[PhasmaFelis]

Absolutely. One of the biggest problems in autism advocacy is high-functioning people (like me) and (the guardians of) low-functioning people constantly talking past each other. Some people are perfectly happy as they are and don't want to be changed, some people are desperately unhappy and could really benefit from treatment or even a "cure". The spectrum is far too broad for a single approach to work.

> I've had people get mad at me for saying that I have a son with autism when I apparently should have said that I have an autistic son.

I honestly can't remember which one of those I'm "supposed" to be. I could make a case against either: "person with autism" might sound like it's some outside affliction, "autistic person" might sound like the condition matters more than the person. But extreme concern over small details is a defining trait of autism, and I do it too on other subjects, so I suppose I can't be too judgmental...

[nicolethenerd]

I think the trend these days is to use People-first language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language (that is, saying "person with autism" - because it puts the person first)

[taejo]

> People-first language ... is a type of linguistic prescription to avoid marginalization or dehumanization ... when discussing people with a health issue or disability.

The argument for "autistic person" or even "autist" is that it's not a health issue or disability.

[PhasmaFelis]

That's the error I was addressing in my earlier post. For me, autism is not a disability. For someone like BadCookie's son, it definitely is. I personally don't care either way about "person with autism" vs. "autistic person", but it's dangerous to assume that autism is never a disability because high-functioning people exist.