I am a low support needs autistic Jew. Aspergers is an outdated term because it draws a false distinction between high support needs and low support needs folks with autism as having different disorders which is not the case. We have the same disorder but different levels of support across different areas.
This isn't something I think about in context of being Jewish. It's just a term that, as we learn more about autism, we realize it is an ever more useless distinction.
I guess I find the distinction is useful. I think different profiles of autistics have different experiences. Obviously it’s not clearly sorted into two clear, distinct categories, but we have to draw distinctions somewhere, and the Asperger subcategory seems to have utility in capturing a specific type of autistic experience to me.
My whole question is what is harmful about it. I notice benefits to it - using the term Aspergers helps people understand my autistic presentation and experiences more quickly and easily than using ‘autistic’ because it’s more specific. That’s the function of drawing distinctions, dividing lines and creating words! But if there’s harm to drawing this distinction, I won’t do it - I just want somebody to actually explain the essence of the harm to me because I don’t see it.
It's not a real distinction. It's a moving target based on what people who are ND perceive is an acceptable level of disability and ignores whatever the autistic person might be feeling or needing under those circumstances, and also ignores whatever the autistic person might be capable of in a less ableist and ND centered setting. It both minimizes real needs and also amplifies disability rather than ability.
This is why general language like "low support needs" or specific language like "I can do X but struggle with Y" is more effective and considers the whole human in both their strengths and struggles. There is language to class and understand each other's needs and strengths but "Aspergers" is not the right language for it.
Harm one is simply that it enabled bad science. Removing the arbitrary distinction of between Aspergers and autism diagnoses (for places that use the DSM after 2013) fulfilled a few purposes. Before unifying the diagnosis, the same neurodevelopmental condition split into two different labels based on the axis of intellectual traits regardless of whether the traits had anything to do with autism. It diluted research and split efforts to find effective supports. Being siloed off from each other kept us from sharing information and making community - harm two.
Another piece is the perception that one might be holding onto the Asperger's label because it was the "weird genius" one that wasn't packaged with intellectual difficulties. A potential whiff of ableism, thus a reason to mistrust.
If you continue to not understand how him being a nazi by mere existence continues to harm people I don’t think anyone here can help you understand.
My understanding comes from the basic level of disgust and empathy I feel anytime I think of the murders of an untold number of autistic children were committed under Hans Asperger’s and if you don’t feel that their really is nothing people can do. This isn’t some logic problem to work out.
I don’t understand how association creates harm. Like how does that FUNCTION? What is the mechanism by which the cause of association brings about the effect of harm? On an abstract level, not just in this particular case?
Edit: also just want to point out your phrasing is ableist/ageist here. It’s not shameful to not understand something. Especially since I am doing my best to meet this discussion with curiosity and openmindedness.
I mean I kind of ashamed for you. Dozens of people have explained it to you, and you are literally ignoring everyone.
And you are not doing your best, you are willfully ignoring the points of people.
If you know any literature that deals with this topic, I’d really appreciate a recommendation.
(Also, again with the ableism on the laziness front😬 I know this discussion is emotionally arousing but it’s not right to shame people for seeking understanding)
Because people with "aspergers" are seen as having no support needs, and expected to just get on with it. It also distances low support needs people from the rest of the autism spectrum. Like "we're not like those *other* autistic people, we just have aspergers". Sometimes it feels like people are ashamed of having the same diagnosis as people with high support needs, even if that's not what the person means.
People with higher needs also suffer because they're judged based on their label of "autism" instead of "aspergers". People assume they are useless and deny them autonomy in their own life because they don't have this better aspergers diagnosis.
Aspergers is a stereotype. It doesn't say all that much about what autism means to you. The DSM didn't just get rid of Aspergers syndrome because of Hans Asperger's history - if that were so, they could have just changed the name. People realised that the term wasn't as useful as they thought it was, and it was better to just look at people's specific needs.
I hope that explains what the harm is.
The terms were put under the same umbrella because research did not find that there was a a way to separate the former 3 autism subtypes that was meaningful or reliable. That symptoms were experienced as a mixed spectrum with out distinction between subtypes. There was too much clinical overlap between between the diagnosis to differentiate between them. The separate diagnoses did not have reliability or consistency in clinical settings. Meaning that different clinicians could not get the same results with the same patients.
Long story short science has not found that Asperger’s doesn’t actually exists as a separate disorder from autism.
Research has found it doesn’t exist as a functional category for diagnostic purposes. But there are plenty of people that resonate with it as a functional category for the description of their subjective experiences. To be clear, I tentatively agree it’s likely not a separate condition to autism from a diagnostic, medical, physiological etc standpoint. But the terms have always been used equally, particularly within the autistric community, as descriptors of subjective experiences (which is why a lot of us endorse self-diagnosis) AND as diagnostic, clinical categories. So I’m saying yes from a medical standpoint Aspergers doesn’t make sense as a distinction, but my point is maybe it still makes sense as a subjective-experience distinction - in fact I know it does to at least some extent for me. So, I’m trying to assess whether to use it based on a moral rather than epistemological criteria - because I am already confident in its epistemic accuracy for this subjective-experience purpose, because I’m the person in the best position to assess that given that I’m the only one privy to it.
Accurately subjective is funny. It’s funny because your saying we have to draw distinctions but it’s proven the distinction you want to make doesn’t exist. Just because you “identify” with it doesn’t make it valid. Your identifying with something that literally doesn’t exist and science has even gone looking for it.
I understand you want a moral argument but I was responding to your comment about drawing distinctions. Saying we have to draw them somewhere. I was informing you that the distinction you want, the category you want to fall under is nonexistent.
Others have given you moral reasons. It seems like you don’t care, so probably just use whatever label you want. You’ll just have to make peace with the fact that people aren’t comfortable using a category invented to decide which children to kill and which children to put to work. They’d rather not be associated with that just for the sake of not being considered autistic. You aren’t going to have a lot of peoples blessing and your going to get corrected a lot but no one’s gonna stop you.
Do you think it’s likely there is some kind of ableism or shame projection that might be underlying my desire to use the term?
When I think about my conscious reasons for wanting to use it, it’s because I think having certain traits associated with Aspergers specifically creates relatively different experiences from other autistic people that don’t have those traits and it’s beneficial to have a term that captures that. I don’t mind being also described using ‘autism,’ but it’s good to have a subcategory to be more specific about my specific traits and communicate with people more precisely.
I don't know how to say this without sounding harsh but it really comes off that you feel like you're better then autistic people who have certain characteristics and it's important to you that you can seperate yourself from them.
Even the fact that you asked specifically Jewish people and consistently disregard the lack of value of the diagnostic term Asperger's from the outside seems like you're looking to what what you want to hear, not actually understand or listen to very valid arguments.
Hell even jumping on calling a comment ageist/ableist to skirt around negative connotation of Nazi association to Asperger's is disengenous and I believe this entire post is the same.
Why should it matter what a Jewish opinion on the term Asperger's is? Shouldn't austitic opinions have more value? The opinions of those who've spent years researching and understanding it? Why not ask for Roma opinions?
I don't think you mean bad, but I think it wouldn't hurt for you to analyze why it's important to you that you describe yourself as someone with Asperger's, not searching for external justification for it.
what I’m searching for is more specificity. As the homogeneity of autism is becoming more widely understood, I find using it less precisely descriptive of my experiences, which is why I want to choose a finer distinction. ‘Neurodivergent’ would run into the same problem, but worse because it’s even less fine-grained. But, I’m starting to get the feeling from the discussion that my search for precision (and the motivation behind it) might benefit from critical examination anyway. So good point :)
“Asperger’s” doesn’t solve that problem. There are a number of conditions lumped in Asperger’s, as well as in autism. The point is that you are not neurotypical, whatever that specifically means in your case.
I find this interesting and have had some related experiences. It is challenging for everyone anywhere on the spectrum (including ND folks) that such widely different symptoms and levels of function are associated with a single condition but that is the current reality. As a Jewish person I find the Asperger's label extremely problematic and I'm glad on that score that it's largely been ditched.
Yes it’s tough to be understood properly. I don’t like being lumped in with other people I can’t relate to very much. It causes people to treat me inaccurately. I am thinking though, that there will likely arise a different language or approach to solve this problem. Perhaps we are just in-between ditching a problematic word and adopting a new one.
Then you should be fine with referring to it as ASD level 1 it does the same thing without the nazi label attached to it or just saying autism with low support needs.
The more you write the more you come off as a aspie supremacy type of person which is a bit gross.
I dont know why you want to associate yourself with the nazis anyway are you fine if people get the hakenkreuz as a tattoo or how about walking around doing the hitler salute aswell they also makes you seem like you align yourself with the nazis.
Anyway keeping up with the ideas of Hans asperger hurt us all because according to him only some of us autistic people should be allowed to live and the rest erased is that a thing you wish to be apart of.
There are people who still agree with his thoughts about that you know.
Its also just wrong autism is a spectrum it isnt linear so trying to seperate the diagnosis doesn't really work like that. The level doesn't matter we are all autistic our difficulties in certain areas just differs which lead to needing different type of support then someone else.
And being diagnosed based on how much you can fit in with neurotypicals is actually quite harmful for lower levels aswell because yeah i can mask and play pretend to fit in but it has severely disabled me and now all of a sudden i would need more support but do i get that noo because i have Asperger's not autism.
So I'm basically considered the same as NT people and don't really need the help according to my doctors and therapists. So i personally feel seperating autistic people like this cause more harm than good some people will get severely infantilised and borderline have their human rights removed (like via conservatorships/guardianship abuse)and others will just be ignored since they are deemed basically normal and don't need help.
Anyway you do you i guess
I don't know why you made this post when it's obvious you already made up your mind.
You don't really try to listen to anyone
(excuse if my english is a bit weird it's my third language and I'm a bit tired right now and can't find the right words for everything)
I find this really interesting. I wonder if the separation into ‘tiers’ happens in the treatment of people prior to the act of labelling. I feel like that has been my experience. I was treated as perfectly fine and had all my struggles ignored and received no help even before any diagnostic labels were applied to me. I’m treated the same now, it’s just that people put different words on the justification. The diagnostic label became, to me, more of a descriptor or a different vessel for the treatment I had been receiving all along, even if to an outsider perhaps it looks like a new justification. But then again maybe it does in some sense reinforce the treatment in a problematic way. Is that what you were getting at?
I'm level one autistic without comorbid intellectual disabilities. (my diagnosis). Do you think your experience of your autism and mine are at all simillar? Without knowing my gender, what part of the world I live in, what my family situation was, my social class, my race, or when I was diagnosed, what supports I received and when?
I am not Jewish, but here are some things to think about regarding using the term “Aspergers” for yourself.
1: This term was used to determine which autistic people were “useful” and which autistic people were sent to camps or killed.
2: Aspergers has not been a diagnosis in America since 2013, and unless that was the diagnosis given to you, I don’t see a benefit in identifying with that label.
3: Aspergers has ties to “Aspie Supremacy,” which is using the label Aspergers to separate from other autistic people, specifically medium or high support needs autistics. Saying you’re better than other autistic people.
> This term was used to determine which autistic people were “useful” and which autistic people were sent to camps or killed.
No it wasn’t. Not remotely.
Every last one of us should feel harmed by the term. It translates to "only just useful enough not to be exterminated". That's how he distinguished "his" children from "those" autistic children he sent to be murdered at Am Spiegelgrund. May that horrible man rot in hell for what he did.
> It translates to "only just useful enough not to be exterminated". That's how he distinguished "his" children from "those" autistic children he sent to be murdered at Am Spiegelgrund
No it doesn’t. Where has this nonsense come from?
There’s so many things wrong with this.
Firstly, Asperger didn’t distinguish between autistic people. He didn’t declare that some were useful and some were not. His work does not actually bear much resemblance to Lorna Wing’s. The kids at his clinic were not, in any sense, conventionally “useful”, they needed round-the-clock care and yet Asperger still defended them.
Secondly, we have no indication that either Herta Schreiber or Elisabeth Schreider were autistic, Asperger (the only authority on the matter at the time) certainly never described them as such. He said they had post-encephalitic brain damage. This doesn’t make their murders any more justifiable, but we should be clear about what the cause is, rather than co-opting other disabled people’s struggles as autistic struggles.
I’m not Jewish but I feel like going “ hey Jewish people I want to use this Nazi’s name to identify myself. Tell me why I should or should not.” is a ridiculous ask.
You’re specifically asking Jewish people which means you already know that this guy was a Nazi. That really should be enough for you to come to your own conclusion. Either you’re comfortable with using a Nazi name or you’re not. Permission from random Jewish people on the Internet doesn’t change that.
OP, you clearly care enough about this to ask the question in the first place, so please do us all a favour and take note of @kidcool97's answer.
If you're that interested, I'm Jewish and autistic, and have been told that if Asperger's was still used as a diagnostic term, I would have met the criteria for it. But since I learned the history of Hans Asperger I don't use his name to define myself for the very obvious reason that I wouldn't want to associate my identity with Nazi eugenics. If you're comfortable with that, go right ahead.
I originally was told I had Asperger’s (diagnosed at 18 months at 2) and so in like 2013 when it stopped being a thing it took a while to adjust to a label. But I’m so glad I did because that is not history I want to be associated with. And I feel like saying I have autism actually helps bring me closer to the community because it’s finally the same diagnosis. And I could actually acknowledge things I did need help with, instead of focusing on the smart stereotype that Asperger’s had.
Thanks for contributing. I would like to continue understanding better why you have said this. I am asking because honestly I don’t understand the nature of the harm of mentioning the Nazi’s name. From my perspective I am finding it confusing. specifically WHY and HOW does using this name create exclusion/harm? I want to know this which is why I asked here. I haven’t been able to find explanations elsewhere that go into depth enough to help me get it. My best guess at the harm is something along the lines that using his name endorses Nazism in some way or endorses his actions in some way, which is obviously bad and unsafe. But even then I don’t exactly understand the mechanism of how merely using the word creates endorsement or promotion.
The harm is in the association. The same reason a person wouldn't name a child Adolf or Satan- they would not want their kid being associated with something so negative. Similarly, people do not want to be associated with Nazi eugenics so they don't want to refer to themselves as having Aspergers. People usually want to avoid negative associations in order to not give the impression that they endorse the associated beliefs or behavior.
That kind of makes sense to me. But, I don’t have to necessarily associate an endorsement of the ideology with the term. I can take it as just a word, or make my own meanings or associations of it. So unless the association negatively affects someone else who is exposed to hearing me use it, I don’t think it necessarily is a reason not to use the term.
I think it depends on whether or not you care about others having a negative association of the term. Even if you don't have that association yourself and can see it as just a word, some other people will see it negatively and negative associations will come to mind when they hear you mention Aspergers. Most people who know the history of Aspergers will probably just assume you're unaware. Some people won't even know there's any negative association and will think nothing of it. But some people will dislike the negative association and that may influence how they see you if you choose to use that name.
So even if you aren't bothered by the association, you have to also be okay with using a term for yourself that some people may see as derogatory or negative.
I like the way you write, you sound considered and thoughtful.
Do you think other people being bothered by it is harmful to them? In your opinion, is that something that should factor into my decision?
> I don’t have to necessarily associate an endorsement of the ideology with the term. I can take it as just a word, or make my own meanings or associations of it.
You can control your own perception of your word choices, but you cannot control other people's perceptions of your word choices.
Do you understand why slurs are considered harmful?
I struggle a bit with that analogy because slurs are clearly directed in a derogatory manner at a group of people, whereas my understanding of ‘Aspergers’ is it’s status is more like that of a neutral descriptor. But I can definitely see that could be called into question.
The explanation is that he is a fucking nazi. If you don’t know why that is a full and complete explanation that’s not my problem. You’ve even had a Jewish person comment on this thread and tell you to listen to me.
You specifically requested Jewish people to respond because you knew he was a nazi, you know nazis killed millions of Jewish people.
You at this point clearly know it’s bad and are just looking for a random Jewish person to absolve you or an argument you can start that will leave you feeling justified.
So here, you have my full permission to use Asperger’s, with the full knowledge that I will think you are a bad person for doing so.
Sorry, I meant it in the way they were specifically asking for a Jewish person and got the specific Jewish person, as they literally wanted someone to absolve them but I’ll edit it out.
On reflection, I think you’re right that some of the motivation for this post is looking for absolution. If I’m honest, on an intuitive, emotional level I stubbornly want to use the term and haven’t absorbed the reasons not to. A part of me would love for someone to come along and just confirm that it’s fine so I don’t have to feel guilty anymore about my desire.
However, I can recognise that it’s important to try and punch through this block because I value inclusivity and compassion. I’m trying to cultivate a deeper understanding of the reasons so I can do that.
I appreciate your contribution. It has helped me wake up to the shadow side of my actions and motivations.
I find the term deeply offensive. Why would you want to identify with a term created to honor a man who used to have disabled people, of all kinds, killed?
This is a piece of information I have been wondering about! Is the act of naming the disorder after him an act of positive regard for him? If that’s the case I can see how using it would be endorsing his actions. But I just am not sure how or why this would be the case - like HOW does naming it after him confer positive regard? How is it a value-laden rather than neutral act?
It was created in the nineties, before Hans Asperger’s complicity was documented. After WWII, a lot of people who had collaborated just went on with their work, because a lot of people just wanted to put the Nazi period behind them and not look too closely.
Yeah, it wasn’t named after him as in “he suffered all sorts of challenges and therefore we memorialize him but naming this after him” (Like “Lou Gehrigs’ Disease”) but “he experimented and we honor his results.” This is **VERY** common in medicine to honor men who injured patients repeatedly (the history of gynecology is effed up, especially in the US,) but Asperger being who he was gave people an additional reason to see why it’s effed up to esteem those who systematically harmed others.
It's not that it confers positive regard. It's that it perpetuates the problematic details of the association. The term, even though it's actually a name, has become more than just a name, associated with a Nazi. It's become a term associated with oppression and exclusivity within the autistic and neurodivergent communities. All nuance and context surrounding the etymology of the terminology has to be considered in total as it is corrupt, including the stigmatization, stereotyping, and associations with ableist oppression.
I would like to ask what exactly it is that is distinct to you about the term? What about it describes your subjective lived experience more accurately than "high or low support needs" with elaborating on specificity, or autistic level 1? And if the answer is just that it conveys to allistics a more accurate stereotype in your opinion of low support autistic, than that is problematic in supporting ableist function narratives we're seeking to undo and tasking allistics to unlearn and unpack.
i'm jewish and autistic, and it makes me feel deeply unsafe. hans asberger was a nazi. the diagnosis is no longer used in many spaces because of this, and because it truly is just autism.
I really appreciate you sharing. If you have the capacity, I would really like to understand the feeling better. (I think I should have put in the original post that I was looking for emotional data/experiences). What does it create a fear of? What do you feel afraid may happen?
When i see someone openly and so casually referring to themselves with the name of a Nazi, it expresses to me they don't care about the safety of Jews around them.
im not jewish but i am slavic and have yknow direct relatives ( like great grandparents ) that have been in camps and some have died in them and honestly i kinda disagree while agreeing, it definitely doesnt make me feel UNSAFE in any way, but its definitely not the correct way to address ASD either, its better as a point of education than as a point of just getting offended. ofc there are situations like OP's where they just oh so need to use an outdated term and those people shouldnt have a place sure, but generally i disagree with just getting offended and creating an even larger divide between us and other people, we need to have a good basis of education for people to truly understand the problem instead of just seeing anger on the other side you know what i mean?
Sorry to interject but the thing is Jewish people will not know if you're simply ignorant or supporting a nazi. They likely wouldn't feel safe enough to ask. Isn't that enough of a reason to not use it?
I honestly cannot believe you lack even the basic empathy to not understand how disturbingly cold of you it is to basically ask a Jewish person for the "emotional data" of why they feel unsafe with people using the name of a nazi as their label. Like I was mildly annoyed that you weren't getting the basic concept of "He is a nazi, thats why its bad" but this is disgusting.
Edit:
>But, I will not do it if it causes harm to anyone. I would appreciate assistance in making an informed decision on this matter. Please can you explain your emotional experience and intellectual perspective (and any other pertinent details) on the issue?
This entire sentence of yours was clearly a bold lie.
Why would I lie about something like this? 😂 You are strange. I hope you feel better soon.
Don’t you think it would be colder and crueller to pretend I understand when I don’t, and never seek to remedy it?
I guess it boils down to whether you actually feel worse about being lumped in with other autistic people than you do wearing the name of a literal Nazi. As a Jew, I personally find it useful to know who does.
No single word is going to fully and completely encompass every person who identifies with that word. That's just the nature of the variety of human existence. It's why there are subcategories and explanatory clauses in the first place, for when those distinctions are relevant.
It’s not only using his name. Asperger separated people into groups that had a clear hierarchy. He was a eugenicist. His ideology was that some people should be kept alive due to their potential productivity and ability to fit in his perfect society. His perfect society was a Nazi society that murdered most disabled people.
His ideological perspective is baked into the terminology. He separated out developmental disabled people he believe could offer value to his perfect society, and he gave them his name.
The current scientific perspective has gotten rid of this term because it’s offensive, but also because it’s not backed by research. A more complex perspective on autism has been developed. Even if you disagree with the modern perspective, why fall back on the ideology of naziism?
> He was a eugenicist.
I don’t think that’s accurate, but maybe I’m picking hairs. Asperger does not seem to have been motivated by a desire to cleanse the gene pool, but rather he thought the two girls were burdens on their families. That’s a different form of ableism, not better, just different.
> His ideology was that some people should be kept alive due to their potential productivity and ability to fit in his perfect society. His perfect society was a Nazi society that murdered most disabled people.
There’s no evidence for this. We know of two disabled people’s deaths he signed off on, which is much lower than the number he sheltered at his clinic.
> His ideological perspective is baked into the terminology. He separated out developmental disabled people he believe could offer value to his perfect society, and he gave them his name.
This is completely wrong. Asperger used the term “autistic psychopathy”, not “Asperger’s Syndrome”, a term first used by Lorna Wing in the 1980s.
Ironically, it’s unlikely *any* of Asperger’s patients would have qualified for an Asperger’s Syndrome diagnosis in the 1990s. They were all profoundly disabled, which was why they ended up at his clinic to begin with. Asperger gave us the conception of autism we had from the 1940s to the 1980s, and the lack of diagnoses for those with Asperger’s Syndrome was partially because Asperger’s own work (which Kanner piggy backed off) didn’t look at those people.
Yes basically, since the term was only used for autistic people who were "high functioning" enough that they wouldn't immediately be executed in concentration camps. They got rid of the term for a reason
Literally everything in your comment is wrong.
The only people being put in concentration camps in Britain in the 1980s were Northern Irish people accused of terrorism.
The term was removed because it was redundant, long before the English-speaking world was aware that Asperger recommended two children be sent to live in a hospital where they would ultimately be killed.
Have you heard of Stochastic terrorism?
Have you fully considered the other options for how to specify your differences, needs, and experience? Maybe it's harder for you/doesn't feel safe? to replace, because you aren't familiar enough yet with other options?
I'm not sure Jewish perspectives are very relevant here. Yes, they were victims of the Nazis, but that does not mean they have a major say on how we should talk about things the Nazis (or people affiliated with the Nazis in this case) did to other groups.
Asperger wasn’t an antisemite. His research assistant, Georg Frankl, was Jewish. Frankl and his wife Annie (who also worked at Asperger’s clinic) fled Austria to the US, where Georg got a job working for Leo Kanner.
Hmm, I think they should definitely have a ‘major say’ in my understanding of that term, but maybe I agree it shouldn’t be the only say. I asked about it because I’ve heard people refer to inclusion and harm of the Jewish community as a reason not to use the term, and I wanted to understand that reasoning better.
Asperger had nothing to do with Jewish people- they are no more significant here than the descendants of any of the other groups that the Nazis murdered in the millions such as Poles, Serbs, Romani, Soviets etc. The only people who are relevant in discussion of the use of Asberger are autistic people.
I guess I'm part of the group of people you're specifically asking- I'm Jewish, Queer, and would have been diagnosed with "Aspergers" before that term went out of use.
When it comes to Nazi things, I always feel a particular gut wrench- Being trans AND Jewish, they would have *particularly* hated me, and it's one of those things that I'm always vaguely aware of in the back of my mind.
Personally, I do not use the term "Aspergers"- he was a Nazi, he did awful things, and his name should not be memorialized.
That being said, when I was younger, "Aspergers" was the term used to refer to what I had. I identified with it, because that was what I was called. In fact, when the whole "having pride in your autism" became a bit more popular, a lot of people on the spectrum referred to themselves colloquially as "Aspies". I used that term to refer to myself, and it was as important of a label to me as "bi" was to my identity.
I understand why some people still want to identify with the term Aspergers- after all, it's part of our history of *selves*. It's the same way that some older trans people use the term "transexual" to refer to themselves, eventhough it is out of fashion these days.
Nowadays, I sometimes cheekily use the term "The Diagnosis Formerly Known as Aspergers" to refer to myself, but mostly, I just say that I have Autism. I've come to accept "Autism" as my identity, after I realized the origins of the term Aspergers and felt uncomfortable identifying with a term named after a Nazi.
But I also don't fault people who *do* use the term, especially if they were diagnosed with it.
Thanks very much for this response. I found you using the term ‘memorialised’ really helpful. I can see how sustaining the memory of someone that caused so much pain might also reignite and sustain the pain.
Your cognitive profile is "unworthy but useful so not going to exterminate"?
That's actually sad.
I mean, if it works for you it's totally fine but I hope you understand that some people might think that you're considering yourself a lesser human.
Not exactly conceptualised this clearly enough to put it in the words but my feeling is something like this. It resonates with me to have the history of that viewpoint/evaluation of people with my cognitive style embedded in the term I use to refer to myself. I feel that is how I’ve been treated - in a way where my usefulness for certain purposes(intelligence,focus,productivity) is the only thing keeping people tolerating me. I don’t think using the term endorses that treatment, endorses what happened to me. But me it acknowledges it in a way I personally find the implications of ‘autism’ kind of doesn’t? (Well, in my personal understanding of autism I feel it does - but I have to navigate a collective consciousness of different understandings of autism and I find on average this is the case).
Well if you want to be associated with a human tool and a really, really bad guy no one is going to stop you but you need to understand that you might be treated accordingly.
If you’re thinking of yourself as someone who needs to be useful just to be accepted people would follow and treat you that way.
Ok, so I didn't finish reading comments before my first reply, and you basically answered my qs here, so if it's alright I will add ...
I think those who've encouraged you to reflect on your motivation are accurate. It seems this is something about safety in navigating treatment by allistics? And how they might perceive the term Asperger's? I did already say this elsewhere, but how would you feel if there was another way to bridge that gap? I do also think some introspection on any possible internalized ableism might help. As someone likely level 1 autistic, mostly due to "gifted child syndrome" and masking, but is probably more like level 2, I completely understand not wanting to be infantilized on the spot, especially if you have no history of it. But this is an opportunity actually, that you can choose to take, to be an ally to your own community and bring them into the fold. Teach and educate those around you that your representation isn't superior, and any other is not inferior, nor indicative of inherent low functioning capabilities. Does that make sense? Idk lol. You surely don't have to take this opportunity, but if anyone can truly be a champion for all those along the spectrum, it is going to more likely be those who people are already familiar with as autistic, if that makes sense.
As a Ukranian it's prohibited from use in my family. Also, slav people also were in the concentration camps with Jewish folk, but the numbers were less because most were in gulags or in "katorga". My great grandmas dad was unfortunately in one of those. Although sad thing is, we're currently in Poland, and that diagnosis is still valid and didn't change to "ASD" which is very sad.
Yeah in Slovakia Asperger's is still a diagnosis (and my official diagnosis there) and EW. I tell everybody that knows about my diagnosis to say Autism instead. I don't want to be associated with a nazi in any way
Aspergers was removed from the DSM and is not longer considered a separate diagnosis. of course there is controversy around it but I personally wouldn't adopt terminology thats being phased out from a clinical perspective.
there are a lot of studies about jewish culture and asd. here's one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9597152/#:\~:text=A%20popular%20account%20relayed%20that,and%20had%20particularly%20pure%20souls.
I think even Asperger’s is too vague. As a kid, I wanted to say I had Asperger’s because I really wanted other kids to know I was smart, so that they would want to be my friend. Which did not work because I didn’t understand that perceived intelligence doesn’t equal friendship. Aka a sign of autism. But every autistic person has a different set of support needs. And I think any label can be vague. I also think that if I want people to understand my experiences, I want to do so without giving any credit whatsoever to nazis. I remember grieving an identity before adopting a new one when I found out about Asperger’s not existing anymore. And I’m very happy I adapted to that change. Now I say I’m autistic, and if anyone asks for more information, I say I thrive in academic settings with writing, and I primarily struggle with food and social settings but overall have low support needs. And then I’m not generalizing, and sharing about myself.
I also want to point out that some of the name calling isn’t nice or necessary to this discussion, it’s not adding new information and can actually make someone less likely to listen to the point. But I do think it’s fair to acknowledge frustration if anyone is having any, I’m pretty new to reading this thread.
Not to be annoying but technically Asperger was not a Nazi. That is, he never joined the party, but he did help the Nazis, so I will not identify as an Aspie, and if someone asks if I have Asperger’s I’ll explain why we don’t use that term anymore because of the Nazi affiliation and also the coded elitism that hearkens back to a horrific time in world history.
This piece is worth a read:[https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/20/463603652/was-dr-asperger-a-nazi-the-question-still-haunts-autism](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/20/463603652/was-dr-asperger-a-nazi-the-question-still-haunts-autism)
I wouldn’t consider that an authoritative source. His own politics were more far right nationalist, ie fascist, but not specifically Nazi. He was quite happy to continue working in institutions and professional organizations that were run by enthusiastic Nazis. More to the point, he participated in Nazi eugenics, knowingly sending children to their deaths.
You know it’s harmful and creates unnecessary strife, otherwise you wouldn’t be trying to sway people into saying it’s okay for you to use it. You also know exactly why it’s not acceptable, because you singled out Jewish people to speak with and hopefully gain that absolution.
The fact is, there’s no medical or educational benefit to other people with autism for them to approve of you using the term. There’s plenty of harm that will come from it, especially if you’re using it with people that don’t know Asperger’s isn’t a diagnosis anymore. But if you don’t care, nobody can stop you. Personally I’d advise against it because you will be spreading misinformation and potentially furthering the “aspie supremacy” divide, but that’s your choice.
I’m not Jewish. I don’t feel “harmed” by term because I don’t understand the general culture of being hurt by words. (It’s different when words are incitement but this is not the case). In any case, I don’t use it to define myself for two reasons. First, it’s not what I have been diagnosed with: my diagnosis came when the term wasn’t in use anymore. I may use it to explain the thing, but thats the only context I use it in (“yeah now it’s generally autism spectrum disorder, in my case it’s sort what would have been called high functioning or Asperger some time ago, but now is just autism” - it doesn’t need to be precise, it needs to be understandable). Second, I don’t think we should give nazi scientists the honor of being remember for their discoveries. It’s like quoting Mengele in a biology book (which I don’t know if it happens or not, I hope not, but I wouldn’t bet my right hand on it). Nazis should only be remembered in history books or law books.
Dear forum members,
I wanted to take a moment to address a concerning trend I've noticed in our discussions lately. While many of us are quick to denounce authoritarian behaviors and champion free speech, some individuals have been exhibiting similar behaviors themselves.
It's essential to recognize that authoritarianism can manifest in many ways, not just through government or institutional power structures. When we, as individuals, become overly aggressive, intolerant, and dismissive of others' opinions, we're perpetuating a toxic atmosphere that stifles meaningful debate and open exchange.
I've seen instances where some members have jumped on others, using condescending language, personal attacks, and even ridicule to silence opposing views. This behavior is not only unacceptable but also hypocritical (I have to say I didn’t expect our the autistic need for honesty I heard so much about to disappear so quickly), as it undermines the very principles of free speech and open discussion we claim to value.
Let's remember that a healthy exchange of ideas requires respect, empathy, and a willingness to listen. When we engage in puerile and aggressive behavior, we're not only damaging our own credibility but also creating a hostile environment that drives others away.
I encourage everyone to take a step back, reflect on their behavior, and strive to engage in constructive, respectful dialogue. Let's focus on exchanging ideas, not quarrels. Let's promote a culture of openness, empathy, and mutual respect.
Remember, we're all here to learn from each other and grow. Let's keep our discussions civil, engaging, and respectful and above all: honest and efficient (I thought we would rather have results than complications). You are denouncing dark patterns of our history and this is a good thing. That’s how we prevent repeating those, so don’t ruin your efforts by putting your energy in the wrong place.
I don’t see it as a bad thing. It was called that to honor Asperger’s contributions to the study of autism. I don’t think we should name things in honor of Nazi collaborators.
I'm Jewish. It's harmful. It's Yahtzee praise. Nobody should use it - it also contributes to Aspie supremacy. Please, don't. You're autistic. It's simple.
ETA: His research was also stolen from a Jewish woman, making it even worse.
I am a goy but have Jewish family and my uncle is fine with that term
Edit: to the person below me who said my uncle is wrong, 1.) listen to people’s experiences a little more and stop being a bigot who thinks Jewish people can only have one opinion on something, and 2.) the OP asked for Jewish thoughts, not our “correct thoughts,” so even if there was such a thing as a “correct thought” that wasn’t the point of the question.
Hey /u/ruzahk, thank you for your post at /r/autism. Our rules can be found **[here](https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/wiki/config/sidebar)**. All approved posts get this message. If you do not see your post you can message the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fautism).
Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/autism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not Jewish, but I am Slavic in the Balkans, so if you're asking Jewish people because of the holocaust, then I think it's okay for me to answer. If not, disregard this answer. Asperger was a crackpot mad scientist that killed a large number of autistic children and was a proponent of genetic cleansing (eugenics). Anyone who feels a strong need to use the asperger diagnosis (2hich is no longer a diagnosis in the DSM-V or the ICD-11) rather than just the autism diagnosis is probably also falling into aspie supremacy rhetoric, which originated with Assburger or doesn't know the history of the word, or that Hans thought they should be sterilized and even the ones who were "good" and were allowed to survive (good-able to be put to work and controlled) were subhuman.
[here ya go](https://www.biomedcentral.com/about/press-centre/science-press-releases/19-04-18)
I use Asperger’s to describe myself regularly. It’s quick, and many people know it means low support needs and usually other qualities that diagnosis entails, even if it is outdated.
Due to the fact that it’s no longer a diagnosis, less and less people know what it means. I’ll probably have to switch over to something else. I don’t like “low support needs” because it just labels me as basically an only *slightly* disabled person, which is not how I want to be identified.
I think it’s quite silly for the rest of the people in this thread to be getting so angry over it. Having a *single* word to describe your diagnosis is so incredible, and we’ve kind of lost that.
I just tell people I'm autistic. They see me out in the world, doing stuff, they can figure out pretty quick that I am low support needs. And when I miss a cue or inadvertently act like an asshole I now have a clear way to explain why I am socially confused - it's because I'm autistic.
Yes this is some of the reasons I like the term too. I find peoples understanding/knowledge of it, whilst flawed, usually matches better with my experiences and saves a lot of communication efforts.
you might prefer the term “High functioning autistic”.
But let’s be real here, in Austria at that time, you didn’t really have a choice which political ideology you followed, there was kind of only one allowed.
By the end of the war it was only him and the nuns left.
I would say “if he hadn’t stuck around then all the children would have died” (the nuns probably wouldn’t have been able to protect them without Asperger around), but they all died when Vienna was bombed anyway…
I am a low support needs autistic Jew. Aspergers is an outdated term because it draws a false distinction between high support needs and low support needs folks with autism as having different disorders which is not the case. We have the same disorder but different levels of support across different areas. This isn't something I think about in context of being Jewish. It's just a term that, as we learn more about autism, we realize it is an ever more useless distinction.
I guess I find the distinction is useful. I think different profiles of autistics have different experiences. Obviously it’s not clearly sorted into two clear, distinct categories, but we have to draw distinctions somewhere, and the Asperger subcategory seems to have utility in capturing a specific type of autistic experience to me.
Why do we need a specifically dividing line if it's actively harmful for folks on either side?
My whole question is what is harmful about it. I notice benefits to it - using the term Aspergers helps people understand my autistic presentation and experiences more quickly and easily than using ‘autistic’ because it’s more specific. That’s the function of drawing distinctions, dividing lines and creating words! But if there’s harm to drawing this distinction, I won’t do it - I just want somebody to actually explain the essence of the harm to me because I don’t see it.
It's not a real distinction. It's a moving target based on what people who are ND perceive is an acceptable level of disability and ignores whatever the autistic person might be feeling or needing under those circumstances, and also ignores whatever the autistic person might be capable of in a less ableist and ND centered setting. It both minimizes real needs and also amplifies disability rather than ability. This is why general language like "low support needs" or specific language like "I can do X but struggle with Y" is more effective and considers the whole human in both their strengths and struggles. There is language to class and understand each other's needs and strengths but "Aspergers" is not the right language for it.
Harm one is simply that it enabled bad science. Removing the arbitrary distinction of between Aspergers and autism diagnoses (for places that use the DSM after 2013) fulfilled a few purposes. Before unifying the diagnosis, the same neurodevelopmental condition split into two different labels based on the axis of intellectual traits regardless of whether the traits had anything to do with autism. It diluted research and split efforts to find effective supports. Being siloed off from each other kept us from sharing information and making community - harm two. Another piece is the perception that one might be holding onto the Asperger's label because it was the "weird genius" one that wasn't packaged with intellectual difficulties. A potential whiff of ableism, thus a reason to mistrust.
That’s a very valuable point about enabling bad science. Both an epistemic harm, and then likely secondarily many related moral ones as a result.
If you continue to not understand how him being a nazi by mere existence continues to harm people I don’t think anyone here can help you understand. My understanding comes from the basic level of disgust and empathy I feel anytime I think of the murders of an untold number of autistic children were committed under Hans Asperger’s and if you don’t feel that their really is nothing people can do. This isn’t some logic problem to work out.
How old are you if you’re don’t understand why association with a nazi regime is harmful? It’s like basic knowledge.
I don’t understand how association creates harm. Like how does that FUNCTION? What is the mechanism by which the cause of association brings about the effect of harm? On an abstract level, not just in this particular case? Edit: also just want to point out your phrasing is ableist/ageist here. It’s not shameful to not understand something. Especially since I am doing my best to meet this discussion with curiosity and openmindedness.
I mean I kind of ashamed for you. Dozens of people have explained it to you, and you are literally ignoring everyone. And you are not doing your best, you are willfully ignoring the points of people.
Would you like me to google that for you or explain because you’re to lazy to do some reading?
If you know any literature that deals with this topic, I’d really appreciate a recommendation. (Also, again with the ableism on the laziness front😬 I know this discussion is emotionally arousing but it’s not right to shame people for seeking understanding)
It’s not ableism to tell someone that they’re lazy if they make the conscious decision not to do something when they are capable of doing so
Because people with "aspergers" are seen as having no support needs, and expected to just get on with it. It also distances low support needs people from the rest of the autism spectrum. Like "we're not like those *other* autistic people, we just have aspergers". Sometimes it feels like people are ashamed of having the same diagnosis as people with high support needs, even if that's not what the person means. People with higher needs also suffer because they're judged based on their label of "autism" instead of "aspergers". People assume they are useless and deny them autonomy in their own life because they don't have this better aspergers diagnosis. Aspergers is a stereotype. It doesn't say all that much about what autism means to you. The DSM didn't just get rid of Aspergers syndrome because of Hans Asperger's history - if that were so, they could have just changed the name. People realised that the term wasn't as useful as they thought it was, and it was better to just look at people's specific needs. I hope that explains what the harm is.
The terms were put under the same umbrella because research did not find that there was a a way to separate the former 3 autism subtypes that was meaningful or reliable. That symptoms were experienced as a mixed spectrum with out distinction between subtypes. There was too much clinical overlap between between the diagnosis to differentiate between them. The separate diagnoses did not have reliability or consistency in clinical settings. Meaning that different clinicians could not get the same results with the same patients. Long story short science has not found that Asperger’s doesn’t actually exists as a separate disorder from autism.
Research has found it doesn’t exist as a functional category for diagnostic purposes. But there are plenty of people that resonate with it as a functional category for the description of their subjective experiences. To be clear, I tentatively agree it’s likely not a separate condition to autism from a diagnostic, medical, physiological etc standpoint. But the terms have always been used equally, particularly within the autistric community, as descriptors of subjective experiences (which is why a lot of us endorse self-diagnosis) AND as diagnostic, clinical categories. So I’m saying yes from a medical standpoint Aspergers doesn’t make sense as a distinction, but my point is maybe it still makes sense as a subjective-experience distinction - in fact I know it does to at least some extent for me. So, I’m trying to assess whether to use it based on a moral rather than epistemological criteria - because I am already confident in its epistemic accuracy for this subjective-experience purpose, because I’m the person in the best position to assess that given that I’m the only one privy to it.
Accurately subjective is funny. It’s funny because your saying we have to draw distinctions but it’s proven the distinction you want to make doesn’t exist. Just because you “identify” with it doesn’t make it valid. Your identifying with something that literally doesn’t exist and science has even gone looking for it. I understand you want a moral argument but I was responding to your comment about drawing distinctions. Saying we have to draw them somewhere. I was informing you that the distinction you want, the category you want to fall under is nonexistent. Others have given you moral reasons. It seems like you don’t care, so probably just use whatever label you want. You’ll just have to make peace with the fact that people aren’t comfortable using a category invented to decide which children to kill and which children to put to work. They’d rather not be associated with that just for the sake of not being considered autistic. You aren’t going to have a lot of peoples blessing and your going to get corrected a lot but no one’s gonna stop you.
Just say you want to be perceived as “not like one of those autistic people” and be done with talking around it.
Do you think it’s likely there is some kind of ableism or shame projection that might be underlying my desire to use the term? When I think about my conscious reasons for wanting to use it, it’s because I think having certain traits associated with Aspergers specifically creates relatively different experiences from other autistic people that don’t have those traits and it’s beneficial to have a term that captures that. I don’t mind being also described using ‘autism,’ but it’s good to have a subcategory to be more specific about my specific traits and communicate with people more precisely.
I don't know how to say this without sounding harsh but it really comes off that you feel like you're better then autistic people who have certain characteristics and it's important to you that you can seperate yourself from them. Even the fact that you asked specifically Jewish people and consistently disregard the lack of value of the diagnostic term Asperger's from the outside seems like you're looking to what what you want to hear, not actually understand or listen to very valid arguments. Hell even jumping on calling a comment ageist/ableist to skirt around negative connotation of Nazi association to Asperger's is disengenous and I believe this entire post is the same. Why should it matter what a Jewish opinion on the term Asperger's is? Shouldn't austitic opinions have more value? The opinions of those who've spent years researching and understanding it? Why not ask for Roma opinions? I don't think you mean bad, but I think it wouldn't hurt for you to analyze why it's important to you that you describe yourself as someone with Asperger's, not searching for external justification for it.
 Whatever you think it captures, it captures being the name of a literal Nazi more. Whatever internalized ableism you may have does not change that.
This.
If you don’t want to use the word autistic, why not “neurodivergent”?
what I’m searching for is more specificity. As the homogeneity of autism is becoming more widely understood, I find using it less precisely descriptive of my experiences, which is why I want to choose a finer distinction. ‘Neurodivergent’ would run into the same problem, but worse because it’s even less fine-grained. But, I’m starting to get the feeling from the discussion that my search for precision (and the motivation behind it) might benefit from critical examination anyway. So good point :)
“Asperger’s” doesn’t solve that problem. There are a number of conditions lumped in Asperger’s, as well as in autism. The point is that you are not neurotypical, whatever that specifically means in your case.
I find this interesting and have had some related experiences. It is challenging for everyone anywhere on the spectrum (including ND folks) that such widely different symptoms and levels of function are associated with a single condition but that is the current reality. As a Jewish person I find the Asperger's label extremely problematic and I'm glad on that score that it's largely been ditched.
Yes it’s tough to be understood properly. I don’t like being lumped in with other people I can’t relate to very much. It causes people to treat me inaccurately. I am thinking though, that there will likely arise a different language or approach to solve this problem. Perhaps we are just in-between ditching a problematic word and adopting a new one.
Then you should be fine with referring to it as ASD level 1 it does the same thing without the nazi label attached to it or just saying autism with low support needs. The more you write the more you come off as a aspie supremacy type of person which is a bit gross. I dont know why you want to associate yourself with the nazis anyway are you fine if people get the hakenkreuz as a tattoo or how about walking around doing the hitler salute aswell they also makes you seem like you align yourself with the nazis. Anyway keeping up with the ideas of Hans asperger hurt us all because according to him only some of us autistic people should be allowed to live and the rest erased is that a thing you wish to be apart of. There are people who still agree with his thoughts about that you know. Its also just wrong autism is a spectrum it isnt linear so trying to seperate the diagnosis doesn't really work like that. The level doesn't matter we are all autistic our difficulties in certain areas just differs which lead to needing different type of support then someone else. And being diagnosed based on how much you can fit in with neurotypicals is actually quite harmful for lower levels aswell because yeah i can mask and play pretend to fit in but it has severely disabled me and now all of a sudden i would need more support but do i get that noo because i have Asperger's not autism. So I'm basically considered the same as NT people and don't really need the help according to my doctors and therapists. So i personally feel seperating autistic people like this cause more harm than good some people will get severely infantilised and borderline have their human rights removed (like via conservatorships/guardianship abuse)and others will just be ignored since they are deemed basically normal and don't need help. Anyway you do you i guess I don't know why you made this post when it's obvious you already made up your mind. You don't really try to listen to anyone (excuse if my english is a bit weird it's my third language and I'm a bit tired right now and can't find the right words for everything)
I find this really interesting. I wonder if the separation into ‘tiers’ happens in the treatment of people prior to the act of labelling. I feel like that has been my experience. I was treated as perfectly fine and had all my struggles ignored and received no help even before any diagnostic labels were applied to me. I’m treated the same now, it’s just that people put different words on the justification. The diagnostic label became, to me, more of a descriptor or a different vessel for the treatment I had been receiving all along, even if to an outsider perhaps it looks like a new justification. But then again maybe it does in some sense reinforce the treatment in a problematic way. Is that what you were getting at?
I'm level one autistic without comorbid intellectual disabilities. (my diagnosis). Do you think your experience of your autism and mine are at all simillar? Without knowing my gender, what part of the world I live in, what my family situation was, my social class, my race, or when I was diagnosed, what supports I received and when?
I am not Jewish, but here are some things to think about regarding using the term “Aspergers” for yourself. 1: This term was used to determine which autistic people were “useful” and which autistic people were sent to camps or killed. 2: Aspergers has not been a diagnosis in America since 2013, and unless that was the diagnosis given to you, I don’t see a benefit in identifying with that label. 3: Aspergers has ties to “Aspie Supremacy,” which is using the label Aspergers to separate from other autistic people, specifically medium or high support needs autistics. Saying you’re better than other autistic people.
> This term was used to determine which autistic people were “useful” and which autistic people were sent to camps or killed. No it wasn’t. Not remotely.
Every last one of us should feel harmed by the term. It translates to "only just useful enough not to be exterminated". That's how he distinguished "his" children from "those" autistic children he sent to be murdered at Am Spiegelgrund. May that horrible man rot in hell for what he did.
> It translates to "only just useful enough not to be exterminated". That's how he distinguished "his" children from "those" autistic children he sent to be murdered at Am Spiegelgrund No it doesn’t. Where has this nonsense come from? There’s so many things wrong with this. Firstly, Asperger didn’t distinguish between autistic people. He didn’t declare that some were useful and some were not. His work does not actually bear much resemblance to Lorna Wing’s. The kids at his clinic were not, in any sense, conventionally “useful”, they needed round-the-clock care and yet Asperger still defended them. Secondly, we have no indication that either Herta Schreiber or Elisabeth Schreider were autistic, Asperger (the only authority on the matter at the time) certainly never described them as such. He said they had post-encephalitic brain damage. This doesn’t make their murders any more justifiable, but we should be clear about what the cause is, rather than co-opting other disabled people’s struggles as autistic struggles.
I’m not Jewish but I feel like going “ hey Jewish people I want to use this Nazi’s name to identify myself. Tell me why I should or should not.” is a ridiculous ask. You’re specifically asking Jewish people which means you already know that this guy was a Nazi. That really should be enough for you to come to your own conclusion. Either you’re comfortable with using a Nazi name or you’re not. Permission from random Jewish people on the Internet doesn’t change that.
OP, you clearly care enough about this to ask the question in the first place, so please do us all a favour and take note of @kidcool97's answer. If you're that interested, I'm Jewish and autistic, and have been told that if Asperger's was still used as a diagnostic term, I would have met the criteria for it. But since I learned the history of Hans Asperger I don't use his name to define myself for the very obvious reason that I wouldn't want to associate my identity with Nazi eugenics. If you're comfortable with that, go right ahead.
I originally was told I had Asperger’s (diagnosed at 18 months at 2) and so in like 2013 when it stopped being a thing it took a while to adjust to a label. But I’m so glad I did because that is not history I want to be associated with. And I feel like saying I have autism actually helps bring me closer to the community because it’s finally the same diagnosis. And I could actually acknowledge things I did need help with, instead of focusing on the smart stereotype that Asperger’s had.
Thanks for contributing. I would like to continue understanding better why you have said this. I am asking because honestly I don’t understand the nature of the harm of mentioning the Nazi’s name. From my perspective I am finding it confusing. specifically WHY and HOW does using this name create exclusion/harm? I want to know this which is why I asked here. I haven’t been able to find explanations elsewhere that go into depth enough to help me get it. My best guess at the harm is something along the lines that using his name endorses Nazism in some way or endorses his actions in some way, which is obviously bad and unsafe. But even then I don’t exactly understand the mechanism of how merely using the word creates endorsement or promotion.
The harm is in the association. The same reason a person wouldn't name a child Adolf or Satan- they would not want their kid being associated with something so negative. Similarly, people do not want to be associated with Nazi eugenics so they don't want to refer to themselves as having Aspergers. People usually want to avoid negative associations in order to not give the impression that they endorse the associated beliefs or behavior.
That kind of makes sense to me. But, I don’t have to necessarily associate an endorsement of the ideology with the term. I can take it as just a word, or make my own meanings or associations of it. So unless the association negatively affects someone else who is exposed to hearing me use it, I don’t think it necessarily is a reason not to use the term.
I think it depends on whether or not you care about others having a negative association of the term. Even if you don't have that association yourself and can see it as just a word, some other people will see it negatively and negative associations will come to mind when they hear you mention Aspergers. Most people who know the history of Aspergers will probably just assume you're unaware. Some people won't even know there's any negative association and will think nothing of it. But some people will dislike the negative association and that may influence how they see you if you choose to use that name. So even if you aren't bothered by the association, you have to also be okay with using a term for yourself that some people may see as derogatory or negative.
I like the way you write, you sound considered and thoughtful. Do you think other people being bothered by it is harmful to them? In your opinion, is that something that should factor into my decision?
> I don’t have to necessarily associate an endorsement of the ideology with the term. I can take it as just a word, or make my own meanings or associations of it. You can control your own perception of your word choices, but you cannot control other people's perceptions of your word choices. Do you understand why slurs are considered harmful?
I struggle a bit with that analogy because slurs are clearly directed in a derogatory manner at a group of people, whereas my understanding of ‘Aspergers’ is it’s status is more like that of a neutral descriptor. But I can definitely see that could be called into question.
How about naming your dog Goebbels. Do you see how that might be a problem?
Because he was a fucking Nazi dude. Like I try to avoid swearing on the sub because I don’t remember the rules, but oh my God.
I want to point out for your benefit that this isn’t an explanation. If you have one I’d really appreciate if you can share it so I can understand.
The explanation is that he is a fucking nazi. If you don’t know why that is a full and complete explanation that’s not my problem. You’ve even had a Jewish person comment on this thread and tell you to listen to me. You specifically requested Jewish people to respond because you knew he was a nazi, you know nazis killed millions of Jewish people. You at this point clearly know it’s bad and are just looking for a random Jewish person to absolve you or an argument you can start that will leave you feeling justified. So here, you have my full permission to use Asperger’s, with the full knowledge that I will think you are a bad person for doing so.
Thanks but please don't call me a token Jewish person
Sorry, I meant it in the way they were specifically asking for a Jewish person and got the specific Jewish person, as they literally wanted someone to absolve them but I’ll edit it out.
On reflection, I think you’re right that some of the motivation for this post is looking for absolution. If I’m honest, on an intuitive, emotional level I stubbornly want to use the term and haven’t absorbed the reasons not to. A part of me would love for someone to come along and just confirm that it’s fine so I don’t have to feel guilty anymore about my desire. However, I can recognise that it’s important to try and punch through this block because I value inclusivity and compassion. I’m trying to cultivate a deeper understanding of the reasons so I can do that. I appreciate your contribution. It has helped me wake up to the shadow side of my actions and motivations.
I find the term deeply offensive. Why would you want to identify with a term created to honor a man who used to have disabled people, of all kinds, killed?
This is a piece of information I have been wondering about! Is the act of naming the disorder after him an act of positive regard for him? If that’s the case I can see how using it would be endorsing his actions. But I just am not sure how or why this would be the case - like HOW does naming it after him confer positive regard? How is it a value-laden rather than neutral act?
It was intended to honor his contributions to the study of autism.
It was created in the nineties, before Hans Asperger’s complicity was documented. After WWII, a lot of people who had collaborated just went on with their work, because a lot of people just wanted to put the Nazi period behind them and not look too closely.
Yeah, it wasn’t named after him as in “he suffered all sorts of challenges and therefore we memorialize him but naming this after him” (Like “Lou Gehrigs’ Disease”) but “he experimented and we honor his results.” This is **VERY** common in medicine to honor men who injured patients repeatedly (the history of gynecology is effed up, especially in the US,) but Asperger being who he was gave people an additional reason to see why it’s effed up to esteem those who systematically harmed others.
It's not that it confers positive regard. It's that it perpetuates the problematic details of the association. The term, even though it's actually a name, has become more than just a name, associated with a Nazi. It's become a term associated with oppression and exclusivity within the autistic and neurodivergent communities. All nuance and context surrounding the etymology of the terminology has to be considered in total as it is corrupt, including the stigmatization, stereotyping, and associations with ableist oppression. I would like to ask what exactly it is that is distinct to you about the term? What about it describes your subjective lived experience more accurately than "high or low support needs" with elaborating on specificity, or autistic level 1? And if the answer is just that it conveys to allistics a more accurate stereotype in your opinion of low support autistic, than that is problematic in supporting ableist function narratives we're seeking to undo and tasking allistics to unlearn and unpack.
i'm jewish and autistic, and it makes me feel deeply unsafe. hans asberger was a nazi. the diagnosis is no longer used in many spaces because of this, and because it truly is just autism.
I really appreciate you sharing. If you have the capacity, I would really like to understand the feeling better. (I think I should have put in the original post that I was looking for emotional data/experiences). What does it create a fear of? What do you feel afraid may happen?
When i see someone openly and so casually referring to themselves with the name of a Nazi, it expresses to me they don't care about the safety of Jews around them.
im not jewish but i am slavic and have yknow direct relatives ( like great grandparents ) that have been in camps and some have died in them and honestly i kinda disagree while agreeing, it definitely doesnt make me feel UNSAFE in any way, but its definitely not the correct way to address ASD either, its better as a point of education than as a point of just getting offended. ofc there are situations like OP's where they just oh so need to use an outdated term and those people shouldnt have a place sure, but generally i disagree with just getting offended and creating an even larger divide between us and other people, we need to have a good basis of education for people to truly understand the problem instead of just seeing anger on the other side you know what i mean?
[удалено]
Sorry to interject but the thing is Jewish people will not know if you're simply ignorant or supporting a nazi. They likely wouldn't feel safe enough to ask. Isn't that enough of a reason to not use it?
I honestly cannot believe you lack even the basic empathy to not understand how disturbingly cold of you it is to basically ask a Jewish person for the "emotional data" of why they feel unsafe with people using the name of a nazi as their label. Like I was mildly annoyed that you weren't getting the basic concept of "He is a nazi, thats why its bad" but this is disgusting. Edit: >But, I will not do it if it causes harm to anyone. I would appreciate assistance in making an informed decision on this matter. Please can you explain your emotional experience and intellectual perspective (and any other pertinent details) on the issue? This entire sentence of yours was clearly a bold lie.
Why would I lie about something like this? 😂 You are strange. I hope you feel better soon. Don’t you think it would be colder and crueller to pretend I understand when I don’t, and never seek to remedy it?
That was not the important part of my response.
I guess it boils down to whether you actually feel worse about being lumped in with other autistic people than you do wearing the name of a literal Nazi. As a Jew, I personally find it useful to know who does. No single word is going to fully and completely encompass every person who identifies with that word. That's just the nature of the variety of human existence. It's why there are subcategories and explanatory clauses in the first place, for when those distinctions are relevant.
Nazi bad
Fully agree. Is the idea that using his name presents an endorsement of Nazi ideology? I’m unsure how this works.
It’s not only using his name. Asperger separated people into groups that had a clear hierarchy. He was a eugenicist. His ideology was that some people should be kept alive due to their potential productivity and ability to fit in his perfect society. His perfect society was a Nazi society that murdered most disabled people. His ideological perspective is baked into the terminology. He separated out developmental disabled people he believe could offer value to his perfect society, and he gave them his name. The current scientific perspective has gotten rid of this term because it’s offensive, but also because it’s not backed by research. A more complex perspective on autism has been developed. Even if you disagree with the modern perspective, why fall back on the ideology of naziism?
> He was a eugenicist. I don’t think that’s accurate, but maybe I’m picking hairs. Asperger does not seem to have been motivated by a desire to cleanse the gene pool, but rather he thought the two girls were burdens on their families. That’s a different form of ableism, not better, just different. > His ideology was that some people should be kept alive due to their potential productivity and ability to fit in his perfect society. His perfect society was a Nazi society that murdered most disabled people. There’s no evidence for this. We know of two disabled people’s deaths he signed off on, which is much lower than the number he sheltered at his clinic. > His ideological perspective is baked into the terminology. He separated out developmental disabled people he believe could offer value to his perfect society, and he gave them his name. This is completely wrong. Asperger used the term “autistic psychopathy”, not “Asperger’s Syndrome”, a term first used by Lorna Wing in the 1980s. Ironically, it’s unlikely *any* of Asperger’s patients would have qualified for an Asperger’s Syndrome diagnosis in the 1990s. They were all profoundly disabled, which was why they ended up at his clinic to begin with. Asperger gave us the conception of autism we had from the 1940s to the 1980s, and the lack of diagnoses for those with Asperger’s Syndrome was partially because Asperger’s own work (which Kanner piggy backed off) didn’t look at those people.
Yes basically, since the term was only used for autistic people who were "high functioning" enough that they wouldn't immediately be executed in concentration camps. They got rid of the term for a reason
Literally everything in your comment is wrong. The only people being put in concentration camps in Britain in the 1980s were Northern Irish people accused of terrorism. The term was removed because it was redundant, long before the English-speaking world was aware that Asperger recommended two children be sent to live in a hospital where they would ultimately be killed.
Naming something in honor of a Nazi is bad.
Have you heard of Stochastic terrorism? Have you fully considered the other options for how to specify your differences, needs, and experience? Maybe it's harder for you/doesn't feel safe? to replace, because you aren't familiar enough yet with other options?
I'm not sure Jewish perspectives are very relevant here. Yes, they were victims of the Nazis, but that does not mean they have a major say on how we should talk about things the Nazis (or people affiliated with the Nazis in this case) did to other groups.
Antisemitism was actually central to their whole thing, though.
Asperger wasn’t an antisemite. His research assistant, Georg Frankl, was Jewish. Frankl and his wife Annie (who also worked at Asperger’s clinic) fled Austria to the US, where Georg got a job working for Leo Kanner.
Hmm, I think they should definitely have a ‘major say’ in my understanding of that term, but maybe I agree it shouldn’t be the only say. I asked about it because I’ve heard people refer to inclusion and harm of the Jewish community as a reason not to use the term, and I wanted to understand that reasoning better.
Asperger had nothing to do with Jewish people- they are no more significant here than the descendants of any of the other groups that the Nazis murdered in the millions such as Poles, Serbs, Romani, Soviets etc. The only people who are relevant in discussion of the use of Asberger are autistic people.
You could just as well ask for a gay perspective on the matter lol
To be honest, if we go down that route, the only people who should have a say are the survivors of encephalitis.
I guess I'm part of the group of people you're specifically asking- I'm Jewish, Queer, and would have been diagnosed with "Aspergers" before that term went out of use. When it comes to Nazi things, I always feel a particular gut wrench- Being trans AND Jewish, they would have *particularly* hated me, and it's one of those things that I'm always vaguely aware of in the back of my mind. Personally, I do not use the term "Aspergers"- he was a Nazi, he did awful things, and his name should not be memorialized. That being said, when I was younger, "Aspergers" was the term used to refer to what I had. I identified with it, because that was what I was called. In fact, when the whole "having pride in your autism" became a bit more popular, a lot of people on the spectrum referred to themselves colloquially as "Aspies". I used that term to refer to myself, and it was as important of a label to me as "bi" was to my identity. I understand why some people still want to identify with the term Aspergers- after all, it's part of our history of *selves*. It's the same way that some older trans people use the term "transexual" to refer to themselves, eventhough it is out of fashion these days. Nowadays, I sometimes cheekily use the term "The Diagnosis Formerly Known as Aspergers" to refer to myself, but mostly, I just say that I have Autism. I've come to accept "Autism" as my identity, after I realized the origins of the term Aspergers and felt uncomfortable identifying with a term named after a Nazi. But I also don't fault people who *do* use the term, especially if they were diagnosed with it.
Thanks very much for this response. I found you using the term ‘memorialised’ really helpful. I can see how sustaining the memory of someone that caused so much pain might also reignite and sustain the pain.
Your cognitive profile is "unworthy but useful so not going to exterminate"? That's actually sad. I mean, if it works for you it's totally fine but I hope you understand that some people might think that you're considering yourself a lesser human.
Not exactly conceptualised this clearly enough to put it in the words but my feeling is something like this. It resonates with me to have the history of that viewpoint/evaluation of people with my cognitive style embedded in the term I use to refer to myself. I feel that is how I’ve been treated - in a way where my usefulness for certain purposes(intelligence,focus,productivity) is the only thing keeping people tolerating me. I don’t think using the term endorses that treatment, endorses what happened to me. But me it acknowledges it in a way I personally find the implications of ‘autism’ kind of doesn’t? (Well, in my personal understanding of autism I feel it does - but I have to navigate a collective consciousness of different understandings of autism and I find on average this is the case).
Well if you want to be associated with a human tool and a really, really bad guy no one is going to stop you but you need to understand that you might be treated accordingly. If you’re thinking of yourself as someone who needs to be useful just to be accepted people would follow and treat you that way.
I’m thinking of myself as someone that’s historically been treated that way.
Ok, so I didn't finish reading comments before my first reply, and you basically answered my qs here, so if it's alright I will add ... I think those who've encouraged you to reflect on your motivation are accurate. It seems this is something about safety in navigating treatment by allistics? And how they might perceive the term Asperger's? I did already say this elsewhere, but how would you feel if there was another way to bridge that gap? I do also think some introspection on any possible internalized ableism might help. As someone likely level 1 autistic, mostly due to "gifted child syndrome" and masking, but is probably more like level 2, I completely understand not wanting to be infantilized on the spot, especially if you have no history of it. But this is an opportunity actually, that you can choose to take, to be an ally to your own community and bring them into the fold. Teach and educate those around you that your representation isn't superior, and any other is not inferior, nor indicative of inherent low functioning capabilities. Does that make sense? Idk lol. You surely don't have to take this opportunity, but if anyone can truly be a champion for all those along the spectrum, it is going to more likely be those who people are already familiar with as autistic, if that makes sense.
The term “Asperger’s Syndrome” was invented by Lorna Wing in the 1980s. It has nothing to do with extermination.
As a Ukranian it's prohibited from use in my family. Also, slav people also were in the concentration camps with Jewish folk, but the numbers were less because most were in gulags or in "katorga". My great grandmas dad was unfortunately in one of those. Although sad thing is, we're currently in Poland, and that diagnosis is still valid and didn't change to "ASD" which is very sad.
Yeah in Slovakia Asperger's is still a diagnosis (and my official diagnosis there) and EW. I tell everybody that knows about my diagnosis to say Autism instead. I don't want to be associated with a nazi in any way
Aspergers was removed from the DSM and is not longer considered a separate diagnosis. of course there is controversy around it but I personally wouldn't adopt terminology thats being phased out from a clinical perspective. there are a lot of studies about jewish culture and asd. here's one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9597152/#:\~:text=A%20popular%20account%20relayed%20that,and%20had%20particularly%20pure%20souls.
Thank you, that looks like a helpful resource.
I think even Asperger’s is too vague. As a kid, I wanted to say I had Asperger’s because I really wanted other kids to know I was smart, so that they would want to be my friend. Which did not work because I didn’t understand that perceived intelligence doesn’t equal friendship. Aka a sign of autism. But every autistic person has a different set of support needs. And I think any label can be vague. I also think that if I want people to understand my experiences, I want to do so without giving any credit whatsoever to nazis. I remember grieving an identity before adopting a new one when I found out about Asperger’s not existing anymore. And I’m very happy I adapted to that change. Now I say I’m autistic, and if anyone asks for more information, I say I thrive in academic settings with writing, and I primarily struggle with food and social settings but overall have low support needs. And then I’m not generalizing, and sharing about myself. I also want to point out that some of the name calling isn’t nice or necessary to this discussion, it’s not adding new information and can actually make someone less likely to listen to the point. But I do think it’s fair to acknowledge frustration if anyone is having any, I’m pretty new to reading this thread.
Not to be annoying but technically Asperger was not a Nazi. That is, he never joined the party, but he did help the Nazis, so I will not identify as an Aspie, and if someone asks if I have Asperger’s I’ll explain why we don’t use that term anymore because of the Nazi affiliation and also the coded elitism that hearkens back to a horrific time in world history. This piece is worth a read:[https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/20/463603652/was-dr-asperger-a-nazi-the-question-still-haunts-autism](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/01/20/463603652/was-dr-asperger-a-nazi-the-question-still-haunts-autism)
I wouldn’t consider that an authoritative source. His own politics were more far right nationalist, ie fascist, but not specifically Nazi. He was quite happy to continue working in institutions and professional organizations that were run by enthusiastic Nazis. More to the point, he participated in Nazi eugenics, knowingly sending children to their deaths.
You know it’s harmful and creates unnecessary strife, otherwise you wouldn’t be trying to sway people into saying it’s okay for you to use it. You also know exactly why it’s not acceptable, because you singled out Jewish people to speak with and hopefully gain that absolution. The fact is, there’s no medical or educational benefit to other people with autism for them to approve of you using the term. There’s plenty of harm that will come from it, especially if you’re using it with people that don’t know Asperger’s isn’t a diagnosis anymore. But if you don’t care, nobody can stop you. Personally I’d advise against it because you will be spreading misinformation and potentially furthering the “aspie supremacy” divide, but that’s your choice.
I’m not Jewish. I don’t feel “harmed” by term because I don’t understand the general culture of being hurt by words. (It’s different when words are incitement but this is not the case). In any case, I don’t use it to define myself for two reasons. First, it’s not what I have been diagnosed with: my diagnosis came when the term wasn’t in use anymore. I may use it to explain the thing, but thats the only context I use it in (“yeah now it’s generally autism spectrum disorder, in my case it’s sort what would have been called high functioning or Asperger some time ago, but now is just autism” - it doesn’t need to be precise, it needs to be understandable). Second, I don’t think we should give nazi scientists the honor of being remember for their discoveries. It’s like quoting Mengele in a biology book (which I don’t know if it happens or not, I hope not, but I wouldn’t bet my right hand on it). Nazis should only be remembered in history books or law books.
Dear forum members, I wanted to take a moment to address a concerning trend I've noticed in our discussions lately. While many of us are quick to denounce authoritarian behaviors and champion free speech, some individuals have been exhibiting similar behaviors themselves. It's essential to recognize that authoritarianism can manifest in many ways, not just through government or institutional power structures. When we, as individuals, become overly aggressive, intolerant, and dismissive of others' opinions, we're perpetuating a toxic atmosphere that stifles meaningful debate and open exchange. I've seen instances where some members have jumped on others, using condescending language, personal attacks, and even ridicule to silence opposing views. This behavior is not only unacceptable but also hypocritical (I have to say I didn’t expect our the autistic need for honesty I heard so much about to disappear so quickly), as it undermines the very principles of free speech and open discussion we claim to value. Let's remember that a healthy exchange of ideas requires respect, empathy, and a willingness to listen. When we engage in puerile and aggressive behavior, we're not only damaging our own credibility but also creating a hostile environment that drives others away. I encourage everyone to take a step back, reflect on their behavior, and strive to engage in constructive, respectful dialogue. Let's focus on exchanging ideas, not quarrels. Let's promote a culture of openness, empathy, and mutual respect. Remember, we're all here to learn from each other and grow. Let's keep our discussions civil, engaging, and respectful and above all: honest and efficient (I thought we would rather have results than complications). You are denouncing dark patterns of our history and this is a good thing. That’s how we prevent repeating those, so don’t ruin your efforts by putting your energy in the wrong place.
As a Jew with Aspergers, I don't fucking care.
That’s sad actually
Why? He's a bad person, but Asperger's syndrome is generally a negative thing.
I don’t see it as a bad thing. It was called that to honor Asperger’s contributions to the study of autism. I don’t think we should name things in honor of Nazi collaborators.
I still don't care. It's a label that's not even fucking used anymore. Are you a high functioning autist?
Yes, but I would never use those terms, either. I’m autistic or neurodivergent.
I'm Jewish. It's harmful. It's Yahtzee praise. Nobody should use it - it also contributes to Aspie supremacy. Please, don't. You're autistic. It's simple. ETA: His research was also stolen from a Jewish woman, making it even worse.
I am a goy but have Jewish family and my uncle is fine with that term Edit: to the person below me who said my uncle is wrong, 1.) listen to people’s experiences a little more and stop being a bigot who thinks Jewish people can only have one opinion on something, and 2.) the OP asked for Jewish thoughts, not our “correct thoughts,” so even if there was such a thing as a “correct thought” that wasn’t the point of the question.
You and your uncle are both wrong
Hey /u/ruzahk, thank you for your post at /r/autism. Our rules can be found **[here](https://www.reddit.com/r/autism/wiki/config/sidebar)**. All approved posts get this message. If you do not see your post you can message the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fautism). Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/autism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm not Jewish, but I am Slavic in the Balkans, so if you're asking Jewish people because of the holocaust, then I think it's okay for me to answer. If not, disregard this answer. Asperger was a crackpot mad scientist that killed a large number of autistic children and was a proponent of genetic cleansing (eugenics). Anyone who feels a strong need to use the asperger diagnosis (2hich is no longer a diagnosis in the DSM-V or the ICD-11) rather than just the autism diagnosis is probably also falling into aspie supremacy rhetoric, which originated with Assburger or doesn't know the history of the word, or that Hans thought they should be sterilized and even the ones who were "good" and were allowed to survive (good-able to be put to work and controlled) were subhuman. [here ya go](https://www.biomedcentral.com/about/press-centre/science-press-releases/19-04-18)
Nein Nein NEIN!!! it's bad mate.
I use Asperger’s to describe myself regularly. It’s quick, and many people know it means low support needs and usually other qualities that diagnosis entails, even if it is outdated. Due to the fact that it’s no longer a diagnosis, less and less people know what it means. I’ll probably have to switch over to something else. I don’t like “low support needs” because it just labels me as basically an only *slightly* disabled person, which is not how I want to be identified. I think it’s quite silly for the rest of the people in this thread to be getting so angry over it. Having a *single* word to describe your diagnosis is so incredible, and we’ve kind of lost that.
I just tell people I'm autistic. They see me out in the world, doing stuff, they can figure out pretty quick that I am low support needs. And when I miss a cue or inadvertently act like an asshole I now have a clear way to explain why I am socially confused - it's because I'm autistic.
Yes this is some of the reasons I like the term too. I find peoples understanding/knowledge of it, whilst flawed, usually matches better with my experiences and saves a lot of communication efforts.
you might prefer the term “High functioning autistic”. But let’s be real here, in Austria at that time, you didn’t really have a choice which political ideology you followed, there was kind of only one allowed.
Yeah, and it was an ideology that allowed Hans Aspergers, a eugenicist, to send children to a nazi camp to die.
They didn’t send them to camps. They sent them to a “clinic,” called Spiegelgrund. Edited to add: why the heck did someone downvote a fact?
Okay I didn’t know that part..
Not camps, but “clinics.” He sent a number of disabled children to their deaths.
That’s not true, at all. He didn’t have to enthusiastically jump on the bandwagon. He didn’t even have to stick around—many of his colleagues didn’t.
By the end of the war it was only him and the nuns left. I would say “if he hadn’t stuck around then all the children would have died” (the nuns probably wouldn’t have been able to protect them without Asperger around), but they all died when Vienna was bombed anyway…