Person first language

Post Reply New Topic

My daughter is getting her degree in psychology and speech therapy. We were talking about the "person first" language currently in favor. The "proper" phrase is "person with autism", not "autistic". This language is being taught in class and as policy in the field, not just for autism but for other issues as well ("person with ADHD", etc)

And it bugs me.


My problem with it is that it really does nothing to lessen the issues that any "person with <insert diagnosis> actually faces.

Two points (I have other objections but I didn't want to make this too long:

1) People that are jerks don't care about language. In fact I can see ass hole saying things like "Person with Durp Face" or other perversions of the phrase.

2) Most, if not all, of my problems have nothing to do with what you call it. This seems like splitting hairs and almost like lawyers parsing words. Instead of expending energy "languaging" my issues in a politically correct manner, how about let's work on my issues?


So can anyone give me a GOOD reason to adopt such language?

It's meant to encourage professionals to remember that they are dealing with an individual human being, with intrinsic value and worthy of respect. That's my take on it anyway.

When I was 8 years old I spent some time in hospital because my Meckel's diverticulum was infected and was to be surgically removed. Doctors would gather rou d my bed, talk about me and not to me, and refer to me as "the Meckel's". That's all I was to them, an interesting and unusual condition, not an 8 year old girl, with a name, in pain and away from home being endlessly prodded by strangers.

The person, the girl with the Meckel's would have been an improvement, as I would have been in there somewhere.

This seems like two separate issues to me. Depersonalization is a real problem. But I can see doctors standing around the bed and still talk about you with cold detachment. Inserting the phrase "person with Meckel's" doesn't improve their bedside manner. They need to be trained to ENGAGE with the patient. It's that engagement that personalizes the interaction, not the language.

I am not much of a fan of person-first language, so I don't have any arguments for using it.

I find it becomes awkward and strange with some constructions (Barney Frank once said "persons of transgender" during the ENDA vote).

I actually clash with my therapist over this. She keeps telling me that I am a person with symptoms associated with autism, that autism doesn't define me, and my most coherent response is "O RLY?" I don't care what language she uses but I don't need to be instructed on how to view myself.

I don't mind "autistics" vs. "people with autism" (I use both), but what bothers me is when people refer to "LFAs."

Political correctness has nothing to do with respect for others. It's just a way to feel good about yourself for following the latest trend in how to create the image of being respectful. Then people who want to appear progressive can feel superior when they scold others for not towing the line by adopting the "correct" terminology. The respectful thing to do is to check in with the person and use their word or phrase, not just assume everyone wants the same thing, as some kind of monolithic group. And there it is again - the same point already made in this thread: it's about actually dealing with the person, not simply using the term "person".

As for the issue of being defined by autism - or anything else: This reminds me of the ridiculous claim of "color blindness". Tell me, how is it less racist to accept someone because you "don't see" their skin color? Does that mean you'd suddenly become racist if you one day accidentally noticed? If you don't see color, do you also deny what heritage, history, culture, and the impact of the personal and collective experience of prejudice have to do with someone? Just how much do you have to not see in order to see someone as a person? If you don't see all that, are you even still seeing a person? Or are you just seeing whatever doesn't disturb you in any way or make you think about anything? It seems to me that really seeing a person means seeing a whole person. That includes admitting to the fact that whatever may make you uncomfortable may be something that concerns that person in some significant way.

I think people don't want to look at things like skin color, sexual orientation, neurological diversity, or whatever else because, once they do, they can't see anything else. That's not a language problem; that's an attitude problem. What we have here is two alternate ways of not seeing a person, not one way that denies personhood and another that acknowledges it.

A good reason with social implications that actually plays out as it was intended to in reality? No, not really.

I use "autistic" and "person with autism" interchangeably, because to me there's no difference between them.

I agree that the words used to refer an autistic person don't usually have much (if any) connection to what they're actually saying about autism or people who have it. Professionals who write papers filled with suggestions that autistic people are less than human because of our difficulties and differences seem to stick with "people with autism"--almost invariably--and it doesn't lessen the impact of their dehumanizing opinions.

It's like saying someone is "special" in the hopes that the positive feelings people associate with the word in other contexts (like "a special occasion") will magically become attached to labels like autism, and thus replace the stigma without ever actually talking about it. It doesn't work; "Special" has become an insult that schoolchildren hurl at each other.... a euphamism that adults speak in a way that suggests they're sprinkling sugar into into extremely bitter medicine and hoping that you won't notice the bitterness.

Changing the word/phrase you use to refer to something or someone isn't the same as changing its meaning or connotations....you can't change a word or two and expect people to automatically change all their views of whatever/whoever it is that you're referring to.

EXACTLY.

What's the point of fluffy language if there's hand grenades buried under all the warm fuzzies?

I agree with you in the broad sense, but I do know people who genuinely care about being kind to others and avoid using offensive terminology because they find it repugnant (I think I am like this as well).

I do think some people focus way too much on language and not enough on the attitudes the language derives from, though.



Yes, this. The idea that seeing someone as a person elided of their race, gender, disabilities, etc. as being a good thing is racist, sexist, etc. This is often used to claim that people who do acknowledge race are racist, including people of color.

To me, to accept someone, you have to see all of them, not just the parts that you're comfortable with.



I agree with this.

When I read the first part of your first paragraph I thought I was going to disagree with you, but I think you're right on with a lot of what you said here.

Especially pointing out that it's an attitude problem.

I've also experienced difficulties with others applying their ideas of what's 'politically correct' to my verbalizations. I used to be all for it...to use the 'proper' and 'acceptable' words when referring to a particular person or situation --- until the 'straw that broke the camel's back' : I had moved from one part of the U.S. (in which I'd been drilled to use the term 'differently abled') to another part (in which I was DERIDED for using such a term). This (combined with some other experiences) really underscored some facts/conclusions for me. Such 'buzzword' politically-correct terms are decided in a much too arbitrary manner and there will most likely NEVER be a verbalized term reached by consensus by a CITY, let alone a STATE or NATION. And now, whenever someone thinks to 'correct' my terminology, I very quickly suspect yet another technique/aspect in the verbal tyranny that seems to be escalating - no matter where I go. I've gone through more 'Facilitator/Facilitative' training, Zenger-Miller and Stephen Covey sessions, more than a dozen 'in-house' company seminars, and so much of the rest of 'their' ilk that I can't even keep it all straight in my own memory any more. All those 'talking' trends and 'rehab' sessions disguised as teaching others 'the way' ('the true way', the 'only' way, the 'real' way, blahblahblah way) really seem indicative that 'they' DON'T KNOW HOW BEST TO TALK EITHER. I still retain the heartfelt wish that I won't offend others with the words I use but, after having seen that the absolutely real and viable potential of offending others merely by being alive, breathing, present, of the 'wrong' gender, of being Caucasian, of needing a bit of space to walk through a room...well, I've recognized that my responsibility of/for offending others is actually finite - there is actually a limit of how far I'll go to keep from offending someone. If/when they 'decide' I've been offensive, then I will deal with it (most likely by turning it back 'onto' them). I choose my words with care (NOT with bad or 'uneducated'/uninformed intentions) and the days of being an 'apologist' or enduring others' ("third-party") insistence that I've been offensive (consciously or not) are over. I just wonder if I'll ever see the day where 'mainstream' makes the realization that 'talking' isn't actually a 'sport' with self-appointed 'referees' repeatedly throwing 'penalty flags'.

Hrmn... I had this idea about "correct" grammar and language a while back that seems appropriate to share here.

As a kid, up through my 20s even, I used very formal, proper English, and would get upset when people didn't use the "right words."

Then I realized that the "right words" were the ones that the listener would understand the best. Revelation! Talking over someone's head is a great way to get ignored. So I became obsessed with plain talk, being slang bad grammar and redneck prattle. (Unfortunately, I do still write in an overly formal manner.)

I feel like "correcting" language by inventing "more proper" terminology mostly just mucks things up. It stinks of "Newspeak" in Orwell's 1984. Clouds meaning rather than adds to it. Like any overly technical jargon.

For instance, I'm totally ok with the term "ret*d." It means "slowed." Doesn't mean "will never figure it out." Describes my social skills learning curve precisely (in plain talk: "fits me pretty good"). I'd rather use "Brown" instead of Black, African American, or People of Color. It's just a more accurate description.

I've become quite fond of trimming the fat out of language (in plain talk: "talk straight to me.") Besides, bad grammar and worn out cliches can be quite fun.

Person-first language is patronizing and annoying. Talking that way makes talking more difficult and makes it more difficult to understand what is being said.

It also indicates that the person talking believes that whatever is being described is an insult or is in some way dehumanizing. Believing that someone's characteristics are dehumanizing is what actually dehumanizes them.

Using words that describe a person are not the same as treating a person poorly. Rather than trying to make oneself feel better by learning to speak in a more difficult way, people should just treat others better.

Quite right. There really are people who care, and many use politically correct terms in the course of their best effort to show that. It's really not a bad way to go if you don't know what individuals within a group prefer or if you need to refer to them collectively in a way that, to the best of your knowledge, is broadly accepted by them. What I learned from having started there is that it's no hardship to me to call people what they want to be called, so if I start with something I think is okay, I'm not upset if somebody says, "I prefer the term __." I can switch to that either for that individual, if the term sounds uncommon, or in general, until I hear someone say they prefer something else. I guess it's sort of like being a Roomba, and it doesn't hurt me at all. What it does do is show the respect I intend. And it's the expression of respect that the person I'm interacting with cares about and responds to. Maybe some might find that wishy-washy, but I think it's a solid and well-grounded approach.

I've noticed that people outside a group often (though not always) get a lot more upset over a politically incorrect term than people within it. Within a group, I think people are much more used to checking where someone is coming from before getting uptight about a term. Outside it, people are often guessing or going on only a little information, and many can be all too quick to adhere blindly to a template out of fear of being accused of prejudice. Then they jump all over anyone who doesn't join them in order to reinforce the perception that their attitude is acceptable.

Of course, there are always those who really want to stand up for what's right. But there are also those who are tremendously eager to be champions for others (whether they want champions or not) and those who act from fear or a desire to appear superior. The important thing, which I think is your point, is to know the difference rather than to paint everyone outside a group with the same brush. And, I'd add, the same goes for those who use politically incorrect terms. Some of them are genuinely mean, some just don't want to be bothered, some are deliberately rebelling against political correctness and aren't showing their attitude about a group one way or the other, and some are simply using the same familiar terms they grew up with and have an attitude that makes the terminology not be worth getting too worked up about, even if you'd still prefer that they change it. And if you aren't sure what you're dealing with, you can always ask (either them directly or someone else you trust, who knows what's going on) or just observe the person long enough to see what else they do. It's the same as any other figuring out of people's intentions that we have to do in order to understand them, and practicing might potentially at least make for some measure of improvement.

Burnbridge makes a good point about what I call formal versus casual language. And, let me tell you, I'm not about to go around referring to myself as a "homosexual female" all the time. What a shock it must be to straight people whenever they hear me call myself a dyke! But it's not as though I have to worry that I'm the kind of person who will rape, beat, and shoot myself and then go burn my house down just because I've said it!

Okay, I don't really agree. Language can be a powerful thing and the ways words are used implies many things. It is important that they words are used correctly.

If you consider autism a disease or condition than "person with autism" seems appropriate. If you consider autism an identity than "autistic person" seems appropriate. If you really want to polarize people try "person suffering from autism".

I might be an interesting case. I have aspergers and bipolar type 2.
I don't really identify with most people that have bipolar disorder, but I definitely suffer from it. I don't really feel it is a part of me because it is episodic in nature. Since I have had severe depressions but no euphoric manias, I truly suffer from it. There is no upside. This is completely different for me than my aspergers (I am always autistic-not episodic).
So I am a male autistic who has a mood disorder.

Most people do not want their disabilities to be part of their identity. I am not an overly sensitive person but words do matter. Autism being an exception, I think "person with <insert diagnosis>" is the best way.
Anyway language use does matter, very much.

Or at least, not the primary identification factor?

I'd much rather be defined by my super hero work first, and not the fact that I find organizing myself and concentrating difficult

Its sad to hear that you have intentionally regressed your vocabulary.

The word "ret*d" has a lot of baggage to it. Some people don't care, but some care very much--why would you deliberately use a loaded word? If you use the term "intellectually disabled" than I think everyone knows what you are talking about but no one gets offended.

The problem is that if you offend unintentionally, than your reader/listener acts emotionally and the message you are conveying will be skewed.

I do agree that dropping some well-placed slang is a good way to rattle the cage and add variety to one's thoughts. Sad to hear, that you feel dumbing it down for the masses is the best way to describe things.
Anyway, peace out.