7 ms·

I'm autistic and I'd rather people call me what I am than have to deal with pretentious, SJW-inspired nonsense like this.

by phaus 11y ago

Hytosys 11y ago
Person-first terminology has been under debate since the 1990s[1][2]. The consensus among professionals (I just now spoke with a clinical psychologist Ph.D student who specializes in ASD research) is to use "individual with ASD/autism". Academia disagrees with you[3]. To be clear, if you would like to be referred to as an "autistic person", no one should have a problem with that. Similarly, you should not have a problem with the majority of people with autism preferring "person with autism". This means you should stop referring to this language as "pretentious, SJW-inspired nonsense". [1] https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-16514166/person-first-disability-language-a-pilot-analysis https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-16514166/person-... [2] https://aqr.uaa.alaska.edu/dss/information/upload/PeopleFirstLanguage-2.pdf https://aqr.uaa.alaska.edu/dss/information/upload/PeopleFirs... [3] http://aut.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/16/1362361315576221.abstract http://aut.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/16/136236131557...
- Ollinson 11y ago
  This just sounds like another example of the euphemism treadmill.[0] Here's an interesting article from 5 years ago about a NYC agency with "retarded" in the name which refused to remove the word [1] The answer isn't as cut and dried as "professionals say so." [0]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill [1]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/nyregion/08name.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/nyregion/08name.html?_r=0
  - Hytosys 11y ago
    I believe that the acceptance of neurodiversity will — over a long period of time — phase out the very idea of ASD. In that sense, I see the similarities between the language debate going on here and the debate of "idiot", "moron", etc. My point was not to make an argument that blindly follows known authority, but to let it be known that research finds that the majority of people prefer (consciously and subconsciously) person-first terminology.
    - spdustin 11y ago
      No. It won't. "Neurodiverse" individuals do not self-harm or harm others with their outbursts, elope when stressed, and self-stimulate to the point of injury just to deal with the sensory overload. Autism doesn't just mean whip-smart, or socially awkward. It can mean a hell-on-earth existence for the individual with the disorder, as well as those that live and care for them. Imagine living in fear that someone saying "happy birthday" to your son would cause him to scream and punch and run out into traffic. "Neurodiversity" is the wrong cause to champion. Awareness that no label is sufficient because the disorder represents a spectrum - that's what needs to be made forefront of the autism dialog to those who don't understand what it means.
      - Hytosys 11y ago
        >"Neurodiverse" individuals do not self-harm or harm others with their outbursts, elope when stressed, and self-stimulate to the point of injury just to deal with the sensory overload. Actually, they may. That's the whole point of the word. Everyone is neurodiverse. Besides, my only point was that ASD is just as susceptible as any other term to reclassification. Hell, reclassification has already occurred to Asperger syndrome/autism as per DSM-5. This has been a discussion of language, not of the disorder itself. I do agree with your last sentence.
- smtucker 11y ago
  I'm not trying to make a value judgement, but isn't this sort of counter to how English is typically spoken? Adjectives usually come before the subject, for instance, one would say "look at that red car" and not... well I don't even really know how to organically word it any other way... "look at that car which is red" I guess. The latter sentence sounds very awkward to me.
  - Hytosys 11y ago
    Indeed you are right. "Sally is a person with autism" is admittedly a mouthful and seems counterintuitive. The difference between Sally and the car is that the car is an object, and Sally is a human being whose neurological differences are often stigmatized.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - glomph 11y ago
    The intention is to stop neurological conditions being adjectives. 'look that car has a sunroof' for example is much more natural than 'look at that sunroofed car'.
- Asparagirl 11y ago
  "The consensus among professionals...Academia..." I like the part where you have the gall to lecture people about what they themselves want to be called, using appeals to authority figures who are not themselves Autistic. "Similarly, you should not have a problem with the majority of people with autism preferring "person with autism" Except that the majority of Autistic people prefer being called Autistic people, rather than having an integral part of their personality and neurology erased or medicalized. The vast majority of people using the "with autism" phraseology see it as a separate, undesirable thing -- often parents looking to "cure" their children. http://autisticadvocacy.org/home/about-asan/identity-first-language/ http://autisticadvocacy.org/home/about-asan/identity-first-l... http://yesthattoo.blogspot.com/p/dont-call-me-person-with-autism.html?m=1 http://yesthattoo.blogspot.com/p/dont-call-me-person-with-au... I don't refer to myself as "someone with femaleness" and if I did, it would be implying that being female is an element of myself that could be, perhaps should be, removable from the core me. We don't refer to "people with homosexuality" unless you're a super-conservative church claiming that there's no such thing as a gay person, just a person with a thing to "cure" or overcome. Language matters.
  - glomph 11y ago
    I don't know much about this and found your links interesting. Do you know if there have been any surveys of preference?
    - Asparagirl 11y ago
      Good question. I don't know the answer, but Ari Ne'eman and the gang over at ASAN (the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network -- a non-profit run by and for Autistics) would probably be the best people to ask: http://autisticadvocacy.org http://autisticadvocacy.org
  - Hytosys 11y ago
    >I like the part where you have the gall to lecture people about what they themselves want to be called, using appeals to authority figures who are not themselves Autistic. I was trying to come to the defense of those who dislike being called "an autistic person". People should absolutely be referred to as they please (just as you are saying). The last study I provided support of my use of "majority" (not in the abstract, unfortunately), though I am open. Your links are compelling and entirely worthy. This is a debate that is highly nuanced and I agree that my comment doesn't tell the whole story. My experience comes mostly from a clinical setting, so that's what I commented on. I was mostly upset with OP's use of "pretentious" and "SJW-inspired" to describe a preference to which a significant number of people on the spectrum subscribe. I tried to be particularly understanding with my "to be clear" addendum, but probably overstated my confidence with "majority". With that said, I think that you're making the same mistake with claiming the "majority".
- zxcvcxz 11y ago
  >Academia disagrees with you No it doesn't, a few studies do. I believe this is exactly the kind of pretentious language the individual was talking about.
  - Hytosys 11y ago
    I see that I was dismissive with those words; I should have phrased that citation carefully.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
bitwize 11y ago
Far more troubling is how "autistic" is approaching "retarded" in the popular consciousness, where it has become synonymous with "overweight, fedora-wearing, scraggly-neckbeard-having, My-Little-Pony-loving buffoon".
- adrusi 11y ago
  What, you mean on /pol/ and /r/cringepics and the other lowest tiers of internet communities? Because that's not the popular consciousness in any way, and I haven't seen it much outside of there. The people who post there are just engaging in edgelord humor, participating in a circlejerk where they delibrately try to offend people to get reactions and then have a giggle. It's immature and probably not entirely harmless (influencing kids and the socially inept into thinking that this is acceptable behavior outside of the roleplay sandbox), but they're not nearly as bigotted as they make themselves out to be. "Retarded" is (was?) used interchangeably with "stupid". It's used to refer not only to people but to processes and designs that are stupid. Part of the reason its use became so widespread is how practical it is linguistically --- s/stupid/retarded/ for emphasis! Compare that with "autistic" which is, as you said, used to refer to the stereotype of the "overweight, fedora-wearing, scraggly-neckbeard-having, My-Little-Pony-loving buffoon," and less often, to a generally socially inept person. "Autistic" is used to brand people, and a brand will never enter the vernacular to the same extent as a general descriptor. To be clear I don't condone the use of either word in a derogatory fashion.

I'm autistic and I'd rather people call me what I am than have to deal with pretentious, SJW-inspired nonsense like this.

by phaus 11y ago

I'm autistic and I'd rather people call me what I am than have to deal with pretentious, SJW-inspired nonsense like this.

Hytosys 11y ago

Person-first terminology has been under debate since the 1990s[1][2]. The consensus among professionals (I just now spoke with a clinical psychologist Ph.D student who specializes in ASD research) is to use "individual with ASD/autism". Academia disagrees with you[3]. To be clear, if you would like to be referred to as an "autistic person", no one should have a problem with that. Similarly, you should not have a problem with the majority of people with autism preferring "person with autism". This means you should stop referring to this language as "pretentious, SJW-inspired nonsense". [1] https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-16514166/person-first-disability-language-a-pilot-analysis https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-16514166/person-... [2] https://aqr.uaa.alaska.edu/dss/information/upload/PeopleFirstLanguage-2.pdf https://aqr.uaa.alaska.edu/dss/information/upload/PeopleFirs... [3] http://aut.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/16/1362361315576221.abstract http://aut.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/04/16/136236131557...

Ollinson 11y ago
This just sounds like another example of the euphemism treadmill.[0] Here's an interesting article from 5 years ago about a NYC agency with "retarded" in the name which refused to remove the word [1] The answer isn't as cut and dried as "professionals say so." [0]http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Euphemism#Euphemism_treadmill [1]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/nyregion/08name.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/nyregion/08name.html?_r=0
- Hytosys 11y ago
  I believe that the acceptance of neurodiversity will — over a long period of time — phase out the very idea of ASD. In that sense, I see the similarities between the language debate going on here and the debate of "idiot", "moron", etc. My point was not to make an argument that blindly follows known authority, but to let it be known that research finds that the majority of people prefer (consciously and subconsciously) person-first terminology.
  - spdustin 11y ago
    No. It won't. "Neurodiverse" individuals do not self-harm or harm others with their outbursts, elope when stressed, and self-stimulate to the point of injury just to deal with the sensory overload. Autism doesn't just mean whip-smart, or socially awkward. It can mean a hell-on-earth existence for the individual with the disorder, as well as those that live and care for them. Imagine living in fear that someone saying "happy birthday" to your son would cause him to scream and punch and run out into traffic. "Neurodiversity" is the wrong cause to champion. Awareness that no label is sufficient because the disorder represents a spectrum - that's what needs to be made forefront of the autism dialog to those who don't understand what it means.
    - Hytosys 11y ago
      >"Neurodiverse" individuals do not self-harm or harm others with their outbursts, elope when stressed, and self-stimulate to the point of injury just to deal with the sensory overload. Actually, they may. That's the whole point of the word. Everyone is neurodiverse. Besides, my only point was that ASD is just as susceptible as any other term to reclassification. Hell, reclassification has already occurred to Asperger syndrome/autism as per DSM-5. This has been a discussion of language, not of the disorder itself. I do agree with your last sentence.
smtucker 11y ago
I'm not trying to make a value judgement, but isn't this sort of counter to how English is typically spoken? Adjectives usually come before the subject, for instance, one would say "look at that red car" and not... well I don't even really know how to organically word it any other way... "look at that car which is red" I guess. The latter sentence sounds very awkward to me.
- Hytosys 11y ago
  Indeed you are right. "Sally is a person with autism" is admittedly a mouthful and seems counterintuitive. The difference between Sally and the car is that the car is an object, and Sally is a human being whose neurological differences are often stigmatized.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- glomph 11y ago
  The intention is to stop neurological conditions being adjectives. 'look that car has a sunroof' for example is much more natural than 'look at that sunroofed car'.
Asparagirl 11y ago
"The consensus among professionals...Academia..." I like the part where you have the gall to lecture people about what they themselves want to be called, using appeals to authority figures who are not themselves Autistic. "Similarly, you should not have a problem with the majority of people with autism preferring "person with autism" Except that the majority of Autistic people prefer being called Autistic people, rather than having an integral part of their personality and neurology erased or medicalized. The vast majority of people using the "with autism" phraseology see it as a separate, undesirable thing -- often parents looking to "cure" their children. http://autisticadvocacy.org/home/about-asan/identity-first-language/ http://autisticadvocacy.org/home/about-asan/identity-first-l... http://yesthattoo.blogspot.com/p/dont-call-me-person-with-autism.html?m=1 http://yesthattoo.blogspot.com/p/dont-call-me-person-with-au... I don't refer to myself as "someone with femaleness" and if I did, it would be implying that being female is an element of myself that could be, perhaps should be, removable from the core me. We don't refer to "people with homosexuality" unless you're a super-conservative church claiming that there's no such thing as a gay person, just a person with a thing to "cure" or overcome. Language matters.
- glomph 11y ago
  I don't know much about this and found your links interesting. Do you know if there have been any surveys of preference?
  - Asparagirl 11y ago
    Good question. I don't know the answer, but Ari Ne'eman and the gang over at ASAN (the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network -- a non-profit run by and for Autistics) would probably be the best people to ask: http://autisticadvocacy.org http://autisticadvocacy.org
- Hytosys 11y ago
  >I like the part where you have the gall to lecture people about what they themselves want to be called, using appeals to authority figures who are not themselves Autistic. I was trying to come to the defense of those who dislike being called "an autistic person". People should absolutely be referred to as they please (just as you are saying). The last study I provided support of my use of "majority" (not in the abstract, unfortunately), though I am open. Your links are compelling and entirely worthy. This is a debate that is highly nuanced and I agree that my comment doesn't tell the whole story. My experience comes mostly from a clinical setting, so that's what I commented on. I was mostly upset with OP's use of "pretentious" and "SJW-inspired" to describe a preference to which a significant number of people on the spectrum subscribe. I tried to be particularly understanding with my "to be clear" addendum, but probably overstated my confidence with "majority". With that said, I think that you're making the same mistake with claiming the "majority".
zxcvcxz 11y ago
>Academia disagrees with you No it doesn't, a few studies do. I believe this is exactly the kind of pretentious language the individual was talking about.
- Hytosys 11y ago
  I see that I was dismissive with those words; I should have phrased that citation carefully.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

bitwize 11y ago

Far more troubling is how "autistic" is approaching "retarded" in the popular consciousness, where it has become synonymous with "overweight, fedora-wearing, scraggly-neckbeard-having, My-Little-Pony-loving buffoon".

adrusi 11y ago
What, you mean on /pol/ and /r/cringepics and the other lowest tiers of internet communities? Because that's not the popular consciousness in any way, and I haven't seen it much outside of there. The people who post there are just engaging in edgelord humor, participating in a circlejerk where they delibrately try to offend people to get reactions and then have a giggle. It's immature and probably not entirely harmless (influencing kids and the socially inept into thinking that this is acceptable behavior outside of the roleplay sandbox), but they're not nearly as bigotted as they make themselves out to be. "Retarded" is (was?) used interchangeably with "stupid". It's used to refer not only to people but to processes and designs that are stupid. Part of the reason its use became so widespread is how practical it is linguistically --- s/stupid/retarded/ for emphasis! Compare that with "autistic" which is, as you said, used to refer to the stereotype of the "overweight, fedora-wearing, scraggly-neckbeard-having, My-Little-Pony-loving buffoon," and less often, to a generally socially inept person. "Autistic" is used to brand people, and a brand will never enter the vernacular to the same extent as a general descriptor. To be clear I don't condone the use of either word in a derogatory fashion.