A community for respectful discussion and memes related to autism acceptance. All neurotypes are welcome.
Community:
Values
Rules
Encouraged
.
Helpful Resources
I don't see it as offensive, but English isn't my first language either.
I don't think we have a term in Swedish for "on the spectrum" we would instead say NPF, Neuropsykiatriska funktionsnedsättning / funtionsvariation which means "Neuropsychiatric disability / functional variation".
I do get a little bit annoyed tho when people hesitate or feel uncomfortable to use the word autism, as if it would be a slur. But I understand they don't want to step on my or anyone else's toes.
Using the term ‘on the spectrum’ seems like an attempt at a middle ground for those who may feel uncomfortable with the word autism, straight up. I’d offer this could feel like a safer term for those worried about external reaction to the word autism. Even though that’s what it’s called, sticking to the center may be a way to go to avoid skepticism of NTs. I experienced a lot of this right up to my diagnosis at 57. And now that I’m diagnosed and have been validated, I say ‘autism’ proudly. Because the stigma has to stop.
I don't personally consider this a language issue as much as a people issue.
IIRC the current evaluation methodologies are heavily tied to the idea of a spectrum of traits, each with their own scale.
As you say, there are other spectrum diagnoses including autism, so "on the spectrum" is technically correct.
Which is why i consider the issue you seem to be describing as a person issue, not a language one.
A person using a descriptor or label with the intention of being an arsehole could just as easily use a different word or phrase.
Using something that isn't inherently considered offensive however, gives them some plausible deniability.
You can choose to find the phrase itself offensive and let people know of your opinion, but you should probably manage your expectations around how other people are using it so you can get an accurate reading on social intent.
On the spectrum is technically correct as long as it can be implied from an earlier specification that it is about the meant spectrum. And even if it is technically correct, having a good reason for continuing with simply the spectrum would... make sense. If people would realize that they try to leave out the terms autism and autistic for a wrong reason (and maybe they don't) that would be a success. It's not about choosing whether something is offensive to me or not, but whether it is, be it intended or not. I am aware that people don't usually use it to purposefully be offensive, and in that sense I can understand it - but that doesn't change that (depending on the unconscious reason) it is offensive anyway.
If people would realize that they try to leave out the terms autism and autistic for a wrong reason (and maybe they don’t) that would be a success
That's phrased in such a way that it seems you think that the only reason to use "on the spectrum" is to purposely leave out the word autism.
If that's what you mean then i disagree, It's only my own anecdotal experience, but it's still at least one instance where what you are possibly suggesting is not true.
Coming from a "my interpretation is the only interpretation" viewpoint is an easy way to get confusing input from the world, at least in my personal experience.
It’s not about choosing whether something is offensive to me or not, but whether it is, be it intended or not.
I also disagree with this, offense is inherently subjective, I'd put good money on me not being the only person who thinks that.
I will however concede that "choose" was a bad choice of word on my part, as it's not always as simple as "choosing".
I am aware that people don’t usually use it to purposefully be offensive, and in that sense I can understand it - but that doesn’t change that (depending on the unconscious reason) it is offensive anyway.
See my answer above about subjective opinion vs objective fact.
But it being offensive to you, regardless of intent, i can understand, which is what i was trying to address with :
You can choose to find the phrase itself offensive and let people know of your opinion, but you should probably manage your expectations around how other people are using it so you can get an accurate reading on social intent.
I phrased that poorly, i think it would be better phrased as :
If you find the phrase itself offensive regardless of intent, you can let people know of your opinion, but you should probably at least try to understand the intent behind it so you can more accurately assess the social context and act accordingly.
for example, if you know they don't intend to be offensive and you react with hostility, that's a valid choice, but it does come with consequences, knowing about the potential consequences beforehand means you can better prepare yourself.
That’s phrased in such a way that it seems you think that the only reason to use “on the spectrum” is to purposely leave out the word autism.
subjective opinion vs objective fact.
“my interpretation is the only interpretation” viewpoint
I disagree with those, but I don't want to discuss them further because I think it leads nowhere. I posted this for takes from other people, people who disagree could convince me and than I wouldn't have to be annoyed by it's usage anymore and if everyone would agree I could reasonably ask from others to not talk about the spectrum. In any case I would not want to react in a hostile way, even if it annoys and offends me.
people might use it to sound less clinical/doctorish/formal or if they misunderstand the meaning. They also might misunderstand neurodivergency with "on spectrum" and use both terms alike to someone who is not diagnosed formally. I would like to be called how I call myself, autistic would be the best, because saying on spectrum feels like I am sitting on some tree or on a train. Also I strongly doubt that perceiving people unlike themselves worse (which I would call xenophobia) is natural. Saying it natural rather sounds as excuses for xenophobic people. If someone raised in diverse environment with different people around and without xenophobia then they won't be xenophobic.
I am happy to have a non-xenophobic reason for understanding it's usage, but I disagree that it would be possible to not be xenophobic.
If you ask people, most of them will say they aren't, because they don't want to be, but in reality I think most of them are. If a black person is trying to break a lock, people will call the police, and if a white person is trying to break one they will be offered help. The most important thing is to be aware of it and minimize acting to it, not just by compensating for the xenophobia, but by making it impossible to act xenophobic in the first place (like with blind job application processes).
Saying it natural rather sounds as excuses for xenophobic people.
It's important that you bring this up and I hope that suggesting that xenophobia is natural to humans won't be perceived as an excuse for acting xenophobic to anyone.
halfway through responding i talked myself out of my own opinion on this. language changes and i think "on the spectrum" is coming to the end of it's usefulness. it was helpful for a time but now i only use it at work in the context of "i'm just grasping for language that will make you understand how to communicate with me".
On the spectrum is a helpful middle ground when exploring the topic though. And it was a very helpful middle ground when every discussion of autism seemed to devolve into clinical diagnosis vs awareness that the medical system in most countries is a dumpster fire. getting my son diagnosed took very little effort. when i looked into it for myself 6 yrs ago, the clinician was helpfully blunt with "look unless you need accomodations dont put yourself through this yet. theres one person in this state who can diagnose in adults and it's a 2 yr wait list to start the 1 yr $1200 out of pocket process".
a friend got her offical diagnosis about 6 months ago and the process has by her description, improved and shortened significantly. so i may explore that again. at this point outside work i just use autist/autism, but at work i still use spectrum. I do agree the language is aging out of broad usefullness, but i don't believe it's something i'll be bothered by for a long while still. i get your frustration with it. I think we're in that be kind and let people use the language they're comfortable with period for the spectrum. it may die off or it may become elder millenials term for ourselves as aspie has for some genxers who grew up before the spectrum entered the dms5.
It's literally in the clinical name.
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/autism-spectrum-disorders-asd
Broadly there's two important reasons for why it's called this, when it used to be either Asperger's or autism.
So it's called a spectrum to recognize that there's a wide range of symptoms and not everyone presents in the same way or requires the same support.
either Asperger’s or autism
How I see it, there is no such thing as Asperger’s or autism; Asperger’s is a historical type of autism. In research ‘autism’ was sometimes used for specifically Kanner’s/‘classical autism’ so another term had to be used for the group of both when it became seen as one bigger spectrum: ASD. Hans Asperger himself used the term ‘autism’ as well however, referring to his patients, so ASD and autism are synonymous.
I agree with autism being considered a spectrum and with the ‘official’ name being ASD, but my post wasn’t about that. Rather, it was about people just talking about the spectrum and leaving the term ‘autism’ or ‘autistic’ completely out, which I think was pretty clear, but maybe it was not?
Another reason why I dislike it: there are other spectrum disorders. It seems weird to consider autism the spectrum only because it's the most widely known and it could also could cause confusion. This disadvantage also means that (if considered) there has to be more perceived advantage from other factors (like wanting to forcibly emphasize difference), making it more insulting.
"Asperger managed to accommodate himself to the Nazi regime and was rewarded for his affirmations of loyalty with career opportunities. He joined several organizations affiliated with the NSDAP (although not the Nazi party itself), publicly legitimized 'race hygiene' policies including forced sterilizations and, on several occasions, actively cooperated with the child 'euthanasia' program." from wikipedia
I am sorry if I gave the impression that I thought he definitely wasn't one, I personally just think that this is one of those things that can't be 100% certain anymore, even if it may be 99%. Edit: I'd like to not discuss this any further, if you think this isn't one of those things that can't be certain I hope we could just agree to disagree.
I don't see it as offensive either way personally
I think it boils down to comfort level