Can we drop the D?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think for a moment that anybody is suggesting that anyone should lose funding, I know that I'm not. But it isn't mere semantics either, try telling a black that the "n" word is mere semantics, it isn't it's discriminatory. In my case I have a preference for being referred to accurately as having a condition, which is what I have been diagnosed as having, rather than being wrong labelled as having a disorder, disability or disease, with all the negative connotations that those words imply.

I can't count how many times my parents kept telling me I was normal. I was ten years old and I wasn't stupid so I didn't buy that BS. They were not there to see what I was going through and what goes on through my brain. I knew then I had more going on than just language because there were other kids in my school who also had problems with their language too because they would also say words wrong and one boy spoke with a lisp and none of them got teased for it or treated the way I was treated. So I put two and two together and knew it had to be me and other kids could see it. Then finally in 5th grade my mom started taking me to a psychologist. She finally listened and it was my brother that told my mom "Mom, kids are really mean to Beth" and I also said "It happens to me all the time" when they said what I was going through happens to everyone my age. Kids tease a kid and give them a hard time and then they move onto the next kid. That never happened to me. So psychologist it was. It bothered me when I read in my medical records that I had low self esteem. What was that supposed to mean? I didn't think bad of myself in those years, I remember I knew what labels I had from other kids and I was working on bettering myself so kids would like me and I would fit in better and be more accepted. To me low self esteem seems to imply I am exaggerating my issues and saying I have damaged self esteem seemed to imply my thinking of myself was permanent and that I think that way of myself. No I was still trying to be normal and better myself. But then I think what if they were right and I was just exaggerating myself? But then how would that explain the treatment I got from other kids and their labels of me like rude or mean or selfish? If I come off this way, then I am doing something wrong and I have to do some work with myself to improve so people won't think these things of me. If I want respect I have to get it and that is doing work on myself. I was pretty smart thinking this way and they call this low self esteem or am I misunderstanding something here?

The problem is if you're close to normal, people are going to think you're normal and see nothing wrong with you. They are going to think of those other things like you have low self esteem, you have anxiety, you have depression. Yes all those might be true but they are still missing the big picture. My mom says they were just mean kids. Yeah she is my mother so parents are going to think positive of their kids and see them in a different light. Lot of parents want their kids to be normal so they are going to find excuses and maybe she is right that those kids were mean, they were intolerant of differences. But like I say if you are close to normal, this will happen. You are taken less seriously when you try to say something is wrong here like I went through as a preteen.

Sorry, I didn't mean to start a war between the Brits and Americans here.

If getting funding depends on the word disorder being used then you are stuck with it. But that is America's prob;em that I did not see from east of the Atlantic. I'm with Simon Baron-Cohen on this, condition is a word with less stigma attached.

I dislike the stigma, but at the same time dont want anyone to lose funding. Funding in one country benefits us all.

Also I did not know the slang meaning for dropping the D. To Me dropped D is a guitar tuning.

Heh heh. I had no idea it was a guitar tuning thing... my first thought was the other d.

You know, change is a b****. It really is. And with the word disorder, it's just so caught up in and generally accepted and used by so many different institutions that to bring about changing it... oy. Not to say it's impossible. Far from it. It just takes time, patience, and the desire to make the change not just from people here who feel a pull in that direction, but from all of the others who use that word in a more clinical/business/whatever kinda way. It's a lot of work.

Is it a pain in the backside? Yeah. Is it worth it? To a lot of people here, it sure seems that it is. That right there is what is needed for change though... people who get fed up with what is the current normal. If everybody could get on board with it (everybody including doctors, for example), funding issues would have to be resolved to keep up with what was going on in the medical/mental health community. People would be outraged if it was not. And justifiably so, in my humble opinion. As I said earlier in this post, it doesn't matter what it is called, it still impacts me the same... and it would still impact everyone else the same as well. Funding would have to continue.

It's still making my head spin a bit about how this is viewed as a negative word to so many people. I mean, I get it that it is offensive/hurtful/upsetting/whatever to people, but I just do not know how to connect to that and feel bad about saying I have a disorder. It's just not happening for me. I know it's a me thing... I call myself crazy and weird and that has bothered other people before. It's just how I'm wired is all. I don't see any of that as bad or good or anything. It is what it is to me *shrugs*

Words can and do frequently undergo change, fifty years ago the word "Gay" meant happy. The names used back then to describe homosexuals were anything but gay. Pansy, poofter, shirt lifter, queer, homo, bumboy and all the rest. Now those terms are no longer in common usage and are in fact quite rightly frowned upon, as are the derogatory terms used back then for blacks and the disabled. We no longer refer to autistic people as mentally handicapped, feeble minded or ret*d, so why still embrace such negative terms as disorder and disabilty?

If it wasn't a disorder, then it wouldn't be a diagnosis. In case it's just a trait, a positive personal feature, or a gift, it's not a disorder of any kind. But ASD refers to symptoms that have a negative impact in life and that's why they have a diagnostic classification and code. If it wasn't a disorder, it wouldn't be in the disease classification and people on the spectrum wouldn't be eligible for medical treatment and special arrangements.

So, if there's a need for a specific medical diagnosis, there is also a disorder. It's not a term of abuse.

If ASD was removed from the disease classifications, it wouldn't be a medical diagnosis anymore and the word "autism spectrum" would only refer to specific personal traits. But I don't think many of us would like that happen. Diagnosis exist, because they are tools that help to recognize the symptoms and aetiology of the condition and get help based on medical knowledge. I need the diagnosis, because I need neuropsychological rehabilitation that helps me to cope with my symptoms, and because I need extra support with studying etc. I don't care the name of the diagnosis, it's not my identity or part of me (more than other medical conditions).

Why not just autism/autistic?
I mean a blind person is just blind.
A deaf person is deaf.
A paraplegic person is paraplegic.
A person with epilepsy has epilepsy is epileptic.
A person with cerebral palsy has cerebral palsy.

All of those are serious disabilities, but none have extra tags. There are people with cerebral palsy who lead fairly ordinary lives and have jobs etc and there are others who are completely incapacitated by it, and everything in between. But there is no "spectrum" sub-label. No "disorder" sub-label. No "condition" sub-label. It's just cerebral palsy or CP.

The same goes for multiple sclerosis.

I have autism. I'm autistic.

I don't see any reason to clip tags onto that. I say drop the D (disorder) and the S (spectrum) and don't bother adding a C (condition). Those are all superfluous in my opinion.

I rather say I have autism/autism spectrum disorder than I am autistic. I also say I have epilepsy, not that I am epileptic. I have depression, I am not depressed. I don't want to pathologize the diseases/conditions whatever I have.

Normally most somatic conditions are separated from the people, they are not always referred as someone with that condition. But autism makes a difference, just as schizophrenia and other mental-related things. They are never separated from the person. They are the same. Someone with autism is always "autist" and someone with schizophrenia is always schizophrenic. Sometimes this also applies to epilepsy or other chronic illnesses.

I have ASD. It's not part of my personality. It is just group of medically diagnosed problems that are related to each other and that have a negative impact in my life. It's not my identity, so I don't really care how it's called or what the name of the diagnosis will be in the seconn disease classification.

I have a genuine question for those against saying ASD (no sarcasm or other insult intended toward anyone).

Is your issue really with saying autism is a disorder, or is it about admitting/denying you have a disorder (as if having a disease, disorder, or disability says anything about your character, choices, abilities, or value as a person)?

_________________
31st of July, 2013
Diagnosed: Autism Spectrum Disorder, Auditory-Verbal Processing Speed Disorder, and Visual-Motor Processing Speed Disorder.

Weak Emerging Social Communicator (The Social Thinking-­Social Communication Profile by Michelle Garcia Winner, Pamela Crooke and Stephanie Madrigal)

"I am silently correcting your grammar."

Read my previous posts. I've already stated very clearly what I object to and I don't make a habit of repeating myself.