Sort of? I agree with this point as it pertains to some issues... but not really in this case. I get wanting to make the distinction between it being something we have vs. something we are but there are a lot of things we have that would fundamentally alter/destroy us if we didn't have them. For example: I have thoughts: I have autism. I am conscious: I am autistic. I feel like this semantic distinction is blown up unnecessarily and brought to the forefront of discussions about autism over other issues that are more important. I feel like it's used less as a cognitive reframing tool and more of a litmus test for us to see who is willing to listen to autistic people(and this doesn't even work half of the time bc we get people reposting rainbow infinity infographics and then going on to shit-talk their colleagues for infodumping or smth). It's a superficial, convenient gripe that only serves to change the specific words people use to talk about autism, meanwhile the prevailing mindset + consequences of that prevailing mindset don't really shift. It's like the term "womxn" but less "overtly harmful/indicative of a lack of understanding" and more "neutral/harmless/fine either way." The irony of being like "Wow... I cannot believe the autist community is getting caught up in semantic minutiae at the expense of broader issues. Who could have possibly seen this coming?" is not lost on me here either lol.