The way we use language sends a message about our background and our views of the world. As culture shapes conventions of language, stereotypes in culture are reflected in language and self-propagate through the hearing and using of this language. Sometimes, cultural shifts change language conventions in recognition of improved societal empathy for a marginalized group. Language about autism may be an example of a grassroots shift in language that improves equity.
An example of these sorts of shifts in language is the discontinuation of the term Asperger’s Disorder. Prior to 2013, Asperger’s was seen as autism without intellectual disability though it was literally defined by lack of language impairment. It was stigmatizing of intellectual disability to separate it from the rest of the cluster of symptoms. It was also stigmatizing to autism to label people as Asperger’s rather than use the label from the parent category as if autism were a bad word. Further, the traits in Aspergers as it was defined were autistic traits that are more easily masked, suggesting suppression of traits makes one not autistic. And lastly, Dr. Asperger has a troubled historical past worth reading about. Now folks who formerly would have gotten the label Asperger’s from a medical provider would get the label autism instead with comment about which domains they are likely to need support.
A potentially emerging change in language convention based on the preference for some autistics that comes from the neurodiversity movement is identity-first language in contrast to the standard of person-first language. The impact of multiculturalism on the field of science led to American publishing companies promoting the use of person-first language for any disability or ailment to promote the humanity and dignity of people who live with these labels. The idea was to separate the person from the problem and to speak about the person rather than define them by their problem. Examples of person-first language include saying, “a person with schizophrenia” rather than, “a schizophrenic,” or saying, “a man with cancer” rather than, “a cancer patient.” Many autistics feel neutrally or positively about their autistic neurodivergence, and see it as a crucial piece of their identity rather than a problem. They feel that using PC language in this way puts a worse connotation on autism than is necessary, and so they prefer identity-first language. Examples include saying, “autistic folks” rather than, “people with autism” or saying, “she is autistic” rather than “she has autism.” Other examples are throughout this blog. With no negative connotation tied to autism, there is no reason to say, “my sister is neurodivergent” when you could say, “my sister is autistic,” nor is there any reason to say, “I’m looking for a referral for a neurodivergent teen,” when you could say, “an autistic teen.”
A similar divide is over the terms disorder and disability. Many autistics feel that the traits that make them autistic are not inherently disordered. Some expressions of autistic traits do lead to the need for support to have full access to opportunities designed for the convenience of neurotypicals. When a condition becomes a barrier to accessing your community and limits your pursuit of your goals, it is a disability. Many autistics dislike the term disorder and dislike the acronym ASD as applied to autism because of this. That same group of autistics, however, still might apply the term disability to autism to recognize the barriers inter-group neurotype difference can create.
Not everyone prefers this language. There is no harm in making small mistakes and adjusting your language slightly over time as you get to know individuals’ preferences through openness to feedback. Being open minded to individuals’ preferences in the language that describes them is often a good indicator of your safety in that person’s relationship with you.
