The term “Asperger’s” is considered offensive for two main reasons: the man it’s named after actively participated in the Nazi euthanasia program that killed disabled children, and the label itself creates a harmful hierarchy within the autistic community. Both major diagnostic systems, the DSM-5 (since 2013) and the ICD-11, have retired Asperger’s syndrome as a diagnosis, folding it into the broader category of autism spectrum disorder.
Hans Asperger’s Role in Nazi Killings
For decades, Hans Asperger was remembered as a Viennese pediatrician who championed neurodivergent children during World War II. That reputation collapsed in 2018 when historian Herwig Czech published newly unearthed evidence in the journal Molecular Autism showing that Asperger not only collaborated with the Nazis but actively contributed to their eugenics program. He referred profoundly disabled children to the Am Spiegelgrund clinic in Vienna, a facility he knew participated in the Third Reich’s child euthanasia program.
At Am Spiegelgrund, children deemed genetically incapable of social conformity, or who had physical or psychological conditions considered undesirable, were killed through starvation and lethal injections. Their deaths were recorded as pneumonia. Asperger’s approach divided children into two groups: those he believed could be educated and eventually contribute to society, and those he considered beyond help. “Uneducability” became the key criterion in the child euthanasia program. In one documented case, Asperger recommended a two-year-old girl named Herta Schreiber for permanent placement at Spiegelgrund, describing her as “an unbearable burden” to her mother. Herta was killed at the facility.
The journal’s editors were blunt in their assessment: Asperger was not simply doing his best to survive under intolerable conditions. He was complicit with his Nazi superiors in targeting society’s most vulnerable people, willingly becoming what one researcher called “a cog in the Nazi killing machine.” For many in the autistic community, continuing to use the name of someone who sorted disabled children into “worthy” and “unworthy” categories feels like honoring that legacy.
How the Label Creates a Hierarchy
Before it was retired, Asperger’s syndrome was informally treated as a “milder” or “higher-functioning” form of autism. This created a split that many autistic people find deeply damaging. When someone is labeled “high-functioning,” the assumption is they don’t need much support. When someone isn’t given that label, the implication is they’re “low-functioning,” a framing that can make people feel they’re being told they aren’t as smart or capable as their peers.
The reality is far messier than a binary allows. A person might hold down a demanding job but lack the coordination to drive. Another might be nonspeaking but fully capable of complex thought and communication through other means. A 2019 study found that labeling someone as high- or low-functioning doesn’t accurately predict what they can or can’t do, because every autistic person’s profile of strengths and challenges is unique. Broad labels minimize real struggles in some people and overlook real abilities in others.
There’s also a practical cost. Children labeled “high-functioning” sometimes receive less support from schools because the label sets an expectation that they’ll manage on their own. Meanwhile, children labeled “low-functioning” can be denied opportunities that other kids receive as a matter of course, such as inclusive education, because people incorrectly equate being nonspeaking with being unintelligent. The separate Asperger’s diagnosis reinforced this divide by giving one group of autistic people a different, more socially palatable name.
The “Aspie” Identity Question
Some people who received an Asperger’s diagnosis before the terminology changed still identify strongly with the term. It may have been the word that first helped them understand themselves, and it can feel like an important part of their personal history. The term “Aspie” developed as a casual, affectionate shorthand within that community.
But within the broader autistic community, many people see “Aspie” as carrying the same problems as the clinical term. It can signal a desire to be seen as separate from, or above, autistic people with higher support needs. Some people used it explicitly that way, distancing themselves from the “autism” label because of its stigma. This created friction, because it effectively said: “I’m not like those autistic people.”
Cleveland Clinic’s current guidance captures the tension simply: you have the final say over the words that describe who you are, and if you know someone with autism, honor their preferences. In practice, this means the term isn’t universally forbidden, but understanding why many people reject it matters.
Why Diagnostic Systems Dropped It
The American Psychiatric Association removed Asperger’s disorder from the DSM-5 in 2013, merging it with autistic disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, and other categories into a single diagnosis: autism spectrum disorder. The World Health Organization followed suit in the ICD-11, explicitly discontinuing Asperger’s syndrome as a valid diagnosis.
The scientific rationale was straightforward. Research couldn’t reliably distinguish Asperger’s from autism at a biological level. The old distinction largely came down to whether a child had early language delays, which turned out to be a poor way to separate meaningfully different conditions. ASD now uses a spectrum model with individual descriptions of support needs, language ability, and intellectual functioning, which gives clinicians (and the people being diagnosed) a more accurate picture than a single label ever could.
What Most Autistic Advocacy Groups Prefer
Organizations like the Autistic Self Advocacy Network use identity-first language: “autistic person” rather than “person with autism.” The reasoning is that autism is a form of neurodiversity, a difference in how the brain works, not a disease attached to an otherwise “normal” person. Growing numbers of autistic individuals share this preference.
The shift away from “Asperger’s” fits into this broader movement. Rather than splitting the community into subcategories that imply some autistic people are more acceptable than others, the preferred approach treats autism as a single spectrum and describes each person’s specific needs and abilities individually. This doesn’t erase the real differences between autistic people. It just stops using those differences to rank them.