> Also calling people 'autistic' and later calling people with autism 'it' as in 'try to injure itself' is a really shitty way to talk about human beings. Check yourself.

mamcx is not a native English speaker and was perhaps trying to use "it" as a gender-inspecific pronoun rather than intentionally portraying people on the autistic spectrum as "objects" or "inhuman."

yep, sorry for the bad choice of words.

No problem.

I think most people will tend to use a plural (they, them) in this kind of situation. People who are pickier about grammar will probably say "he or she" or "him or her."

Did you read the article? The author uses "autistic" to refer to people with autism (and additionally rejects the term "people with autism")

That is a weird distinction, probably is a cultural thing? How can be better to say one of the other?. I have more than 30 years with my twin brother. My aunt is a professional trainer for people with disabilitues (a sport, gold-winner kind of trainer), I have learn a bit of sign language and so on. But I never heard that kind of argument (ie: here in colombia none of both will sound more or less respectfull, are equivalent)

There is some contention [weasel words] about what is the better way to refer to people with disabilities/diabled persons. Here are two perspectives:

People-first: http://www.asha.org/publications/journals/submissions/person... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language

Identity-first: http://www.xojane.com/issues/i-am-not-a-person-with-a-disabi... and http://cheshirekit.wordpress.com/2014/01/23/the-social-model...

Yeah I read the article, and his rejection of 'people with autism' is akin to 'deaf culture' nonsense. Autism is a tragic, often crippling disorder and this guy wants it to be a culture. That's fine, he can feel however he wants and construct his identity however he feels best about himself. Calling a person 'it' is considerably worse, though, and that's what I was objecting to above.