NA instead of NT?

Post Reply New Topic

Using the term "NA" would lead to confusion. If you don't like the term "NT" I would suggest using the term "Non-Autistic." That would eliminate the confusion and allow you to use your preferred terminology.

None of which makes the negative connotations of the particular acronym go away. To me personally NA means Not Applicable, and I am not going to use it to refer to people.


Not at all. In any context when I see NA I think Not Applicable. Even when I know that it actually is referring to Narcotic Anonymous, and even if someone else uses it to mean Non-Autistic. To me NA has an immediate association with Not Applicable. I said I did not like it and I do not. Whether you mean something else by the letter combo does not change the connotations it has for me, hence I do not like it.
Further, it is my opinion that when unknown acronyms already have a widely known convention, it can make things more confusing for the person unfamiliar with the contextual use. Acronyms that are not a widely conventional aconym outside a niche context are likely to be less confusing to those not familiar with the niche context usage.


Obvious to who?


It is typical to not have Autism.
They would not be atypical for the particular data point that the acronym pertains to. Being non-Autistic is the neurological norm among humans, that is also a scientific fact.

The fact is a person can have typical eyes and atypical eyes depending on the trait that is being examined for typicality. In respect of the trait of "being Autistic", a neurolgoical trait, it is typical to not have autism and those who do not are neurolologically typical in respect of this trait. Whether or not you chose to infer that other random neurological traits are somehow also being referred to in the use of the acronym, despite the context, is entirely your choice of course, But there is no way I am going to start calling people NAs to cater to that choice.

That is a very interesting way of looking at them.

Of course there are so many of them that their behaviour is necessarily 'normal'

hmm isn't that why we cant call black people nigers.

Double g I believe

Neurotypical is a term coined by the autistic community. Look up atypical neurology (the opposite of neurotypical), you will see hundreds of non-autistic conditions. If I have one of these atypical neurological conditions...but not autism, labeling me as "neurotypical" is not accurate. I am non-autistic, or "not on the spectrum"...I don't care about what acronym you use, I am not autistic but I am most assuredly NOT neurotypical either.

For the same reasons as we shouldn't call the NTs "sheeple". It has bad connotations. Neurotypical, on the other hand, doesn't--and won't, unless we start using it as though it should.

Coined by us or not, the particular usage of it that we are discussing is in the context of an Autism orientated community, and in contexts where the only neurological characteristic relvevant in the context is Autism.
As you say the important factor is context.
None of which makes being autistic typical. If the context is such that the only neurological trait that is relevant to what is being communicated about is the trait of Autism, then the context is such that it qualifies the scope of typical in a manner you are choosing to igore when you choose to interpret that something other than Autistic status is being referred to despite the context.

As you asserted earlier in the thread, context is the important factor.

What you are objecting to is a common device in communication. Communication pragmatics require the cooperation of the interpretator because often the words used are often not semantically identical to the message being communicated. If you choose to be an uncooperative interpretor, ignoring context, despite your explict acknowledgement that it is the important factor, I do not intend to take on the burden of catering to your non-cooperation at the cost of making communication even more difficult for myself than it already is.

As originally defined (and defined in most current usage), Neurotypical is not a synonym for "non-autistic". Neurotypical means "someone without atypical neurology". People with, for example, dyslexia, epilepsy, or cerebral palsy are not neuroytypical, but they are usually non-autistic.

I thought NT originated elsewhere but could not recall why I felt that was the case and so hesitiated to disupte as much. Thanks for your clarification Callista.

I don't use 'NT' to describe others as I don't personally like it, I just refer to them as non-aspies or non-autistics. I don't like 'NA' though either as, when I am filling out documents for work or other forms, I use 'NA' as an abbreviation for 'Non Applicable', so that's what this makes me think of. So I will not use this term.

Thats exactly what I thought aswell... so I find that confusing....
So to be honest, I would prefer to label them as normal really...

You seem to want it both ways pandd.

When I argued that if I referred to myself as NA on an autism site that within that context I obviously wouldn't be referring to myself as Narcotics Anonymous...but rather Non Autistic (or Non Aspie)...you said "obvious to whom?"...as though context were not relevant.

Now you're saying that even though there are hundreds of atypical neurological conditions, (one of which I have btw) now I *should* consider the context of being on an autism site...that obviously when people refer to me as having typical neurology...I should be cooperative and accept that this label only refers to not having autism.

You can't have it both ways.



My point exactly!

Nonsense.


You inference is incorrect. It is not necessarily obvious to a newcomer to such a forum that you would mean non-Autistic. None of which means that context is irrelevant. It is obvious to anyone when they see an acronym they have not encountered before, that they do not know what is being referred to. However, when someone encounters a familiar acronym, it is natural to apply the meaning they are familiar with. This can be confusing as it may not occur to the person that some other meaning than the one they are familiar with is being referred to.

The fact is there is no reason for someone to assume that Narcotics Anomymous is not being referred to. Autistic people are capable of being addicted to narcotics, and discussing narcotic addiction and even discussing members of such a group. That the context is an Autism dedicated forum does not contextually imply that Narcotics Anonymous is necessarily not being discussed or referred to. The context does not indicate Narcotics Anomynous is not or is unlikely to be the subject matter being discussed. The context is entirely neutral in that respect giving no indication either way.

Er no, the context including (but not restricted to) the fact that the discussion is taking place on an Autism site. The content surrounding the particular usage is also important. Contextual hints like "compared to Autistic people, NT do not "insert trait that is associated with Autism and is not particularly associated with any other neuro anomally here" are also pertinent.


Actually I do no care either way. If you choose to sit at your computer pretending you do not understand who is being referred to, or imagining for some self-centred reason that what is being communicated is all about you and your neurology, just because people, who happen to have a communication impairment choose to use a particular abbreviation to facilitate their communication in a forum dedicated to the particular communication impairment these people have, it's no skin off my nose.

Most certainly I am not going to alter this aspect of my communication, to instead use an acronym that offends my sensibilities to cater to your sensibilities. Your sensibilities are not my responsibility as a general rule and I see no reason to cater them beyond the reasonable accommodations I perceive it usually reasonable to make.


Which is fine since I neither want nor need "it" both ways, your inability (or unwillingness) to make not-so-subtle distinctions not-withstanding.

We're probably going to be using both "neurotypical" and "non-autistic". After all, they're not synonyms.

I don't like abbreviating to "NA", though. It's got too many other meanings to be a very good acronym.

Pandd, I seriously didn't mean to offend you. The question posed was whether or not NA (or non-autistic/non-aspie), would be better for referring to people who aren't on the spectrum. I'm not on the spectrum but my husband and son are. I'm on this site to learn information to help my understanding of Aspergers because I have read nearly everything written on the subject yet I find the personal accounts of Aspies (and those who love them) more helpful in many ways than all the formal research literature I've read. I am doing all this reading because I love my family so much and want for all of us to have as peaceful and happy a life together as possible.

In the context of this forum, when posting it is helpful to identify whether or not you are autistic so others will know where you're coming from. The current convention is to identify yourself (if you aren't autistic) as either NT, or neurotypical. Since I am not NT and not Aspie either, when this thread was started I felt strongly that NA or non-autistic/non-aspie would be preferrable (to me).

I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you by noting that if we all agreed that on this site we'd start calling non-autisitc people NA it wouldn't be confused with other similar acronyms with different meanings.

Since then it's obvious that many other people derive a negative connotation from NA (for the same reason that you do)...so maybe it's not the right acronymn after all. From now on, instead of saying I'm "NT" or "neurotypical" I will just say "not autistic"...problem solved as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for your feedback, and again, I hope I haven't offended you. I am here to learn!