Why do people say “autistic person” instead of “person with autism”?

Language shapes how we view the world and the people in it. When it comes to autism, the choice of words matters deeply to the autistic community.

You may have heard terms like “autistic person”, “person with autism” or “on the spectrum’ and wondered why one is preferred over the other.

This post dives into the reasons behind this linguistic choice and the broader conversation it represents.

Identity-first vs. person-first language

The discussion about “autistic person” vs. “person with autism” reflects two approaches to language:

1. Identity-first language: Puts the identity first, i.e. “autistic person”
2. Person-first language: Puts the person first, i.e. “person with autism”

Both approaches aim to recognize and respect individuals, but they significantly differ in how they frame autism.

Why many autistics prefer identity-first language

1. Autism is integral to identity.
2. Avoiding implications of burden or stigma
3. Alignment with similarly intrinsic identities

1. Autism is integral to identity.

For many autistics individuals, autism is not separate or secondary — it’s a core part of who they are.

Saying “autistic person” acknowledges that autism influences how they think, perceive and interact with the world. It’s not an add-on; it’s intrinsic.

2. Avoiding implications of burdens or stigma

“Person with autism” suggests that autism is a negative trait or a burden — something to be removed from the person.

Identity-first language challenges this narrative, emphasizing pride in being autistic.

3. Alignment with similarly intrinsic identities

We don’t say “person with femaleness” or “person with Blackness”.

Similarly, saying “autistic person” aligns autism with other identities that are recognized as integral parts of who someone is.

Understanding the preference for person-first language

Person-first language emerged from disability advocacy by non-autistic parents of autistic kids to counter dehumanization.

Non-autistic people felt they needed to emphasize the person over the diagnosis, to remind society people are more than their conditions. However, this perspective stems from ableism.

Able-bodied and typically-minded people define success as overcoming strengths and flaws. They push themselves beyond their limits to avoid being perceived as “lazy” — another ableist concept.

While well-intentioned, person-first language feels alienating to many members of the autistic community. It implies that autism is an add-on rather than a fundamental aspect of identity.

Why “on the spectrum” is problematic

The phrase “on the spectrum” is another common way to describe autism, but carries its own set of issues.

While it may seem neutral or inclusive, it’s problematic for several reasons, a few being

1. Vagueness
2. Avoidance of the word “autism”
3. Dilution of identity

1. Vagueness

“On the spectrum” is an ambiguous phrase that obscures the reality of being autistic. It’s so broad that it fails to communicate meaningful information about an individual’s experiences or needs.

Autism is a spectrum. The spectrum people are most often referring to when they say “on the spectrum” is THE autism spectrum.

The problem is

2. The avoidance of the word “autism”

Non-autistic people use “on the spectrum” because they’re uncomfortable with saying “autism” or “autistic”.

This avoidance reflects societal discomfort with the word itself, perpetuating stigma and reinforcing the idea that autism is something to tiptoe around rather than address directly.

I theorize it’s because “autism” and “autistic” are absolute words. Non-autistic people take comfort in being able to point to certain representations of autism, to compare between “better” and “worse” — or “more autistic” and “less autistic”.

When you take these descriptors away from non-autistic people, they struggle to describe autistic people as autistic. They struggle to acknowledge and accept that autism presents differently in everyone.

They also struggle to look at autism and intellectual disabilities as two distinct conditions.

3. Dilution of identity

By avoiding the word “autism”, the phrase “on the spectrum” diminishes the significance of autism as an identity.

Naming autism directly is important because doing so validates the experiences of autistic people, which plants seeds for greater understanding and acceptance of neurodiversity.

Using precise and direct language shows respect and a willingness to engage with the reality of autism, rather than skirting around it.

The importance of listening to autistic voices

Deciding which language to use isn’t about imposing a “correct” choice, but respecting the preferences of those from the community.

Surveys and advocacy organizations have repeatedly shown most autistic individuals favor identity-first language. It’s our lived experience — our voices should guide how the world talks about autism.

---

Language evolves, as does our understanding of identity and respect.

Choosing “autistic person” over “person with autism” is more than semantics; it’s about affirming the experiences and identities of autistic people.

When in doubt, ask individuals about their language preferences — and remember that listening and learning are essential steps toward inclusion.

By embracing identity-first language, you honor the voices of the autistic community and acknowledge autism as an integral part of who they are, not something to be set apart.

Similar posts I wrote about autism:

• What does being autistic actually mean?
• Coping with sensory overload
• Unmasking: What even is my true self?
• When you hate your autism
• Involuntarily mimicking other people when you’re autistic
• Anxiety management tips for autistic people