Using the phrase "being on spectrum"

"On the spectrum" and "autistic" are usually considered acceptable ways to refer to autistic people. Saying someone "has autism" is what's often considered offensive because it's talking about autism like it's a disease. 

“On the spectrum” is a euphemism for being autistic. It’s not really a medical term as the medical community mostly uses the term ASD now. If you just call someone autistic they may or may not be offended depending on how you said it and the context so the euphemism can be helpful.

Why would it be offensive? Autism 's full name is Autism Spectrum Disorder. It's called being on the spectrum because if you have autism you are somewhere on that spectrum

For now, it's considered more acceptable but will likely change with time. Terms that were considered gentle and acceptable for various things in the past eventually lost their shine and became unacceptable.

I agree that it's rude but people say way more offensive shit than this idk

It's not offensive. "On the spectrum" is probably the most polite way to express that one has autism. It would of course be offensive to use it as an insult for someone who does not have autism.

It’s not offensive at all, autistic people use the phrase on the spectrum themselves.

Howdy! Person diagnosed with autism here. I can only speak for myself, but I don't think I'd take offense. I would question the person's judgement, motives and intellect, but being offended doesn't feel like how I'd respond. We aren't a monolith and have individual opinions and reactions like any other human being, though. If saying something like that casually as someone (I assume) without ASD seems wrong to you, then that's probably a good sign and you should avoid using that term :)

I think part of the cultural push to refer to the autism spectrum casually is to show that it’s ok to be different, and that autistic should not be an offensive word. That being said, do NOT casually say “everyone is a little autistic” or “everybody is somewhere on the spectrum” because this belittles the hardships of autistic people. It can be a hard balance to find, being supportive of what autistic people can achieve, without minimizing the reality of developmental disabilities. It can even be hard within the autism community, as those with less disruptive symptoms often clash with higher support needs autistics over whether ASD should be called a “disability.” Source: I am autistic

Thanks so much for all the helpful responses! I got my answer🤗

As an autistic, while I don't feel hurt by it as I understand the intent of people doing it, but yes it is offensive. Terms like "on the spectrum" are euphemism, which are used when the speaker is uncomfortable or disturbed by the concept itself and thus refers to it passively. Autism is not somthing weird gross offensive or disgusting. Just say autistic please.

“He’s / she’s on the spectrum.” I’d say this phrase is used exclusively by individuals without an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis to talk about people ‘they think’ might be autistic. I think that the phrase is saying something that the speakers believe is negative - this person doesn’t behave in a normal way - I think she / he is on the spectrum. As such, it might be considered offensive / derogatory by individuals with an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis. It is worth considering that for many people, they will not mean to be offensive. Autism and ADHD are developmental disorders - they make it difficult for sufferers to live in society. Acknowledging this fact is not necessarily an attempt to give offence.

- Referring to autistic person: Fine - Referring to non-autistic person acting stupid: Not Fine - Acoustic is right out Source: Me being an autistic person, "on the spectrum" is a term autistics use too.

The thing is, they’re almost certainly not using that term for people they consider neurotypical. On the spectrum means on the spectrum. That’s the reason no one is offended. It’s not an insult; it’s just how it is.

I've had fifty years of undiagnosed masking. There are strong family traits of both ASD and ADHD, but at the friction/eccentricity level rather than institutionalisation or clinical emergency level. But the burnout is real. The struggle, the depression, the disconnect, the complete exhaustion. There is no treatment available. There is a waiting list of about 8 years to get a diagnosis. Any accommodations from prospective employers would have to be sensitive to me as an individual rather than any official blueprint. A piece of paper would add essentially nothing, as far as I can tell; though wind the clock back forty years, maybe. Neurodiversity is a thing, for so many dimensions. There are many identifiable spectrums (e.g. the aphantasia-hyperphantasia continuum, degree of synaesthesia, levels of sensory sensitivity, owl/lark body clocks, etc. etc.). The Autistic Spectrum is a broad collection of vectors in many different dimensions, complicated by the specifics of learned behaviours and acquired experience/trauma on top of underlying propensities. I would say it would be deeply insulting, to those of us without any formal diagnosis, to dismiss us as faking it, of being normies, of not deserving to be treated like an individual, of not being one of the special people. There is no convincing evidence or logical basis for believing that autism is a discrete, binary condition that you either have or you don't. There's an alarming border control mentality on both sides of the nebulous boundary: some people who exhibit strong autistic tendencies are adamant that they are not autistic and will do anything to avoid being lumped in with a group including some profound disabled people and acquiring a new label by which to be abused; some people with a diagnosis act as gatekeepers, too readily dismissing the lives experience of others who do not publicly exhibit the exact same symptoms as them. This is understandable but absurd. Anything can be used as an insult. Take body size/shape. There are lots of different axes on which to measure a general sense of "fatness" (be it weight, fat/muscle ratio, BMI, waist/hip measurement, skin tautness, or whatever). They can be (attempted) objective descriptors but can be used as abuse with or without hyperbole. There's no closed category of who is fat, who is short, who has impaired vision, who is mature and responsible, who has a good sense of humour. We draw (provisional) lines for convenience. (A clinical diagnosis can be useful to flush/rule out specific things like hypothyroidism or any particular variety of dwarfism. Before I received hormone treatment for being short (underactive pituitary), it made sense to check for mechanisms and confounding conditions.) If we want people to accommodate neurodiversity, we must be accommodating ourselves and not demonise an entirely fictional grouping of "neurotypical" people (while championing one or more paraphyletic groups of "neurodivergent" people). There is no right way to be. There is no right way to be 'different'. There are countless dimensions in which to be different from one another, each with its own statistical distribution. (Even at the level of genetic inheritance of individual alleles, apparently simple binaries are rarely simple binaries in practice, with epigenetic factors continuing to confuse everything.) There are vanishingly few people who score near the top of the bell curve on all metrics; we are all minorities. At least in contemporary society, it can be useful to form associations of people with similar backgrounds/issues. As a shorthand for shades of autism, or even a vague impression of neurospiciness, "on the spectrum" is not intrinsically derogatory nor dismissive of anybody with specific difficulties either related to or comorbid with any particular condition.