In neurodiversity advocacy, the language we use holds profound significance. It shapes perceptions, attitudes, and ultimately, the lived experiences of individuals within the neurodivergent community. One particularly crucial aspect of this linguistic landscape is how we discuss autism. Do we say a child is autistic, or do we say they have autism? It might seem like a subtle distinction, but it holds significant implications for how we perceive, understand, and engage with neurodivergent individuals, specifically young children.
When we say “a child who is autistic,” we emphasize the child’s identity as an autistic individual. For the autistic community and their allies, this choice of language is empowering. It acknowledges autism as an integral part of a person’s identity, not as something separate or something “wrong” with the child. In modern medicine, there may be a perception that saying a child “has autism” is the correct usage of the person-first philosophy, but this verbiage implies autism is a condition to be cured, erased, or something that needs fixing. Saying a child is autistic shouldn’t hold the stigma that it has historically. Simply because it should not be stigmatized.
Years ago, when I would tell parents the results of their toddler’s evaluation, I would say “I am sorry, your child has autism.” I reflect on these moments, and I wish I could take those words back. While the way that I evaluate autism as a clinician remains similar, my framework for understanding autism as an individual has completely transformed. Now, when I discuss the results of an evaluation with parents, I will say “Congratulations, your child is autistic!”
Saying that a child is autistic should be akin to saying they are creative or athletic—it’s a descriptor woven into the fabric of their identity. Children who are autistic are capable of incredible things- their neurodivergence gives them a unique perspective, and their differences are something to be celebrated, not grieved. Instead of trying to fit neurodivergent individuals into a society built for neurotypicals, what if we all could make changes to be more inclusive and understanding? It is my job to begin this kind of inclusivity at the time of the evaluation. Also, autism is not something to be quantified. How would that be possible?
In the dialogue surrounding autism, embracing identity affirming language emerges as more than a linguistic choice—it’s an act of empowerment and recognition. By describing individuals as autistic instead of “having autism,” we acknowledge their identity and experiences as who they are. This shift fosters a culture of acceptance, pride, and understanding. While person-first language is important in medicine, we also want to listen and adapt as we prioritize the voices and agency of autistic individuals, paving the way for greater inclusivity and respect. Not only for them but for their families.
By changing the way we think and speak, we can do our part to begin creating a society that responds and adapts to the needs of everyone. We do a huge disservice to our society by negating autistic children, especially the ones that don’t talk.