Is it ok to not like being called a LABEL?

Post Reply New Topic

I have a pet peeve and others where I live also believe in people first language or in some sub-forms no labels mentions at all but simply being different somehow. For instance I do not like be called autistic but as I live a public life as an autism advocate I also dislike being called a person with autism but not as much. I had to mention that I am of autism as my job is autism advocacy in media and at public events. However as time has passed media called me autistic and also a person with high functioning autism. I cannot image not having autism because I've never experienced that. Some symptoms of autism like transitional problems and environmental stimuli creating silent melt down and mind fog (like shell shock) before the melt downs I'd like to get rid off. Does that mean to some it's offensive to say I want a treatment developed for this thus a cure and that to say this that the label could be separate from my being?

The autism politics seem to have to do with other issues like abortion and an autism identity for self-advocacy empowerment which does at times have to do with abortion politics. However I do not think my not liking being called a label does not hurt other peoples advocacy. There is a rigidity to being more polite by not calling me and others a label and I am not the only one not liking being called autistic and it seems to have to do with the politics of anti-cure saying autism should not be implied as having a potential separation from a person. What is wrong with not wanting to be called a label?

Nathan Young

I think the baad thing about labels is that you are automatically associated with-and associate yourself with-everyone who bears that label. Family members or professionals might attribute behaviors typical of others with that label to you before you have even had the chance to exhibit them and you might pick up behaviors of others with that label.

That is such an intelligent reply and I'm impressed with it.

It is impossible to communicate without labels. I have blue eyes. Does that label bother me? No. When a label bothers you it is is not the label but how you perceive that label and what you believe others think that label means.

I have autism. Does that label bother me any more or less than saying I am autistic? No. Because I am what I am. Do I go about shouting "I am autistic"? No. Because there is a wide variety of meaning applied to that word and the context of the communication is as important as the labels used.

I couldn't agree more. This is actually something I've been thinking about lately, as it relates to a special interest of mine: Conditions that influence how one processes information, how people learn to adapt (or not adapt) to these conditions, and how they are perceived by others.

I may piss people off by saying this, but I don't think labeling is a bad thing - not if it means access to services that can help a person be more successful and better cope with the challenges. I think that special education services can be beneficial from early childhood onwards, provided that said services are provided by competent professionals who know what they're doing, and actually care about the child/ individual they are supposed to be helping. There are professionals like this out there, though I do know all too well that not everyone working in the special education field fits this description, and that is a major problem. Special education and related services can be a positive thing when done right. Unfortunately, these services are often not done right at all, and that's why so many people have negative perceptions. I work in a preschool where about half the students are on IEPs and receiving related services. It's a pretty good school, and I have seen quite a number of children there make immense progress.

I was not so lucky with my own experiences, but I'm no going to get into that. I've already veered too far from the original topic, I know. The thing is, I have lengthy internal monologues about this issue, and all these things are so closely related in my head, I can't make my point about one component without writing a mini-thesis on other components first.

Onward to labeling. I know that some children (I know that we're mostly adults here, but our issues did begin in childhood, so it's relevant) go far too long without receiving a necessary diagnosis, such as ASD, ADHD, LD, and other conditions that cause a clinically significant difference in how information is processed. Thus, they don't receive the services they need to achieve to their optimum, and they may spend years failing and wondering what the h is wrong with them as a result.

Okay, finally getting to the point. The reason why some of these children go too long without being diagnosed is because professionals are hesitant to "label" them, because of the stigma associated with said labels. My point here is, sometimes not labeling can cause bigger problems than labeling.

Thus, I don't think labeling is a bad thing. Many people see these sorts of labels in a negative light, because of the way the labels tend to be misused. If a label is used to define a child or individual of any age to the point that the people in that individual's life fail to see beyond the label, and said individual winds up being perceived as a lesser subspecies of human as a result, that is a very bad thing.

However, if these labels are used as they're supposed to be, as a general guideline to determine the supports an individual is likely to need to increase his/ her chance of success, that is not at all a bad thing. If key influential people in this individual's life are able to recognize that said individual is far more than his/ her label, that he/ she is also a human being with strengths and weaknesses like any other, one who deserves to be given a real shot at a life with meaning and success, then the label is not a bad thing. In that case, the label can in fact be a positive thing.

I do have problems with how some people use these sorts of labels. However, I have no problems with the labels themselves, and believe that in some cases, they're necessary.

Agghhh, this is why I should keep my internal monologues about my special interests internal, and not let them out of my head. When I let them out of my head, this is the result. In any case, my monologue is now over.

I also dislike labels. I prefer the word category. Every person on the planet has a little bit of autism. Strong autistic perception leads to both tremendous gifts and some disabilities. However, we would have a rather boring planet if everyone was the same.

My hatred for labels stems from the fact that my labels were always so ridiculous. I've been the quiet girl my whole life but it's a label that doesn't make any sense to label anyone as especially me. Why does my lack of talking bother people. I can only be considered a quiet girl if I couldn't talk at all which is just not true. And the people who tend to label me the quiet girl know I'm capable of talking cuz I have talked to them. Being labeled the quiet girl...especially as a "funny" label makes no sense to me at all. And when I mean funny label I mean "Quietest girl" is the stupid award I always get at the Student Funny Awards which makes even less sense cuz there's really nothing humorous or funny about being quiet.

Oh well, that's NT humor for you.

I also hate being called it and don't want to be defined by it. I don't even feel autistic. In my mind it still means no communication, rocking back and forth in the corner at all times, being unable to care for yourself, on the floor crying and screaming during a meltdown and I am none of that.

But I don't mind autism being used as a category. That's what I see it as, even when I use that word I am using it as a category. I have a new label on me, "form of autism" and that comes out of my husband's mouth and my in laws.

OuterBoroughGirl
My parents and the schools I went to forced me into every conceivable therapy and often times I was placed with intellectually handicapped children and when the class divided up, they always placed me in lowest level groups even though they had no idea about my abilities. This did a lot of damage to my self esteem and I adopted a don't care attitude towards school. I genuinely thought I was ret*d. I would have preferred for my family to pay to get a limited amount of therapy privately, outside school and to get no academic support in school, as that was not my issue.

Labels bother me because of the stereotypes associated with them.

My parents say that don't want me to ever use the "Asperger's label" unless I am having a meltdown and need to explain. (I had to do this once and it didn't seem to help at all)

Labels confine and can lead one to false expectations. You never know what the individual can accomplish in their lifetime, so why label them and think they won't amount to much or nothing at all? Labeling people is like giving permission to lose faith in their abilities.
At the same time, the label can help someone get their needs met by letting people know what the issues might be.

The ONLY thing labels applicable to brain dysfunction are valuable for, IMHO, is in getting professional help and/or disability assistance. The label itself doesn't help much with family and friends unless they are educated about the label and understand what the label REALLY means, in depth. For people who have nothing but a cursory knowledge of the label, along with stereotypical ideas of what it means, the label is not only useless, but probably harmful in their hands.

When dealing with professionals and informed family and friends, labels are useful and helpful.

When dealing with the ignorant, they are best not mentioned.

The he's autistic or look he's autistic idea I did not call myself but others did. This is replaced by hey theres Nathan and I am Nathan Young. I just find it dehumanizing while others see it as a way to protect an anti-cure agenda at times which is a bias to human dignities.

Having a label isn't an either/or condition. I didn't have labels for "ADHD" or "Asperger's" or "Autism" growing up, and yet I still had the associated difficulties, and those difficulties led to me being labeled in other ways - ways that either placed very high expectations I couldn't reach without support or suggested I wasn't able to meet anyone else's expectations (gifted, lazy, stupid, etc).

Labels are labels, it's how people categorize. I don't mind having labels (and consciously use some). I do mind being labeled because of other people's prejudices and I especially dislike when labels are used as straitjackets. They're descriptive, not prescriptive.

I like this: http://www.jimsinclair.org/person_first.htm

Last edited by Verdandi on 22 Jan 2011, 4:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Everyone on the planet has one label or another stuck to them by other people. That's just the way people work. They need to categorize things. So in answer to your original question, yes it is perfectly acceptable to prefer to not be labeled. I'm actually in a class on disability & society and our first lecture was on person first language. I can see how some people could find being defined by their disability (or condition or whatever, the class is on disability so that's the word I use) offensive or dehumanizing. But I don't have a problem being called autistic. I am autistic. Not a problem for me. I see it as an integral part of who I am, as much as saying I am a college student, or I am a dog lover. But I think everyone should get to choose for themselves how they want to represent themselves, like if you prefer to think of autism as separate from you, then you should encourage person first language. But autism is a part of me, I don't want or need to be cured, so I don't really care whether someone says I am autistic or that I am a person who has autism. What matters more to me is for people to be respectful.

I think the problem with labels is that they tend to be reductionist. Once you have a label it can become too rigid: you are seen (and perhaps see yourself) as being defined by a given label rather than encompassing all the nuances that the label actually includes, and all the parts of yourself that the label does not include.

Autism is such a broad condition that no one fits the label exactly, not in the manner that it is understood under a strict clinical definition, so it's difficult to call oneself by a word that implies one thing but includes so much more than is implied.