Preference of the terms "Autistic" or "Person with Autism"?

Post Reply New Topic

Aspies suffer enough mockery and ridicule as it is, without consciously adding to the burden by using derisable, ridiculous, nonsensical, pretentious, and politically correct sounding language.

It's safe to say that I really do not like it.

Yes I sense a pretentious and condescending element to person-first, even if whoever it was that invented it really meant to help us.

Like I said on page 1 I prefer to be called “Autistic”. I am not the language police. If you tell me what I should call myself then I will react. Otherwise it is live and let live. Eight years ago when “person with autism” was universal among non autistics it was a problem. We fought back and now the media use both and according to this survey parents mostly prefer “autism”. We basically won this fight. While a minority there are people on the spectrum who prefer “person with autism”, we should respect that, there are more important things that need to be dealt with.

I would say that that is a very fair and balanced view of the issue.

I absolutely cannot stand it when people say "with/has autism".

I absolutely cannot stand it when people say "high/low functioning"

I absolutely cannot stand it when people say the R word.

I absolutely cannot stand people.

________________________


What Owen said

Just because someone doesn't keep telling you that you are a "person", doesn't mean that they are trying to "dehumanize" you

However I do get your point. Actually I feel that way sometimes. A couple of years ago my former "friend" had the nerve to tell me that she would tell me whenever I (allegedly) did something she did not "like" and she expected me to stop, immediately, permanently, completely and cheerfully. So I asked her, what about when you do something l don't "like"? She was like "like what?". "Jaywalking", I said. "People in (city) do it all the time", she correctly told me.

"People " sounds like eight billion, but literally means two or more

She told me a correct statement, but at the time, I felt like she was"dehumanizing " me by implying that, since I don't do it (jaywalking) all the time, I was not a "person ". But maybe she didn't mean it that way.

She was not trying to "dehumanize " me.

She's just not articulate enough to phrase her statement well enough for me to receive.


(But because she was condescending and demanded that I never do anything she didn't like, while refusing to modify her own behavior to suit my preferences, she is no longer my "friend " )


__________________
Although the word "neurotypical" is better than saying "normal".

However, many conditions, such as down syndrome and brain damage, are literally "neurotypical", even though they are not *neurologically typical" per se

I respect whatever other people want to be called and I will address other people however they want to be addressed. But when it's about me, I insist that they use identity first language. I do not tolerate person first language when people are addressing me. And when I speak in general terms, like not addressing a specific person but when I talk about Autistic/disabled people in general, I use identity first language.

You can also say that you are neurodivergent. That is a good term. It does not specify that you are Autistic, but it does specify that you are not neurotypical. You can also say, "I am an Autist," and if you were given a diagnosis or Asperger's, you can say, "I am Aspergian, instead of I have Asperger's." Any of those will do. It has also become very popular to simply say, "I am on the Spectrum." People immediately know that you mean the Autism Spectrum as opposed to maybe the color spectrum!

I agree that person first language is silly. But I also find it incredibly dehumanizing and bigoted. It actually has the opposite effect of what people were trying to do by using it.

Using "Autistic" or identity first language is not dehumanizing at all but person first language is. Identity first language is simply descriptive, person first language adds a value judgement, and it is not a good value.

Person first language is incredibly dehumanizing. If you have to remind yourself that I am a person every time you address me or talk about me, that's because you don't believe I am one. Person first language has nothing to do with making sure that I feel like a person instead of my label or disability. The only reason that I could possibly feel like a label or possibly feel that I am just my disability is if other people make me feel that way by how they treat me. If neurotypical people actually treated me with respect and if they treated me as if I were their human equal, they would have no reason to remind me that they think I am a person. I know I am a person and Autism is not a problem for me. I am severely challenged as a level three Autistic not because I am Autistic but because I am constantly socially abused and neurologically tortured by how non Autistic people treat me. They treat me as if I was not person. So for them to feel better about being so socially abusive, they decided to use person first language so that they can convince themselves that they treat me humanely. So once they have convinced themselves of that, they can continue living in this delusion convincing themselves that they respect us while they continue to socially abuse us.

If you look at the history of person first language and how it came about, it was started by a community of people who had HIV and Aids. They created person first language because they were not being allowed to have control over their own medical decisions. They had to remind the medical community that they were people who had the basic right of autonomy and that they had the right to make medical decisions for themselves. But now when people use person first language, they say it's to make the person they are talking to feel like a person first.

Why do they automatically assume that I don't know that I am a person? The only reason someone would assume that is if they don't consider me a person. That is dehumanizing.

Back when allistics demanding the use of person-first language was a thing because they claimed identity first language is offensive I told them I have been Autistic for six decades more than you so I get to decide what is offensive to me not you. Shut them up every time.

That is one of the BEST responses I have ever heard!! !! LOVE it!! ! I will definitely use it. THANK YOU!! !! !! !! !!

There are other things in life more important than semantic distinctions.

As long as a person treats me with dignity, I don't care whether I'm called "autistic" or "a person with autism."

That is very true. But unfortunately, and I can speak for myself, and I believe that many Autistic people might feel this way, I know that my Autistic friends in real life certainly feel this way, we don't get treated with dignity and respect. When we do, it's so rare that it completely takes us by surprise. If we actually did get treated with dignity and respect, what people called us wouldn't really matter. But it's because we are so socially mistreated literally all the time and any time we bring it up, neurotypical people explain to us why they are justified in their actions and that we just have to accept it, that the issue of how we are addressed has such importance.

If you are not in a situation where you are feeling the constant social abuse, you are very lucky. But so many of us are not in that situation.

________________________________________________________________________________

tough diamond:

the "health professionals" that decided that "person-first nomenclature" was the current, politically correct method of referring to someone with a diagnosis, had good intentions.

maybe some "people with other diagnoses" (please note that I just used "person first nomenclature" also prefer "person first nomenclature".

quite frankly, i think there is nothing great about being a "person". nor is it necessary to keep reminding someone that they are a "person".

but maybe some people do feel "dehumanized" when they are not constantly reminded that they are people.

I think the health professionals maybe had good intentions, but I am not sure. But either way, they don't have the right to insist that people identify the way that they want them to. But I couldn't care less what they insist. They need to respect whatever the individual's choice is.

I had once worked for a company that provides group homes and work for disabled people. The company is called Shadowfax. I am deliberately saying that because I want people to know who they are. I had also worked as a carer for a Parkinson's patient a few years ago. When I was hired at both companies, I had to sign documents saying that I would only use person first language. I tried to refuse to sign them but I was told that I would not be allowed to work if they were not signed so I signed them. A few months later, I was in a meeting at Shadowfax. I said something and I used identity first language. They reprimanded me. I had a fit and told them that if I am talking about myself, I will use identity first language. They told me that I wasn't allowed to even when talking about myself. I eventually got fired from that place because I asked for a disability accommodation so that I could do my job better. When they fired me, they made me sign a document that I would never ever be allowed to work for them ever again in any capacity at all for the rest of my life. I was so disgusted that their company has the same name as Gandalf's Horse.