Saying NO to the "A" word

Post Reply New Topic

I can't, because I'm looking for examples from you which, I hope, will illustrate exactly what you mean with stuff like this:
I'm hoping you can show me how it doesn't apply, and workable examples of something "more mutually respectful".
As I've said, I see no offence in the existing shortcuts but I'd still be interested to see your equivalents.

Ok... I am tired right now but will re-enter the topic tomorrow as I am being persuaded by the time and another person. It's after 5:00.

A condition is something someone has which embodies part of the whole but influencing the whole obviously. But innately we are all humans and not disorders. It is no longer politically correct to refer to a co-worker as black man in some circumstances but rather a co-worker. Saying an individual has autism instead of implying they are a disorder which was made up as a condition in science seems to be more universally respectful. It depends on an individuals choice.

How about I come back to this topic tomorrow as well?

Of course, but I don't see how 'Autistic man' denies the human part ('a man') in any way and it just seems like hair-splitting to have 'that man is Autistic' instead. He still has Autism, whichever way you spin it, and he's every bit as capable as he always was wherever the word gets placed.

Somewhat situation dependent, but I think I get your general drift.
Maybe it's different in the States but here, it's no big deal to say something of a co-worker like 'Oh you mean Jim. He's the black guy over there by the door.'
He is a black guy, and he is over there by the door. Same as if he was 'the Welsh guy', or 'the Indonesian guy' etc.

So saying 'that Autistic man' is more offensive to you than 'that man has Autism'?
I'm not sure I follow what you mean with "a disorder which was made up as a condition in science", because it implies there's no such thing where clearly, there is.

But the way you explain it, I get the impression that the reverse is true.
In fact this thread's title says as much: "Saying NO to the "A" word".
That's pretty definite: the 'A' word should be dropped. Period.

I will be back from the magic pill movie in about 2 hrs. But I am confident in this post that choice will prevail.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THE_hhk1Gzc[/youtube]

Well yes of course it can be both ways like autistic man and man that has autism. One way implies someone is a disorder who is also a man and the other a person with a disorder. For sake of individuality and to focus less on the label why not respect the choices of individuals and their beliefs. Hey look theres an autistic when it was originally autistic disorder.

You see autism is not a skin color. Autism may be a spectrum but it is not a spectrum of color other than the people it affects. The reason for using the example of skin color is people are sensitive about certain things and sociology depicts this well with racial understandings and the same with other groups. In idea respecting choice by allowing others to understand why in a good constructive way leads to folks respecting how an individual thinks and relates to the world. Of course no one is a robot and should answer to the key phase hey autistic! Instead folks answer by their names and a person would not be expected to reply kindly to hey black man but instead hello mister.

Autism is a concept originating in science to depict a disorder. A person in a wheel chair does not typically like answering to hey crippled! A black person does not like being called hey black man. Likewise it is common sense not to say hey disordered man. Instead I think it is more sensible that only when applicable someone ought to say (individuals name) then the disorder as it respects the person first and not the said defect. I think sociologically the need to redefine autism stems from feelings of being defective when in reality autism is a disability and the more we culturally attribute the disability to someone even in word placement before the person it can effect the person more.

I came up with the phrase saying no to the “A” word because folks get bent out of shape either way. That’s because I debated both sides in my mind some years ago. The problem is seeing difference as defect and difference causing hardship in the first place. The more we substitute defect over the said individuality the more a person is going to center the idea of defect in their lives emotionally. It is “cute” to come up with words like “aspie” which are more neutral but really what is the root of the problem and how can the benefits of socially manifested adaptations in awareness take place without adverse disrespect and adverse emotional causations.

This subject has me now thinking of writing about the emotional dynamics of a label and the self. Sometimes I am hesitant to say certain things. That’s when I joke and say it is classified by the mother ship because this website is symbolically using aliens in association with ASD. I do not want the information to result in a kind of emotional abuse or mainstream bullying.

Nathan Young

http://www.autism-resources.com/autismfaq-hist.html

I agree with Ci's last post. Except it would be better if you incorporated some psychology terms.

Also Aspergers is hans' last name. It doesn't even derive from any real meanings, where as autism means "escape from reality"

Also you must be autistic in order to train to become a shaman...

The autism archetype.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype

For someone to actually be the disorder known as 'Autism' they would have to be called just: 'Autism'. Can you really imagine anyone using that - 'Oh hello, Autism. Was your car repaired Ok?'
Saying 'Autistic man' and 'man with Autism' equate to exactly the same thing: the man has Autism. It's your repetition of (I'm paraphrasing) 'someone is the disorder', which is apparently what occurs when 'Autistic man' is used and yet not with 'man with Autism', that still seems like microscopic hair-splitting.

Of course, although I've seen no-one asking for their choice to be selected on this matter except for you. At the moment, the label itself seems your biggest issue and I still can't see why.
Likewise I am unaware of people complaining or commenting about being the condition. I'm sure they're well aware they have the condition and are very unlikely to believe they will ever become it.

So I find myself wondering how concrete, how real, how observable - are those instances occurring where the 'choice' you continually reference has actually been ignored and the person disrespected. Thus far, it seems entirely an academic point hanging on nothing more substantial than semantics.

And neither is a nationality, nor an accent, nor a bald head, nor sexual orientation.
Which is why it would be ridiculous and quite wrong to say (harking back to my earlier example) 'Oh you mean Jim. He's the Autistic guy over there by the door'. How would anyone know who was meant just by looking? And of course it would be wrong to indicate someone in this way because they happened to be Autistic, in just the same way as if they were gay.

But there is a marked difference between saying 'the Autistic guy over there' and 'the black guy over there'.
One is highlighting something non-visible (which 'the guy' may well prefer to keep non-visible and unknown), while the other is plain for all to see.

However, none of this seems relevant to your earlier assertion that "The sayings autistic person, simply autistic in reference to someone and autistic man or autistic women is fundamentally disrespectful."
In this context, "fundamentally disrespectful" means to me that on basic principles, in mere grammatical construct alone and on any basic human interaction - 'Autistic man' is unavoidably disrespectful.
It's this aspect that I still feel you have failed to demonstrate as having any real significance, beyond your telling me it has.
Which is why I asked this a few posts back, and I would still appreciate an answer:

Well of course, but I was never suggesting the term "Autistic" should be used in such a way. Like if saying 'hello black man', it's immediately obvious that a greeting is not the primary purpose of saying such a thing.

Of course, and I agree - but you're ascribing this scenario to the simple issue of 'Autistic man' vs. 'man with Autism', and that I do not see.

Again, of course. If someone was introducing a man called 'Jim' to someone else, and Jim happened to be Autistic, I think it very unlikely that Jim would be introduced as 'Autism - and BTW, his name is Jim'. Wouldn't he just get introduced as Jim? Seems the most obvious thing to do irrespective of his being Autistic, green, bald or gay.

Equally applicable to being gay, too.

Yes, but I still see no real examples of this substitution occurring.

I'd guess that's true for any minority group. A friendly 'clan name', if you will.

People will often take a dislike to certain behavioural patterns or ways of life simply because they're different to 'the norm'. Such is human nature, and I don't see how swapping word order would be effective in dealing with that - irrespective of the difference 'the norm' objects to.

Now put it in context to media saying autistic man. You would then understand why some would be sensitive. Again it comes down to choice, personal dignity and the right to self-expression because individual with autism was also reacted to harshly for political reasons. I can reply in-depth later as I have a meeting shortly.

Put what in context with the media?
Thanks. I would appreciate responses to the many questions I've raised.

For someone to actually be the disorder known as 'Autism' they would have to be called just: 'Autism'. Can you really imagine anyone using that - 'Oh hello, Autism. Was your car repaired Ok?'
Saying 'Autistic man' and 'man with Autism' equate to exactly the same thing: the man has Autism. It's your repetition of (I'm paraphrasing) 'someone is the disorder', which is apparently what occurs when 'Autistic man' is used and yet not with 'man with Autism', that still seems like microscopic hair-splitting.

Partial reply between tasks..

We are coming very close especially when it comes to awareness related to criminality which globally effects the macro sphere perception of individuals with autism. The more we center and make priority the autism upon the individuality notion the more we invite global stereotypes to an individual’s way of being. Once we prioritize and accept the notion of autism being the priority of a subjective individual we psychosocially invite the mindset to the acceptance of all that comes with it.

Think of it this way and in a non-absolute fashion but simply reducing the % of mental and social factors in causation potentials toward bias and assumptions societally.

1. Disordered man (autistic man, an autistic, man that is a disorder) commits crime injuring police officer for life.

2. Man that happens to have a disorder called autism (man with autism) commits crime injuring police officer for life.

Psychosocially globally in the individuated psyche and collective psyches we then reduce stereotypically attributed false facts by in part de-personalizing the autism from the person whilst respecting individuality in spite of a disorder notion.

See: causality notion & Psychosocial programming - deprogramming, psychosocial conditioning, psychosocial influence

I reviewed your reply and unless you going to accept that autism is different then the psychosocial issue of being gay and accept autism is a disorder effecting peoples behavior there is little reason to continue with a reply. In order to continue in this subject we will have to delve into areas most people are very sensitivities about. One could choose the easiest path or the path to re-invent autism but the re-invention path collides with common sense at times. True society could be more accepting and embracing of differences but that to can coexist well with the idea of disability rather then strictly difference like sexuality orientation. I tend to see the issues like these in complete form in my mind without the words and I'd end up having to write a book in reply. Your choosing a path of identity based pathism vs. others seeing autism as a disability. Either folks realize individuals do indeed have a choice in self-representation in disability awareness as this is the best brokerage of problem solving I've come up with or their will be more conflict over the little things.

Differences in how words are used are the same as any other pebble in the ocean of collective minds. Each pebble, rock or substance has a different form and weight and effects the collective psyche differently. We can only predict in part as the human mind is not a grand super computer knowing all the causal pathologies of how one type of interaction will be adverse ultimately in totality but can figure parts of the formula.

I don't think we can underestimate the value of labels and understanding what they mean in a civilized society. Until it was understood what epilepsy was, a seizure was often mistaken as evidence that a person was possessed by demons. Sometimes they were put to death as a result.

Until we better understood what constitutes Autism a person was often misdiagnosed with schizophrenia, treated with schizophrenia medications that made the autistic persons condition worse, and institutionalized as a result of the wrong treatment and diagnosis.

Given the wrong time and wrong place for a person with autism, with the wrong kind of people, some of the behavior associated with severe autism could be seen as a threat rather than part of a condition, without the understanding and awareness of the label.

There is a pretty wide understanding of tourettes and associated behavior also; the understanding that labels provide is better than possible confrontation, ridicule, and even violence.

As humans we are inherently on guard to behavior that is out of the range of what is subjectively considered as the norm; it is not an ethical judgement on the behavior that is beyond that norm, as humans we just naturally need to know why a persons behavior is different than what we normally see.

We really can't afford to get rid of diagnostic labels. The alternative would be pain and suffering for some of those with the label diagnosis.

The best alternative for an individual that is identified as Autistic, that hears that identification, and finds it disrespectful, is tell the person their name and let them know they would rather be called by name and not described as Autistic.

It is understandable that some may be concerned that when the label autistic describes an individual that creates a crime that a more negative stereotype for all that have autism may be applied; but the risk of losing that label when it is beneficial, outweighs the possible negative stereotype that some might see when the word is used in association with a crime.

Someone wanted the psycho-babble so I wrote it in one of the above replies. Here is a simpler version. Folks don't got to respect person first language but those around me do and you will never find a mass press release from me containing otherwise.

By making it a priority to identity the person first we humanize it better. When we blend the label with the person seamlessly a person more often is just perceived as the label and the stigma attached to it. This is not getting rid of the label. By doing so we respect the person regardless of the condition and the public better perceives the person in spite of the label. Not to mention a persons self-respect and humanity (humanness) is honored as priority and not stigma as a disorder label.

Sometimes people have too much on their mind to remember names; in conversation they come up with whatever description sets the person apart such as you know that bald guy at the shop, or that skinny girl that cuts hair, or the really tall guy at the service counter. Not likely they would ever address those people, directly, in that manner.

Your situation is a little unique, in that you are in the arena of the subject of autism with the media at times. In this case, it may not be unusual for you to hear things like hea that's Nathan Young over there, he is Autistic, and he used a government grant to start a business to provide jobs for disabled people.

While you may not see it this way, the person may actually be complimenting your achievement in respect to achieving it with a legal disability. When I saw your website, after hearing about your difficulties in life, that is exactly what I thought, but I wouldn't normally tell you this because I understand you might find it offensive.

In real life for most Autistic people, more than likely, even if they can't speak, an individual will go to the trouble to find out what their name is to talk to them in a personal way. It is probably a rare circumstance for someone to call them Autistic directly to their face.

Most, people are courteous enough not to refer to people, in reference to labels dictatated by their legal disabilities. Even so, I really doubt that most people that have autism take offense to hearing themselves referred to as such.

A normal woman or man would probably find much more offense if their general appearance was being denigrated by a label describing a general physical characteristic they might not see as favorable.

I think most people have experienced this kind of thing at one point in their life or another. Unfortunately, in this case, many times, it is an intentional disparaging comment.

Autistic sounds more respectful to me than common disrespectful school age remarks describing Autism like nerd, freak, geek, spaz, oddball, ret*d, I could go on and on with examples that sound worse that Autistic to me. It would be nice if school age people didn't do that to each other; but it is part of the human condition that will never go away.

I don't think the courteous people will ever stop from taking the time to learn someones name. On the other hand some courteous people that know a person for years will call that person sweetie or darling, not realizing that it creates a feeling of discomfort or disrespect for the individual.

It is hard for some to speak up, for some when they are called a name like sweetie or darling, if they don't like it; particularly if they generally like the other person.

I think in most cases an autistic person would more likely be called their real name or a term of affection like sweetie or darling. Autistic would probably not be an option most people would use to talk to an autistic person directly.

So to summarize, the problem may seem bigger to you considering your unique circumstances in life, as compared to the way that most other autistic people experience it, even if at all, in every day life. Or, in more concise terms the majority of people are already doing exactly as you suggest in your response to me.

I am talking about these two circumstances.

1. autistic man or simply an autistic.

2. As opposed to individual with autism.

I do not see why folks must say a disorder then a person. Here where I live if I were to say autistic man it is against policy.