No one is ‘Neurospicy’: A worst to best ranking of autistic terms
Words by Jasmine Starr (she/her)
Language has never been kind to autistic people. Through the years, we’ve been infantilised, dehumanised, and constantly ‘othered’. Autism has been treated as an insult, a superpower, and even a reason to kill. All of this is reflected in linguistics. So, from worst to best, what do autistic people want to be called, anyway?
#6: A Touch of the ‘tism, neurospicy, acoustic
Think of how you feel when someone says the word “skibidi”. It immediately fills you with such visceral hate for the most annoying pits of online culture. For autistic people familiar with these terms, the reaction is the same — except, this time, it’s personal.
These words are demeaning to the actual perception of neurodivergency. Saying you’re ‘acoustic’ ignores the awkward, awful, or ‘weird’ bits of real disorders. You’re neurospicy. You’re not, (shudder) autistic. You just have a touch of the ‘tism.
These chronically online TikTok terms are used by people who like the aesthetics of autism. The ‘funny misunderstandings’, colourful fidget toys, and getting excited about your favourite topic. Using autism like this makes them feel like quirky #notlikeothergirls.
These terms all serve as a degree of separation from real autism. It frames the disorder as a personality quirk — avoiding the isolation, the stigma, the sobbing in your closet because the lights were too bright today. They’re words you apply to your favourite celebrity, or fictional character, or yourself because you’ve just made the house nice and tidy. They’re not serious ways of describing autism, or any of its lived experience.
#5: Asperger’s
In World War II, Hans Asperger owned a home for children with autism in Nazi-ridden Austria. He hid the more obviously autistic kids in the home, while carefully selecting the neurotypical-passing kids with special talents Nazis would find useful. In this manner, he managed to save dozens of autistics from death by eugenics — though he was forced to send away many ‘less acceptable’ autistic children to be killed.
The shared traits of the kids he paraded in front of the Nazis are now known as Asperger’s. While it has some basis in real differences in presentation, the diagnostic criteria of Asperger’s is not separate from general autism. The term is steeped in history, and since there is no scientific difference, it means nothing but a presentation of autism deemed palatable to Nazis.
I don’t want my identity to be divided along lines of Nazi preference.
#4: High or low-functioning autism
Originally intended to signal support needs, these terms have taken on a life of their own. It’s been linked to IQ, to who is human, and to their intrinsic value in society. They read as pass/fail ‘Do You Pass as Neurotypical?’. The terms are not based on how the person experiences autism, but how others are affected by it.
Both labels can be incredibly harmful. 'High-functioning' belittles your challenges, and can prevent you from recognising and getting the help you need. 'Low-functioning' feels demeaning, like you failed a test. It ignores your strengths, and shoves you into a ‘lower class’ of autism. Both are simplistic, othering, and incredibly dehumanising, splitting the autistic community into a needless hierarchy.
#3: ‘On the spectrum’
As many autistic people would be quick to tell you, saying you’re 'on the spectrum' means, logically, nothing. By definition, a spectrum includes the whole range: From ‘very autistic’ to ‘doesn’t have autism at all’.
A ‘spectrum’ phrases human messiness like it’s on a linear scale, which is always problematic. And it raises the same questions as high and low- functioning: How do you place anyone on the scale? Is it by the same external standards?
‘On the spectrum’ can also feel like a euphemism. Like autism is something so bad, we can’t say it outright in polite society. Grandma didn’t die, she’s ‘pushing up daisies’. I’m not autistic, I’m simply ‘on the spectrum’.
#2: Person with autism
The people-first movement began in the 1980s, as a response to people with AIDS being called nothing but ‘AIDS victims’. The movement recognised the impact of language on perception, and insists that ‘person’ must always come first. Using people-first is an effort to show that autistic people are more than their condition — they’re human first and foremost, and their disorder comes later.
Though this idea can be good for other communities, it’s horribly misguided for autism.
People-first language has done a lot of good for a lot of people. But when your entire experience of the world is framed through a condition, severing it from who you are is impossible.
‘Person with autism' phrases your identity as something separate — something you would want separated. It’s like saying 'they’re gay', versus 'they’re a person with homosexuality'. It’s forcibly splitting the person from their identity, neglecting the way they see the world.
The negative connotations become clear when you use this wording for more ‘normal’ traits. Saying ‘blonde person’ over ‘person with blonde hair’ doesn’t inflame fiery debates about how they’re “more than just a hair colour”. Saying ‘autistic’ is not an insult, it’s just a statement of fact.
You can’t split a person from their autism — it’s an identity, and a way of seeing the world. I don’t just have autism. I am autistic.
#1: Just ‘autistic’
We do not view autism as an insult. It’s not something to tiptoe around. It’s who we are. All we ask is to refered to naturally. Don’t make it weird.
Autism comes from ‘autós’, the Greek word for self. It was named from observing autistic people being happy alone, finding joy independently — entertaining themselves within the vibrancy of their own minds. I don’t know about you, but I find that beautiful.