Offensive blog entry about the term Autie (Ransom Notes)

Post Reply New Topic

Yeah but there are a lot of names that work like that.

I mean, does Brummie mean that all people from Birmingham are childlike!? It's just a way people talk, they shorten things all the time.

Not at all; this is just generally speaking, and especially when talking about something 'serious'.

Brummie does, again though, have that 'cute' suffix on it. "Awww, he's a silly little Brummie!" as opposed to "Oh, he's from Birmingham".

And I really want a noun form of autistic person that isn't "autistic". I'll use "autistic", but "autie" sounds more friendly, and it's shorter and easy to put into phrases.

Such as "good-autie/bad-autie" which is a term I use for when in a place dominated by opinions about autism that are not informed by autistic people's experiences (on a personal and/or political level) at all. When autistic people walk into such a situation, it's not uncommon for someone who is mostly agreeing or neutral to be treated as the "good-autie", and then if anyone says "No, hey, this is just wrong," then they'll get called the "bad-autie" and the "good-autie" will then be held up as "See, not all autistic people are bad like that person." The fact that the other autistic person was not bad, but just making a point (often in a much less belligerent or nasty way than some of the non-autistic people in the discussion -- you can be a bad autie even if you state the "wrong" opinion in unfailingly polite language allowing every opportunity for someone to say you're wrong and so forth), gets lost in the confusion.

(I have heard of that happening in other situations, too. One I remember reading about was a black woman who was in a woman's studies class full of only white women except one other black woman, and a lot of them were being incredibly racist. The other black woman eventually pointed this out and stormed out of the room. The first black woman stayed there, not to say she agreed, but to bear witness to what was going on there. The rest of the class treated her like the "good black woman" even though she didn't agree with their racism any more than the woman who stormed out did, and they consistently tried to use her to make the other person look bad.)

Oddly, I've been both the good autie and the bad autie in different situations. They both feel horrible, especially when the person on the opposite side of it is your friend.

But, to get back to the point. Those are the sort of situations where I prefer autie, when I just want a shorter word that sounds less clinical.

While press releases may help, I don't think they'll help much. If you want to change the public's perception, you need to show them. That means media exposure of the people who are doing OK, who - God forbid - are able to communicate and articulate. 1,000 press releases saying we can speak for ourselves aren't worth one person on NBC's Today talking straight to the camera and showing we can speak for ourselves.
That's what it's got to be. Giving examples. I was asked a few days ago about what my ideal Aperger's ad campaign would be, in the aftermath of the ransom note debacle. My answer is that I'd go out and find successful people, ideally that are known to the public, feature them on posters (with their permission, of course), and add a few descriptors. Let's assume Keanu Reeves is Aspergian (it's rumoured, but there's no confirmation). Put a picture of him up, with the legend at the bottom:

Yeah, let's just label people who we think are autistic as a part of this campaign. That would be funny, saying Autism Speaks is trying to mislead people by quoting CORRECT statistics, while you assume people like Keanu Reeves are autistic.

It was an example, to give an idea of what such a campaign would look like. I don't know if Reeves is autistic or not. But his is a name which comes up repeatedly amongst celeb Aspergians, and Attwood says often that there are many Aspergians who're actors. The point is to get some well-known autists involved. You did notice that I did say "with their permission," right? Perhaps next time you ought to read what I wrote.

(Edited for clarity and to remove personal attack.)

More on the Offensive Blahhhg topic

Okay... the CDC does not claim the same thing as organizations like Autism Speaks does.

The CDC makes it very clear that it is people diagnosed with autism (of all "levels of functioning" in standard-speak, as in both "LFA" and "HFA"), PDD-NOS, and Asperger's, who are all included in that 1 in 150.

Organizations such as Autism Speaks, and assorted people outside of organizations as well, use the 1 in 150 statistic, but then they use the most dire-seeming stereotype of autistic people as if that is all or most of the 1 in 150. Some of them will immediately say "You're not the ones we're talking about" if autistic people object to them, except, every sort of autistic person are the ones they're talking about if they're using the number.

That's where the dishonesty comes in. It's similar to what a friend of mine pointed out. A lot of CILs (Centers for Independent Living, which are supposed to be run by disabled people to assist other disabled people) will cite numbers such as one in five people in the USA are disabled. That number is accurate only if far more people beyond physically disabled people are counted. But many of the same CILs will discriminate against and/or refuse to serve and/or be really hostile to people with psych labels, developmental disabilities, learning disabilities, etc. or disabilities that are either "not severe enough" or "too severe" ( and these people of course make up a large chunk of that 1 in 5).

The problem isn't the numbers. It's using one number for fundraising (including sometimes for shock value) but then claiming that you're only about one tiny portion of that number. And then pretending that the people you're saying you're about serving, make up that entire number or most of it. Autism Speaks has done that (I'm not talking about on the bulletin boards, which I don't read anymore, I am talking about in official statements they've come out with). Many CILs have done that. Many people and organizations in the autism world and the disability world have done that. That is the dishonest part.

Am not a person with aspergers,and use the term autie on self and in the autistic community when being specific about classic/kanner or aspergers,and autist or autistic for overall term.
Am notice he didn't say autistics [as in classic/kanner type] use the word 'autie',does he assume are all too profoundly MR and "locked in own minds" to realise there is an autistic community,and are taking part in it?

Having further read what anbuend has said,he obviously has a problem with coping with autism,and should get some help for his own problems.
He should be seeing those autists who have fought their challenges,and improved no matter how slight or great-positively,not denie their existance or try to bellitle their experience,that is just petty.

I call myself autie; I've a piece of paper that says I have autistic disorder, it's just lacking in the whole Axis II mental retardation thingy.

There's no way the difficulties I face are "trivial"; I'd be homeless/dead if it wasn't for my mother, i.e., I'm unable to organize government aid for myself.