I think it really depends on the perspective you use to understand autism. If you take a medical approach, then kids with autism would be appropriate because it’s a kid with a disease. It’s like describing someone that has caner would be a person with cancer, not a cancer person. If you take a social approach, then kid with autism sounds absurd like describing someone as kid with Hispanic rather than Hispanic kid. A person that is autistic is fully autistic. It’s integral to whom they are. A person that has cancer wouldn’t change whom they are if the cancer were cured. However, a person that is autistic would be a different person if their autism were gone just like a Hispanic person would be different if their Hispanic were gone.

I can’t speak for everyone that’s autistic, but it seems that the trend is going towards a social understanding. A lot of people are proud they’re autistic and don’t view autism as a disease. Instead, they see it as a personal characteristic that is fundamental to their being, and they call themselves autistic to help others understand how they function and their mental culture. I tell others that I’m autistic, not because I want them to know that I’m broken, but so they know that my actions aren’t symbolic of neurotypical behaviors. For example, looking away from someone’s eyes doesn’t mean I’m not paying attention. It means I’m paying so much attention, that looking at their eyes would be distracting. But, it makes sense that they would think I’m distracted because that’s how neurotypical people communicate. So, I don’t tell people I’m autistic so they know that I’m broken or have a disease, but so they understand that I’m different and to consider that when they interact with me.