People using "nt" does my head in

Post Reply New Topic

NT itself is not a pejorative term. All it is is a way of describing the "average" person - the person of typical neurodevelopmental state. It can in no way be inferred from it's language that an NT is somehow worse than anyone else and it neatly sidesteps the issue of non-AS, that is, it would be ludicrous to define people as not having a specific condition.


So, NT is not a criticism, it just states that that person is typical in one regard.
Of course, from my perspective that makes me disabled in regards to abilities that they have (specifically social) but also makes them disabled in regards to other abilities (higher cognitive ability).

Some people use the term, "normal" for neurotypical but this is inexact terminology - normal in what respect? No one is normal, that is typical, in every respect so to define someone as specifically neuro-typical is a relatively neat descriptor as you will know what to expect from that person in terms of neurological development. But only in this regard.

I didn't say all people did. Exactly people get me down, but I don't start saying, "oh, those bloody nt's". Not saying you do, but i've noticed it on here a lot.

More precise would be to say "non aspie".

I use NT. It's just another label.

I don't think it's just a problem with AS/NT generalizations. Most of society generalizes people that are different from them, whether it be because of ignorance or fear of the unknown. There is a difference though between using it to differentiate and using it to stereotype or belittle. It's just a term, the power it has is what you give it.

I say NT and non-autistic person, but for me, both describe different things. NT is the healthy average, if at all, plagued by psychological disorders that are too weak to be diagnosed, thus too weak to really bother one's life. Of course, very light AS can fall in this category and for me, it does actually, if not diagnosed and never a problem in life.

I also use NT to describe non-autistic symptoms - such as the ability to successfully read someone's body language which autistic people lack.

Then, non-autistic, I say that about people who are not considered neurotypical, but who are not autistic either, though these people may, just as we share traits with NTs and other neurodiverse folks, share traits with both NTs and autistic people. ADHD, Down's-Syndrome...

Even borderline PD? - I know it's problematic for some to sort psychological disorders in this category, but I find it hard to say a certain person with borderline personality disorder is 'NT', even if their brain is wired the same as such of an NT. There are people like this who are so utterly not normal as I am and can't change being different.

Labeling 99% of mankind under one label is stupid.

haha, exactly

I agree, but does that mean only one percent is aspie?

Oh, nooo, not just aspies, auties and pdd-nos-ies too! Can't forget them!


Labels are meant to give a name to certain aspects of people. You can't give two people the same label if you want to label them as a whole. But it's perfectly possible to label someone with autism, because it's a triad of impairments that describe that a person has a certain amount of single characteristics that are common in someone with autism - thus they're autistic.

So, NTs too have characteristics that they share with... not 99% of all people. ADHD alone is 5-10% or something, no idea about other things, but I imagine there are a fair share of disorders that are more common than autism spectrum disorders.



When people say 'NTs are stupid' - that's hardly objective and is like saying 'autistic people are stupid'. It's generalisation, something people tend to do when they have a basic idea of what 'being in a group' means. Having an idea of the concept of that, that's when 'ins' and 'outs' of a group kick in, define who they are and who they're not by being in a group and not being in other groups. More simply put, when someone is able to identify with another person, generalisation is usually one result somewhere along this process.

Which is... not stupid either. I wish I could say it was stupid, but it has a purpose, it is as useful to the human need of socialising and identifying as it is devastating when generalisations are used in total ignorance of differences. There is a good side and a bad side to this and thus it's hard to judge.

I have no problem with the usage of the term NT. It just bugs me when people start attacking the entire NT race for showing traits that are neither universal nor exclusive to NT's. And if we expect them to make an effort to understand and respect us, we should do the same for them.

The term "curebie" also bugs me. Don't get me wrong, I'm apprehensive about the idea of autistics being "wiped out" in the future, but I'm sure that a lot of the pro-cure folks mean well and are just seeing things through a different persepctive. I've seen some of the anti-neurodiversity rants, and while I disagree with them for the most part, they do have a point about anti-cure aspies showing borderline hateful towards pro-cure people and NT's in general.

How about saying decent people, and jerks, instead of using the NT label. If NTs are supposed to be demons, does that mean that people with disabilities are all angels? That's ridiculous. People can be pleasant, or nasty, whether they have a disability, or not.

Thank You, exactly my point

Yes, it is all an unfortunate prejudice that a lot of us have toward NT's. I know I attack NT's myself from time to time, but that is just my way of letting out anger that I have built up for years. I have to let it out in some way before it destroys me and this is the safest way I know to do it. The more I let out, the more open minded I become toward them and I no longer view NT's as the bad people I once viewed them to be.

I really just use the "NT" label because I'm too lazy to type out "neurotypical" all the frickin time.

I took the NT to mean society in general or non-autistic people (outsiders to this site I guess). The only way I can see a word to have a negative value is when people decide to percieve it as such whether in how they use the word or how they absorb the meaning of it when reading or hearing it used by someone else. If you really think about it, words are simply a pattern of letters, so there is really no way a word itself can be negative. This has been my argument about cuss words too cause I think that's just stupid (like how the FCC won't let you say the F word but sex which means the same exact thing is okay to say on the radio). But, I guess we live in an "NT" world, and that's their logic...right?

I know one guy with autistic traits/one aspie 'jerk' from real life, so, I guess this would work, haha.



As said, if people use a label to take out their anger, that's just not right. But I also don't think that trying to keep away from it won't educate people at all. It's like telling a child to never touch the fire ever, but never teach them how to handle fire with serious and mindful care.

Trying to steer away from words like disability, NT - that's like trying to keep away from what can be harmful when it was never taught how to handle it with respect and insight. So, instead of avoiding the words that are already in common use, it would be the only reasonable long-term method to teach the ignorant folks, no matter whether autistic or neurotypical or anything else, how to think before talking.

Because I just know that a child who has never been taught how to handle fire will try it out and burn down everything. So, children usually are taught what fire is, how to handle it with care... knowledge is power, even if ignorance is a very handy guide by which to life live peacefully.

Educating people is what works, instead of forcing new ideas that arise from fear and avoidance of the incorrect on them.


I believe that was a metaphor? Hope it was a good one.

I hate people like that. I think there should be a jerk disorder which explains why people are so mean sometimes.