Person first language

Post Reply New Topic

Knowing your feelings, which you've stated very clearly, I would then offer to refer to you as "a person with (or suffering from) bipolar type 2". This is in keeping with my argument.

I would also reiterate here that there's an attitude problem on the part of someone who can only see the disability or other difference once it gets mentioned, and nothing else, so that the variation has to not be seen in order for them to consider the one they're talking about to be a person.

I think there are good arguments for both. I think it really depends on how one sees things.

If autism should be an integral part of one's identity, then it ought to be "autistic person."

On the other hand, if autism is merely a condition one has, then it ought to be "person with autism."

I probably lean a bit more towards "autistic person" philosophically, but I have no strong feelings either way. Neither construction is inherently offensive (or inoffensive) to me.

I think it makes sense that professionals use "person with autism" because they generally take the viewpoint that autism is a disorder, not an integral part of the person's way of being.

I don't find it sad at all. I don't feel like speaking to a person in the language they best understand is "dumbing it down," either.

I think I picked up on that technique after my older brother (mensa genius, iq 163) told me he can't learn anything from someone dumber than him (aka everybody.) Whereas my 1/2 brother has a very limited vocabulary but is a mechanical wizard, can fix nearly anything just by looking at the components, can take apart a motorcycle completely and reassemble it in a couple days without a manual. Yet my full brother thinks the 1/2 brother is total idiot because he doesn't know all the big words.

I sympathize with the 1/2 brother, I think he is entirely smarter than the full brother, but not in a testable, quantifiable way. When conversing with him, it would be patently idiotic on my part to use all the $5 words that I know he wouldn't understand. There is usually a simpler way to say just about anything.

p.s... I only use the term "ret*d" to refer to myself, as in: "quite literally socially ret*d. My psychologist told me I have the emotional maturity of a 16 year old." And when I mess something up, I often say "oops, I tarded" before I can stop myself.

I dislike the use of "autistic" as a noun. So I wouldn't say "N is an autistic" or "Autistics are often sensitive to touch". I'd say, rather, "N has autism", and "People with autism are often sensitive to touch".

Nothing to do with the "person first" idea.

I think some of the ideas that go with the person first language idea are good. And some are silly. Does it really make such huge difference if I say "child with autism" rather than "autistic child"? I really don't think so. And is there even any difference at all between "N has autism" versus "N is autistic"? To me, they both say the same thing, and neither disrespects N's personhood, and neither suggests that autism is all the person is. If someone says "N is blond", that doesn't mean N's defined solo by his blondness. It's just the one trait we happen to be mentioning. Same with "N is autistic", I think.

Yes, let's be respectful to people we are talking about. Let's show respect in how we word things. But let's not get caught up in BS superficial things that don't really make a difference.

Burnbridge, I'm with you about the range of what constitutes intelligence. Your half brother sounds very smart. And isn't it a sign of at least a certain type of intelligence to be able to tailor language to an audience?

Mysty, I appreciate the relaxed approach you express in your post. One quick note, though: I don't normally get into someone's grammar (I'm not perfect either). But if you say, "N has autism", and "People with autism are often sensitive to touch," you're still using it as a noun in both cases. "Autistic child" uses the term as an adjective. So, if I may attempt to clarify, I think you're trying to express dislike of the term as a label, in and of itself, rather than as a qualifier. I may not saying it right, either, so maybe someone who's able to do it better can help.

I thought about this whole thing yesterday and realized I'd likely modify how I phrase things based on where I want to put emphasis within a given conversation's context. So, maybe it's not just about the preferences of the person I'm talking to. Being more flexible allows for greater accuracy in expressing one's thoughts and less awkwardness in speech.

This has shaped up to be a very interesting discussion.

No, I think you're misunderstanding this. Mysty does not like the word autistic used as a noun. The word autism used as a noun is different.

So it is OK to say, "X has autism," or "X is autistic" or "X is an autistic person," but not "X is an autistic." Similarly, "People with autism have difficulties with social interaction" is OK, so is, "Autistic people have difficulties with social interaction," but not, "Autistics have difficulty with social interaction."

Some people use "autists" as a back-formation from "autistic," i.e., "Autists have difficulty with social interaction." I think that's OK, too.

I use "Autist" because it sounds like artist, and it makes me giggle a little bit inside.

Was he just being a snob or can he really not? It seems like such a weird limitation.


(When I wonder if he was just being a snob I was wondering if he was saying he couldn't learn anything from them because he already knew everything they knew.)

Ah! Thanks, invisiblespectrum. I see my error now.

I believe it to be an expression of his arrogance. When he does learn something from someone "dumber" than him, it is by the virtue of his intelligence that he was able to learn it, not the virtue of their having taught him. I don't know if it makes any sense to you. I certainly find the notion to be patently absurd.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I said "I dislike the use of 'autistic' as a noun." Autistic, not autism. Yes, I used the word "autism" as a noun. But I didn't say I dislike using that word as a noun. I know my grammar just fine, and I said what I meant. Apparently, it wasn't clear that when I said "the word 'autistic'", I mean only that word, and no other related words.

Saw this after posting my own reply. Yup, you got it, invisiblespectrum. And, yes, the word "autist" is fine.

Mysty, did you also catch in my later post that I caught on? I'm sorry. It was an honest mistake.

I don't care what language is used. Person with autism. Autistic person. Autistic. With autism. Autism included. Buy Autistic Get Autistic Free. Autism a la carte.

As long as other persons don't correct my usage of whatever term I want to use for myself, all is well between my person and other persons.

Yeah, I did.

Person first language confuses things for me.