Ableist ideologies and Autism-related terminology preferences: How language affects the perception of Autism
Disclaimers:
Land Acknowledgment: We live and work on the unseated territories of the Wahpekute and Chumash peoples, we pay respects to their elders past and present. We encourage folks to explore the ancestral lands they live and work on, and to learn about the Native communities that live there, the treaties that have been broken. If folks feel called, we encourage them to consider taking actions to support Native communities, reparations, and land back movements (see other resources at the end for more info).
A note on language: The language in the DSM, including the use of the word disorder (D in acronym), some find this harmful, while others prefer the language “disorder.” When this language is used, it is because, as mental health professionals, we need to use this same language when referring to “diagnoses” in the DSM. In addition some Autistics find the use of the level system helpful in identifying the level of support needed, while others view it as an overly simplistic way of defining something that’s fluid, and may feel it’s harmful and minimizing. The beauty is that each individual gets to choose what language feels validating and affirming to them. Inspired by Dr. Jennifer Mullan, we use the term, “therapy participant” rather than “client” or “patient,” as we work toward decolonizing therapy.
Educational Purposes: The information presented here is for educational purposes, and not meant to diagnose, treat or cure medical conditions or challenges, including neurodivergence (including mental health challenges), or physical health.
The words and language we use to describe individuals and groups of people matter. Certain terms can be offensive and have harmful impacts on the way others view and treat the individuals or groups being described. In the case of Autism, there has been a long history of ableist language used to describe Autistic individuals, contributing to the perpetuation of ableist ideologies surrounding neurodivergent folks. In addition to the ableist language used by the general public, ableism has also influenced how Autism is described in research, further shaping societal perceptions.
Understanding ableism is crucial to recognizing how it manifests in language choices and how those words affect marginalized groups. In this context, our focus is on the language used to describe Autistic individuals, exploring both the harmful terminology that has historically been used and the terminology preferences voiced by the Autistic community.
Now, more than ever, combating ableist ideologies and embracing an affirming, strengths-based approach is crucial—not only to challenge harmful beliefs that Autistic individuals are “inferior” to allistic people, but also to stand in solidarity with our neurodivergent peers who are being increasingly targeted by harmful legislation and leaders.
Ableism and Autism—
Ableism refers to the devaluation and discrimination of individuals with physical, intellectual, or psychiatric disabilities, often based on the assumption that disabled people are inherently inferior to their allistic counterparts. It intersects with other forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and transphobia, which can compound the experience of ableism.
Historical Discourse: The Medical Model
As Bottema-Beutel et al. (2021) note, Autism has historically been shaped by “deficit discourse,” a language framework that contributes to stigma, marginalization, and negative internalized beliefs. In addition to deficit discourse, ableist rhetoric has also perpetuated the view that Autistic individuals require a “cure” or that there is an “Autism epidemic” (a view pushed by individuals like RFK Jr.; Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021). The medical model—which frames the differences associated with Autism as “deficits” to be cured through intervention—has historically been used to distinguish between “normal” and disabled people (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021).
Contemporary Conceptualizations: The Social Model and the Autistic-Led Movement
In contrast to the medical model, which reinforces harmful stereotypes of Autism, the social model focuses on societal barriers as the primary challenge faced by Autistic individuals. Rather than positioning Autism as a set of deficits to be “fixed” or “cured,” the social model emphasizes the need for society to accommodate the unique needs of Autistic people, with respect to areas like employment and education, for example.
Building on the social model, the Autistic-led movement frames Autism as a neurodivergent identity, celebrating differences while acknowledging the real challenges they face in daily life and their support needs (Bottema-Beutel et al., 2021). In other words, this approach centers the voices of Autistic folks, focusing on how they perceive and navigate the challenges they face. The key distinction between the social model and the Autistic-led movement is who drives the change. In the social model, allistic people are seen as the primary agents of change, whereas the Autistic-led framework prioritizes the agency and experiences of Autistic individuals themselves.
Now that we have addressed ableism and the discourse surrounding Autism, we are going to move on to discuss the terminology preferences of Autistic individuals. In particular, we’ll look at a recent study by Robertson et al. (2025) that provides a more robust analysis of Autism-related terminology preferences among both Autistic and non-Autistic individuals.
Terminology Preferences—
The language we use to describe neurodivergent individuals plays a significant role in perpetuating ableism (as discussed above, see Ableism and Autism section). For instance, proponents of person-first language argue that it emphasizes the humanity of the individual by placing the person before the descriptor (“person with Autism” or “person who is Autistic”). They believe this prevents reducing Autistic individuals to a single label and helps avoid stigmatizing or oversimplified thinking. However, advocates for identity-first language (e.g., "Autistic person") argue that this terminology affirms the individual’s identity and acknowledges Autism as an integral part of who they are, not something separate from them.
Robertson et al. (2025) examined Autism-related terminology preferences among both Autistic and non-Autistic individuals in North America, aiming to more clearly identify the language that resonates most with the Autistic community. Specifically, the study focused on the preference for identity-first versus person-first language, where participants evaluated two identity-first terms (“Autistic” and “Autistic person”) and five person-first terms (“person with Autism,” “person with Autism spectrum disorder,” “person with Autism spectrum condition,” “person on the Autism spectrum,” and “person diagnosed with Autism”). Participants were asked which terms they would use, the terms that were their favorite and least favorite, how much they liked each term, and how offensive each term was.
Person-first language:
Dates back to the 1970s
Places the person first
Implies a person can be separated from their disability, despite many viewing their disability as an integral part of their identity
Non-affirming
Identity-first language:
Favored terminology
Serves to value and affirm the identity of Autistic folks
Neuroaffirming
Past Research & Robertson et al. (2025) Findings—
Past research (Bury et al., 2023; Kenny et al., 2016) has found that many Autistic adults prefer identity-first language, as it validates their experiences and identity. Robertson et al. (2025) sought to expand on these findings by providing a more in-depth analysis of terminology preferences, aiming to determine whether identity-first language is preferred over person-first language across a broader demographic of Autistic and non-Autistic individuals.
With respect to the findings by Robertson et al. (2025), there are several important findings to note: (1) they found that both Autistic and non-Autistic participants ranked identity-first terms higher than person-first terms; (2) that both Autistic and non-Autistic participants liked identity-first terms more than person-first terms; (3) and that both Autistic and non-Autistic participants were more likely to use identity-first terms as opposed to person-first. While there was some variation in participants’ preferences (i.e. some individuals preferred person-first language), the majority of participants preferred the use of identity-first terminology.
Concluding Remarks—
In conclusion, the language we use to describe Autism has profound implications, not only in terms of how society perceives neurodivergent individuals but also in how individuals perceive themselves. By embracing neuroaffirming language—language that values and respects the experiences and identities of Autistic people—we move closer to dismantling ableist ideologies and fostering a more inclusive society.
It’s crucial that we listen to the voices of the Autistic community, respect their preferences, and commit to using terminology that empowers rather than diminishes. Ultimately, a neuroaffirming approach is not just about the words we use but about affirming the dignity and worth of all individuals, recognizing that neurodiversity is a natural and valuable part of human experience.
Whether you’re wondering if you are Autistic and would like to explore assessment, are looking for a neuroaffirming therapist that just “gets it,” or if you need help with accommodations and support needs, the clinicians at Neuron & Rose are here to help! If you would like to connect for a free consultation, you can click this link and our admin team will get back to you. We also offer various support groups that provide community and support for neurodivergent folks (our next one for co-occurring chronic illness and neurodiversity begins March 1st). If you are interested in learning more or signing up, follow this link to our support group page. We look forward to potentially working with you!
Land acknowledgement Resources: Support starts with educating yourself about history, and being willing to sit with uncomfortable truths. It can then include things like: learning about cultural appropriation, and commit to not engaging in and perpetuating cultural appropriation; committing to calling people in to conversations; educating others, honoring Native folks on holidays such as Indigenous People’s Day, considering the implications of celebrating holidays such as Thanksgiving, or the Fourth of July; making land acknowledgements, (to find out whose land you’re on, head here), having conversations with people about what you learn; financial support; uplifting and amplifying Native voices and stories; understanding and supporting Land Back efforts; researching and supporting Native causes, including supporting and advocating Native-led for legislation changes. Some options for financial support of Native communities on Wahpekute land are here, here, here, here, here or here; Chumash land here; National.
References:
Bottema-Beutel, K., Kapp, S.K., Lester, J.N., Sasson, N.J., Hand, B.N. (2021). Avoiding ableist language: Suggestions for Autism researchers. Autism in Adulthood 3:1, 18-29.
Bury, SM., Jellett, R., Spoor, JR., Hedley, D. (2023). “It defines who I am” or “It’s something I have:” What language do [autistic] Australian adults prefer? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53(2):677–687; doi: 10.1007/s10803-020-04425-3
Kenny, L., Hattersley, C., Molins, B., Buckley, C., Povey, C., Pellicano, E. (2016). Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community. Autism, 20(4):442–462; doi: 10.1177/1362361315588200
Robertson, Z.S., Stockwell, K.M., Lampi, A.J., Jaswal, V.K. (2025). Autism terminology preferences among Autistic and non-Autistic adults in North America. Autism in Adulthood.https://doi.org/10.1089/aut.2023.0175
