "tasteless" is very offensive.
To be "in poor taste" fits in between good and bad taste. It is something we may disapprove of but not be offended or disgusted by.
A comedian who uses highly offensive material might be considered tasteless, but one who makes a joke that is mildly unpleasant or is contrary to the average opinions of the audience might be said to be exercising poor taste.
I hope that explains it for you @55853 . I think you made the right choice judging by your last post :)
 
Autistamatic said:
When we refer to good or bad taste in such terms it is not an autistic phenomenon, it's just a common English language idiom. If something is "in good taste" our personal opinion is one of approval. Something which is "in bad taste" we disapprove of or may be offended by. Something which is "tasteless" is very offensive.
To be "in poor taste" fits in between good and bad taste. It is something we may disapprove of but not be offended or disgusted by.
A comedian who uses highly offensive material might be considered tasteless, but one who makes a joke that is mildly unpleasant or is contrary to the average opinions of the audience might be said to be exercising poor taste.
I hope that explains it for you @55853 . I think you made the right choice judging by your last post :)
Click to expand...
Thank you for explaining, I am glad that I filled the poll correctly.
 
For me aspie. Is a way of taking ownership of my disability. I get called so many things, disabled, vulnerable adult, complex needs individual. That aspie feels good because it’s like I’ve taken ownership of my condition.
 
I do like it, and identified with it (only to myself) for many years when I was sure that I had Aspergers but didn't know how to get an official diagnosis. By the time I got my official diagnosis, the DSM 5 had changed it to ASD 1. When I first heard about the change I was worried because I thought it had destroyed my chances of ever getting diagnosed because it would be hard to get anyone to see how I had similar characteristics to people who needed caregivers and special education. Fortunately, I found professionals who do actually understand that autism is a spectrum. I also started working with children who are on the lower functioning side of the diagnosis, and found that I could relate to them a lot better than my NT coworkers could, and sometimes I related to them more than I related to my NT coworkers. At this point, I'm happy to be on the same spectrum as these kids that I love. It feels like it gives me an extra edge in helping them get their voices heard and helping them be themselves in a way that also lets them be a happy part of the rest of the world.

Which wording to use now can be confusing, though. I thought of myself as having Aspergers for a long time. My official diagnosis is ASD 1. I'm happy to be called an Aspie or autistic. I also don't mind person with autism, although the philosophy behind it seems kind of weird to me because we don't do that with other characteristics. We don't say 'person with tallness' or 'person with femaleness,' so it seems to me to be reinforcing the idea that autistic is an especially bad and overwhelming trait to have because we can't treat it like we treat a person's other characteristics. On the other hand, I know people can be afraid of being defined as only being a stereotype of an autistic person, and it's not really my place to discuss the language someone uses unless it's especially harmful. I'm not really sure which term I should use. I just try to do my best to use one that fits the context and hope anyone with strong opinions about it will forgive me.
 
On the television this evening I heard the term neuro atypical - high functioning, used as an explanation.

BBC drama. Character plays a consultant whose colleague worked alongside her autistic nephew and seemed puzzled by the nephew’s “strange”behaviour.

I hadn’t heard that label until this evening.
Is it new?
Old?
Made up?

I’d always thought the BBC used researchers when covering topics in dramas.
 
Gracey said:
On the television this evening I heard the term neuro atypical - high functioning, used as an explanation.

BBC drama. Character plays a consultant whose colleague worked alongside her autistic nephew and seemed puzzled by the nephew’s “strange”behaviour.

I hadn’t heard that label until this evening.
Is it new?
Old?
Made up?

I’d always thought the BBC used researchers when covering topics in dramas.
Click to expand...

What programme was that on Gracey?
 
I don't really mind it, but I suppose I don't really like terms that only reflect part of who I am. Labels that many people misunderstand anyway. When I say anything, I tend to say I m a person with high autistic traits, as I m undiagnosed and also because it reflects that this is part not all of who I am.
 
Bolletje said:
I think people will grasp at any excuse to be offended these days.
Click to expand...

Sadly, I think that you are probably right. If people would just "go with the flow" on unimportant subjects, they would be happier and healthier for it.



'
 
It annoys my preference for aesthetics in words and I wouldn't use it. That said, as far as I know it's generally accepted by the community and not meant in an negative way like, for example, "spergers".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom