Here's an interesting article from 5 years ago about a NYC agency with "retarded" in the name which refused to remove the word [1]

The answer isn't as cut and dried as "professionals say so."

[0]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill

[1]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/nyregion/08name.html?_r=0

My point was not to make an argument that blindly follows known authority, but to let it be known that research finds that the majority of people prefer (consciously and subconsciously) person-first terminology.

Autism doesn't just mean whip-smart, or socially awkward. It can mean a hell-on-earth existence for the individual with the disorder, as well as those that live and care for them. Imagine living in fear that someone saying "happy birthday" to your son would cause him to scream and punch and run out into traffic.

"Neurodiversity" is the wrong cause to champion. Awareness that no label is sufficient because the disorder represents a spectrum - that's what needs to be made forefront of the autism dialog to those who don't understand what it means.

Actually, they may. That's the whole point of the word. Everyone is neurodiverse.

Besides, my only point was that ASD is just as susceptible as any other term to reclassification. Hell, reclassification has already occurred to Asperger syndrome/autism as per DSM-5. This has been a discussion of language, not of the disorder itself. I do agree with your last sentence.

The difference between Sally and the car is that the car is an object, and Sally is a human being whose neurological differences are often stigmatized.

I like the part where you have the gall to lecture people about what they themselves want to be called, using appeals to authority figures who are not themselves Autistic.

"Similarly, you should not have a problem with the majority of people with autism preferring "person with autism"

Except that the majority of Autistic people prefer being called Autistic people, rather than having an integral part of their personality and neurology erased or medicalized. The vast majority of people using the "with autism" phraseology see it as a separate, undesirable thing -- often parents looking to "cure" their children.

http://autisticadvocacy.org/home/about-asan/identity-first-l... http://yesthattoo.blogspot.com/p/dont-call-me-person-with-au...

I don't refer to myself as "someone with femaleness" and if I did, it would be implying that being female is an element of myself that could be, perhaps should be, removable from the core me. We don't refer to "people with homosexuality" unless you're a super-conservative church claiming that there's no such thing as a gay person, just a person with a thing to "cure" or overcome. Language matters.

I was trying to come to the defense of those who dislike being called "an autistic person". People should absolutely be referred to as they please (just as you are saying).

The last study I provided support of my use of "majority" (not in the abstract, unfortunately), though I am open. Your links are compelling and entirely worthy. This is a debate that is highly nuanced and I agree that my comment doesn't tell the whole story. My experience comes mostly from a clinical setting, so that's what I commented on.

I was mostly upset with OP's use of "pretentious" and "SJW-inspired" to describe a preference to which a significant number of people on the spectrum subscribe. I tried to be particularly understanding with my "to be clear" addendum, but probably overstated my confidence with "majority". With that said, I think that you're making the same mistake with claiming the "majority".

Also, one can distinguish between "he is a person with autism" (not so great phrasing, implies autism is a severable condition) and "he has mild-moderate autism" (better, more specific/accurate meaning). The latter does not seem to be such a big deal, and I do use it myself.

No it doesn't, a few studies do. I believe this is exactly the kind of pretentious language the individual was talking about.