Why do some find the term "Neuroypical" offensive?

Post Reply New Topic

It's handy and, for me, I find it a reasonable term. It doesn't say "normal" and "abnormal", for example, which is more of a generalization. It gets specific in that it focuses on neurological differences and, again - to me, the term "in itself" doesn't carry a wallop of judgment either way. I like it.

We do need "ways to talk about things", to make references so that we are understood. It is human to categorize and without this propensity, what would communication be like? Yes, there are abuses. But language is malleable and is at our disposal. We can't control everyone, but we can make personal choices.

I wonder, for those who don't like it, do you have an alternative suggestion? How do we talk about people who are not on the spectrum for purposes of reference or comparison? What could we say that is not 'cumbersome'? How do we talk about the subject of AS, ourselves, and people who do not share our experiences? I think a lot of where we end up linguistically is sheer ease (actually, that point comes from the study of linguistics). So long as this is practical and not merely intellectual laziness, we can and do reasonably reach for something that is not hard to repeat when we talk about a subject a lot. But, sincerely, what are some alternatives that people could handily use?

Excellent article you linked to Janissy. I agree with her in broad lines, if not entirely- I can get behind the main jist of it. Thanks for the link.

I was going to type something in response to Logicalmom about the words 'normal' and 'abnormal', but it's late and I find it difficult to express my thoughts properly. I hope I'll be able to reply by tomorrow, as I find this an interesting topic.

Because of shallow people who insist on trying to be cool and elite, so they think having a neurological disorder is better than being mainstream and use the term in a negative way.

It's not the term per se, but how some shallow people use it.

My opinion at least.

Hi, Mike, (and all):

I think your idea is hitting a mark that with a little development reveals quite a bit - you're going in the right direction. I will further it with the question: why do people who feel (I will not use 'oppressed') like they do not enjoy equal status in society feel the need to elevate themselves? What dynamics are at play here? Why would "NT's" and "Aspies" alike say: hey, go easy on the NT's? Hhmmm. Is it really a matter of moral 'high ground', a play at egalitarianism, a revelation of "character" - or is it something else? Is using the term NT in a "derogatory" way in actuality creating a hierarchy or does that hierarchy already exist? (Readers might be interested in the binary oppositions inherent in the words we use - as identified by the structuralists - and which are already "loaded" - hierarchies are 'built in', as it were). Are there any neutral terms?

Here I will add a link for all interested parties to peruse. This is an excerpt from a book called The Language war by Robin Lakoff Tolmach, which is a provocative and interesting read in its entirety, but of which this chapter will likely best offer food for thought in this discussion: http://www.scribd.com/doc/66696841/3/TH ... STATUS-QUO (It should take you to chapter 2 - The Neutrality of the Status Quo. (*this is also a great chapter for those who were interested in the post on 'common sense')

Good night!

I don't have a problem with 'NT' itself but it's how it gets used I have a problem with. People can refer to themselves as NT if they like or say someone is because they don't have an ASD. Plus I have seen autistic people get accused of being NT and not having autism just because of their different view or because of their behavior. I find that derogatory too and it implies that we are superior to NTs and that we are immune to that stuff. I also see it as an attack and I think it says more about the person than the person whom they are calling NT. It also implies that being NT is a bad thing too when it gets used in that way. Lot of us get offended when people bash autism. I think bashing NTs makes us just as bad. I guess that black and white thinking is more of a human thing because I have seen none spectrum people do it too. Some people may refer people who are not on the spectrum as "none spectrum people." A person I know in real life has a problem with the word NT so he refers them as none spectrum people. A member in our group used it and he gave us a whole lecture about the word. It's the way the word gets used is what people have a problem with so it kills the term. Just like how people were using the word ret*d, now all of a sudden it has became offensive and now it's being replaced with intellectual impairment. I just finally replaced the term NT with "people" or "none ASD" but I mostly say people so that way I am not being a bigot by lumping a group of people together since I know it's human thing I am talking about and it has nothing to do with being NT or autistic. I think bullying is a human thing and so is gossip. So I will not be saying NTs love to bully or that NTs gossip. I have seen plenty of autistic bullies online and also gossip from them also.