Aspie, Aspergian, Autie... and Autasian?

Post Reply New Topic

I demand a single term. Aspie and Aspergian are too exclusive, and Autie, I feel, is too bound up in the baggage of Autism (not to mention rhyming with naughty). We need a term that has some contiunuity, but is recognisably distinct. Autasian, to me, fits the requirement - it is more derived from Autos (self), the root word for Autism, than the word Autism, and describes us well. It also leads to thye word Autasia, as a descriptive place name...

What say you?

I have always just liked my name and simple as that. Referring me to a pathological disorder directly or indirectly just is not my preference and even with a associated nick name.

Yes - it stigmatises people.

Individual first, then "aspie" in place of "a person with Asperger;s syndrome" only because it's easier to say

Nobody should be referring to someone by their condition but labels are used to simplify the process of describing a person.

Take a room full of people,
Say; Black Person, Wearing Sunglasses and trench coat, (that narrows it down a lot but it still could be anyone.
Carrying Long sword - doesn't narrow it down much further because most black guys who wear dark glasses and trench coats carry swords right?
Half vampire....

Ah.... You mean Blade.

Of course, if you knew his name you could just say Blade.

Names are better but if you're trying to describe a group of people with similar functions or if you don't have a name handle, then it's a valid description.

None of those. I say "autistic" in place of "someone on the autistic spectrum."

Asperger's will shortly cease to be a separate diagnosis, and good riddance to the imprecision and confusion the term brought. It is time for us to get used to the fact that we are autistic.

I dont like being called "autistic". Medical and related establishment did their job with figuring enough out to realize help was/is needed. I don't need to be mouthed off to and degraded by being called a disorder / disease / condition or defective concept then be expected to rebel against establishment in favor of certain special interest groups who have done well with their political sardoodledoms. Other then the collective social typological coordination abilities that come easy with the concept I've classified it as unethical to seek to accomplish and further assemble the psychosocial frameworks with the primary need to refer or call directly before an individuals name an "ic" concept.

In time you folks that hold so dearly the self-association will realize the emotional and political damage that occurs to others should others continue to insist. Damage to others minds has already been done. While with anything there is the positive and negatives it is my belief the negatives far outweigh the positives. Self-advocacy is not dependent upon it.

It's a nice idea but I feel that autistic isn't a narrow enough description to be useful.

For example, I can't say that most autistic people are quite capable of carrying on a conversation one-to-one.
I can say that about people with Aspergers Syndrome.


It's a bit like saying "I've got a cat" and someone says "I don't like cats because they drop hair everywhere"
(but you really have a hairless cat).

If you said I have a Sphinx (Canadian Hairless) cat, it wouldn't leave so much room for interpretation.

Of course, you've still got room for individual traits, maybe your cat only has 3 legs.

Cats are neat but the hairs get in my noise.

Agreed. Also, all of the proposed names are ridiculously stupid. "Aspie" and "autie" make me want to gouge out my eyes with a spoon.

Last edited by Delirium on 02 Jun 2011, 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It serves a social and political agenda but all in all Autistic Disorder is very much different then Asperger's Syndrome. People with Autistic Disorder the original criteria are very different then Asperger's Syndrome. At any rate calling someone a disorder or defective is common sense disrespectful. It's hard to imagine how some pathological term in clinical terms became for some such a preferred social stereotype.

I am kind of stuck in-between as technically I do not have A.S but HFA. Autism spectrum is better as at least people have not abused that term to refer people to it. It's becoming somewhat like the R word in that people are being called the condition which can be dehumanizing thus the reason for some self-advocates great desires aside from abortion to re-define autism. Seems to me when someone accept the usage toward the self they are either playing politics like has been proven or self-inflicting social harm to their self-esttem.

To me this all is common sense and I don't mind to like a broken tape recorder talking about it to professionals, media and online here.

none of these.

saktra

Saktra reminds me of Jayata Shayata philosophy.

ci: I am not offended by being called autistic, nor do I find it disrespectful. I am autistic. No one is proposing addressing individuals by shouting "Hey, autistic! Get over here and fix my computer!" but when discussing something in relation to autistic people, it is much more straightforward simply to say "autistics" rather than some ridiculous elaboration like "persons with autism spectrum disorder" or some such nonsense. Yes, in person, when referring to me specifically, one should simply use my name. But when talking about autism and people who have it, there is no more appropriate word than simply "autistics" or "autistic people" if you prefer.

While it has not reached to the insulting nature of the "R" word or "N" word there is still a few basic ideas in play. Some of the current social agenda's in the usage of a pathological concept in placement to an individuals identity even some of the time in certain settings has resulted in depression and what seems to be great dislike. The problem further with it is the more emotionally it has effected an individual which is more then simply a label but being ingrained as an identity is the conflict with human rights to treatment due to "insecurity" which resulted from the self-esteem in relation to the label.

1. If someone finds it devaluing to be considered a "disorder" there is nothing wrong with that.

2. The more people desire others to focus on a defect and self the more potential self-esteem and or emotional problems in potential.

3. There are more neutral ways to support a positive emotional well being and respectability then calling someone a disorder. Such as individual with autism.

4. Some people hold fast to the idea of being called a label because they think well they are finally understood. But not everyone relates at this level or has moved on from the discovery state of the self and the diagnosis.

In society we just got to learn to respect how each-other feel and that means some people would rather not be called a disorder. I don't think it is unreasonable and in fact calling someone a disorder especially when someone is born different well that's highly unusual for other disabilities and I don't think most would tolerate the assumption for other conditions..

I'd agree but Aspergers SYNDROME isn't a disorder. Heck. It's like saying NERD. I'm happy to be called a nerd, I am one and I don't care. ...

no... better than that... I DO care.

I'm proud of my Nerdocity.... same as I'm proud of my aspieness.

It's only when the word aspie comes out of the mouth of a hater that it feels bad - but then anything from the mouth of a hater will sound bad.

I think nerdy is fine. Yet when the label is applied to someone that experiences disability more then they are "ok" with and that they can rebel against for the sake of self-esteem it's a real life issue. It's about real minds and real emotions that simply are not adjusted by social positivity by redefining the meaning of a label or using a sub-label like aspie.

That's why myself and others at times don't relate well to the otherwise mainstreamed and who are also diagnosed. It seems like they don't take it seriously and when others want help they at times want to hide that by saying it must not be "aspie" or A.S or autism. It does get weird sometimes with what people say. Under the law and common sense though for those with substantial disabilities it just is a different perception of it then those that are mainstreamed and maybe just quirky or whatever else some say.