How?

   Say no to ultracrepidarianism!

Ultracrépidarianism refers to the act of expressing oneself on topics one does not understand. Giving an opinion on a field where one has neither skill nor qualification is problematic. For example, having an autist child, student, neighbor, or relative does not make someone an expert on autism. One can share their personal experience, but this is not enough to represent the complex and diverse reality of autism. Consulting a specialist does not make one an expert either. Even professionals can make mistakes. To speak properly about autists, it is crucial to deeply inform oneself about autism. Knowing the subject is still the best way to avoid errors. To help with this, start by reading the articles "What is Autism?", "Autistes France," and "Useful Vocabulary".

   MEGA summary:

Among humans, there are autists and non-autists. Autists are neither rare nor common. They have existed since prehistory. One does not become autist, nor does one stop being autist, because autism is not a temporary transition. Autism is a neurobiological diversity that is genetically transmitted. Autists are born autist and remain so throughout their lives. Furthermore, although there is only one notion of autism, its expressions vary. These expressions depend on each autist (personality, health, life experiences, etc.) and the influence of their environment (positive or negative, stimulating or dangerous, etc.). Autists may also develop autism-related disorders, which are equally varied. Some disorders appear late, others disappear, and a few are very problematic. The classification of autism disorders can be found in the ICD-11 of the WHO, under code 6A02.

Research on autism progresses very slowly. Technology is still limited. The description of autism is incomplete. Thus, there can be no definitive definition of autism at the moment. In the meantime, hypotheses (more or less vague), attempts at explanations, and prejudices circulate. The least unreasonable attempt at an explanation could be formulated as follows:

"Autism is not a disease. Autism is neither a personality trait nor a level of intelligence. Autism should not be seen as a strength or weakness in itself; nor as a burden (more or less heavy) that one can add or remove. Autism is rather an innate neurobiological characteristic. Autism will — sometimes — influence, and in different ways (intensity, duration, etc.), autists. It is not autism that makes an autist strong or fragile, but their expression of autism may — sometimes — influence their strengths and weaknesses, for better or for worse."

Therefore, being autist is not a problem in itself. The real problem lies in the often hostile environment surrounding autists: intolerance, contempt, obscurantism, stigma, quackery, mistreatment, anxiety, jealousy, guilt, aggressiveness, manipulation, and exclusion. Autism-related disorders are also poorly understood, confused, and inadequately managed, which worsens the difficulties faced by autists who have diseases.

"Autists"?

   They are like this, and like that...

We have no definition of autism or perfect knowledge of every autist person. How, then, can precise and uniform characteristics be attributed to all? Knowing a few autists, even many, does not allow us to define all autists. Every autist person is different, and generalizing these differences feeds harmful stereotypes. The question, therefore, is: how can we speak properly about autists in general? We must start by recognizing the great diversity of autists and avoid confining them to categories.

   A misleading generalization: focusing on weaknesses

Talking about autists by concentrating on their weaknesses creates a reductive vision. It perpetuates negative and pathologizing stereotypes. This approach associates autism with limitations and encourages an eugenic attitude towards autists. As with any human group, generalizing particularities, especially weaknesses, reinforces prejudices and harms the respect of everyone. A more balanced method is to first mention neutral and common aspects, then highlight individual talents and challenges, if necessary. By moving from the general to the particular, a more human and respectful understanding of autistic diversity is promoted.

   Example:

Somewhere in the world, there is probably an [autist] who breathes using a machine. Someone close to them might then incorrectly conclude:

"[Autist] breathe via a machine."

But that would be incorrect. Instead, one should say:

"[Autist] breathe normally (no scientific source indicates otherwise). However, some may have very good lung capacity, while others use machines."

In this way, abusive negative generalizations are avoided, and the diversity of [autist]s is reflected.

In the worst-case scenario, the friend of the [autist] on respiratory assistance might think:

"[Autist]s without breathing problems are fake [autist]."

Although this is false, they might think this due to cognitive biases, or because of the influence of malicious lobbying maintaining this belief for profit. Understand that a pathological generalization of [autist]s is necessarily incorrect, both scientifically and morally. If this is unclear, replace the word "[autist]" in this example with "[Asian]", "[tall]", "[homosexual]", "[woman]", or "[Muslim]". When talking about a community, one must avoid abusive generalizations, especially negative ones. People should not be essentialized.

  Application:

One should not say:

“[Autist]s are antisocial, unfriendly, profoundly disabled, and incapable of having friends (negative generalization). However, some manage to make connections (positive particularity) thanks to extraordinary efforts and considerable financial resources (dishonest justification).”

Instead:

“[Autist]s can have friends and a social life (neutral generalization). Some may even become mentalists or psychologists (positive particularity). And there are also others who need assistance to participate in societal life (negative particularity).”

Do you see the nuance?

One should not say:

“[Autist]s are babies their whole lives. They are incapable, handicaped; they must necessarily be taken care of (negative generalization). And some are autonomous (positive particularity) thanks to stratospheric financial resources and extraordinary human commitment  (dishonest justification).”

Instead:

“[Autist]s can build families and be independent (neutral generalization). Some may even become business owners (positive particularity). However, there are also others who face severe challenges and need help (negative particularity).”

Do you see the nuance?

One should not say:

“[Autist]s are either psychopaths or idiots, because they don’t understand their own emotions or those of others (negative generalization). Only some understand and use them (positive particularity) after centuries of meditation surrounded by the 100 greatest Shaolin masters (dishonest justification).”

Instead:

“[Autist]s feel emotions (neutral generalization). Sometimes they control them, or emotions are felt more intensely (positive particularity). Nevertheless, there are also others who find it more difficult to feel or express emotions (negative particularity).”

Do you see the nuance?

One should not say:

“[Autist]s don’t speak; they all have communication disorders (negative generalization). However, there are some who speak properly (positive particularity), after undergoing surgical operations on their brain and mouth (dishonest justification).”

Instead:

“[Autist]s do speak (neutral generalization). Some are polyglots (positive particularity). Meanwhile, others have selective mutism, or aphasia (negative particularity).”

Do you see the nuance?

If the rational aspect of the demonstration eludes you, don’t hesitate to show empathy. This distinction applies to all other human groups. Replace “[Autist]” with one of your own human characteristics ([man], [women], [elderly], [young], [short], [Latin-American], [atheist], etc.). Avoid generalizing strengths and weaknesses. However, nothing prevents you from highlighting specific talents or challenges. But when it comes to an entire community, avoid abusive generalizations, especially pathological ones.

   This is not denial

People who suffer need help, assistance, listening, compassion, and resources. But we should not defend the pessimistic attitude of some who hope to pathologize an entire community (against their will), in the hope of feeling less alone in their misery. They may cherish their suffering, and live solely through it. But as toxic as this attitude is, it should not normalize negative language towards autists. On the contrary, we should be positive, and hopeful for a better future. A future that should become better for all, including “for autists” and not “without autists.”

Conclusion

   Autists are human beings, not your objects.

Autism is a complex neurobiological diversity, with multiple and varied expressions. The words we use to talk about it have a real impact on the perception and well-being of autists. Avoiding stereotypes and abusive generalizations is essential to adopting a respectful and fair discourse. By highlighting the diversity of experiences and abilities, we contribute to a better understanding of autism. Speaking correctly about autists is about fostering a more participatory and compassionate society towards autists.