NA instead of NT?

Post Reply New Topic

The world is not just NTs and Aspies. In fact, if you count stuff like dyslexia too, NTs are the minority.

So, how about we use the term NA (Non-Autistic/Non-Aspie) instead of NT?

Yeh, I think that works better. I normally use non-autistic myself.

I use the satirical Entie myself. Personally I think everyone has at least Aspergers; it's just the routines and rituals of most are the same. Which is why they have a tantrum whenever their little routines get interrupted, because someone has made a 'social mistake'. They think that everyone will automatically understand them, but unlike people who's routines and rituals are different, they've never had to grow out of it.

That actually makes more sense to call non-aspies/auties NA's instead of NT's. I think NT should be used to just say the person has a typically functioning nervous system.

Really, NT is an interesting term because what exactly is an 'NT'? There is a variety of mental illnesses/disorders; but according to this criteria those people would still be considered 'neurotypical' when compared to an autistic. But very few people are without their own mental health issues or idiosyncrasies, so exactly what is a neurotypical?

YES! I'm going to use NA from now on. Let's hope it catches on!

NA?

I do not like it.

NA is a conventional acronym for "Not Applicable". If I were to refer to a person as NA, I would very much feel that I was describing them as neglible to the point of not even being applicable...NA also is an acronym of Narcotic Anomynous. As a short hand to save on typing, NT strikes me as significantly less denigrating than an acronym that is already conventional for describing something as not being or having an application and that is also the acronym for a group that people join when they need help to stop abusing narcotic substances.

I expect a significant proportion of non-Autistic people are not either so negliable as to be inapplicable or addicted to narcotic substances. In fact, probably the majority are neither negligable nor addicted to abusing drugs.

A point with regards to pendantism directed at the "typical" element of "NT": either it is typical to have some kind of neuro-"anomally" other than a form of Autism, and so neuro-typical is quite apt, or it is typical to not have a neuro-anomally including some form of Autism, and so NT still describes typical non-Autistic people. Either way, NT is not inaccurate.

People might not like Micro Soft, but it's difficult to effectively argue that Micro Soft is not generally rather good at marketing. An important aspect of marketing is naming things so that they are appealing. I do not know of any Micro Soft OS with the suffix NA, nor could I imagine Micro Soft being silly enough to apply such an unappealing name given Micro Soft's competency in the marketing area, because it (NA) already has widespread negative connnotation,s and further it is not a particularly appealing sound (when spoken) nor does it look appealing when typed or written. NT is actually kind of catchy; enough so that Micro Soft trusted it to not provoke negative connotations amongst its consumers and very probably counted on it being appealing.

To summarize my objections to NA:
*NA has conventional and very wide-spread meanings, so using it in place of NT will be more confusing than using NT, particulary to the uninitiated.

*NA has negative connotations, and I for one would not want to be described as not applicable, or in recovery from narcotic addiction and abuse, on the basis of my neuro-status.

*NA does not sound or look appealing and is (in my view) an unappealing letter combo whether typed/written or spoken.

*Either it is typical to be non-Autistic yet still characterized by a neuro-"anomally" and so NT is not inaccurate, or it is typical for non-Autistic people to not have a neuro-anomally and so NT still describes the typical non-Autistic person, so in either case is not particularly grossly inaccurate so far as rough and ready "people-labels go.

No.

I do not like NA.
You're either NT or not NT.
If you're dyslexic you are generally not NT.

If your neurology is not neurotypical you are not technically guaranteed to be autistic, that's why there are is an autistic spectrum.

I don't really care, either way. How about just refering to them as average persons.

Meh, just call them normal, that's what they are brain wise.

NT = anyone who is NOT autistic. So people with ADHD, Bipolar, and even Schizophrenia are all NT's. I think of it in the social sense...people without social problems generally are not autistic, so they are considered NT's. People with social problems are generally autistic, so they are NOT Nt's.

I'm thinkin out loud here.

I'll call em what I bloody well feel like!

Neurodiverse is a good word, I think. We need a word that means "person with a weird brain". And the opposite--"neurotypical"--just makes sense, to mean a person whose brain is within the average range.

Changing words is not the solution to AS-versus-NT prejudice. The solution is removing the prejudice. Just not having a name for a group doesn't make prejudice against it disappear. It'd be like thinking you could solve black-white racial tension by not allowing people to call each other black or white.

Normal people scare me.

Since NT is established as meaning NeuroTypical, the introduction as NA to mean Non-Autistic could be problematic because people might think it meant NeuroAtypical.