Saying NO to the "A" word

Post Reply New Topic

I really don't think many adults do it, as a direct means of communication. It is common human decency to call a person by their name rather that any difference that might set them apart from others.

It is common though for people to discuss another person in terms of their disability for better understanding and interaction. Without the label there would be no positive effect from the protection afforded by the ADA.

The label is only important as a label to understand Autism, not for a means of direct communication with anyone.

I think it is good that you have that policy where you work and live, because in a workplace with disabled people, it is likely that you will come across someone that doesn't exercise common courtesy in treating all individuals with respect, by calling them by their name, even if it means going to the trouble to find out what their name is.

Not really the same issue but closer.

I understand that you would rather people say that individual with autism rather than that autistic man if they choose to talk about an individual that has autism; and feel it is fundamentally disrespectful for a person to use the first person adjective/noun.

People are likely to use first person terms if available rather than second or third person terms when describing something or someone in an informal setting. It's just human nature to do this; particularly in our fast paced, anything goes culture.

I've never heard anyone else express concern over this; although this doesn't lessen the impact of your concern over it. If it is change you would like to see in the general public in eliminating the reference to Autistic people, and instead promoting the usage of person with Autism; a widespread change would only be remotely possible, it if bothered a significant number of people.

For the few that do find displeasure in it; the simple answer for an individual in the general public, is to ask to be called by name rather than referred to as Autistic person. I believe this was the first response gained in the discussion; and the only effective solution, in everyday life, for one that sees the issue as a problem.

My attempt in the last few posts was to provide understanding of why the issue is not seen as a significant problem in the general public. Again, though, that doesn't lessen the importance of the issue to you as an individual that sees it in a negative light.

It is just standard practice here. Who wants to be called disorder and then a person. It's likely not important to the pride movement as identification to the disorder is of self-importance. Those that wish to see the disorder as merely a difference to be proud of also won't have a problem with it. In the mainstream world however it is inappropriate to call someone a disorder then refer to the person. It is simply not a means of identification for political purposes or of self-importunateness to the majority with autism. However building the idea of being proud of autism may increase self-esteem for political purposes it is also a technique of priority. Day to day mainstream and those aware of the disability it is common sense autism is the barrier in which self is overcoming.

The issue is not really an issue here because for the most part people with autism do not bother with the autism concept nor are they referred to it often at all because of policy nor interest in the concept.

The saying man that is autistic is not that big of a deal.

I think that most adults understand that it is inappropriate in the mainstream world to bring up issues concerning physical, racial or disability differences with people in direct communication. Hopefully parents can do their best to convince their children that it is also not appropriate in the school environment.

So, I agree with you, saying man that is autistic is not that big of a deal.

I don't think I like this dismissive tone and I'm well aware of the differences between being Autistic and being gay, thanks. I happen to have first-hand experience in both.
But you're morphing what I'd used as examples of speech into some sort of bizarre belief system and that's just invalid.

But, umm yes; this is all kind-of what I thought you'd say in the end.
Oh well.

"identity based pathism"? What?
Blimey Nathan, you can't half come up with some convoluted crackers!

Mocking what I say and using your sexuality to advance your opinion is neither science nor politically correct. If you desire to self-identify as having autism you are in the first stages of creating an identity out of it but one of the final stages is acceptance of a disorder in priority to your own name or self. Autism has nothing to do with sexuality nor the political histology of that simply because autism can be diagnosed by psychological professionals. Additional sexuality does not hinder functionalism.

Once someone identifies as a disorder they would be expected to especially be sensitive to compassionate attempts to seek a remedy for it or general cure for adverse symptoms and the philosophy between a hardened self-advocate differs from that of people who are more severely effected or simply view it as a disability with no pride notion. Those that identify with it and seek to peer pressure people into certain views only by saying it's like being gay or something close to that cannot be expected to be supported by the gay community as a whole and I'd call you on that by phoning in a few supporters of gay rights whom I support. It is a kind of social and political manipulation to combine the two but I did not go there first and is unfair to the self-representation of pro-cure self-advocates whom I also support.

I don't fall for the peer pressure political bull.

That's a gross misrepresentation of what I've said, and once again you're attempting to inflate things into something they clearly are not.
I made a comment on your "identity based pathism" because it is (a) without meaning to me and (b) is flowery, convoluted management-speak.

Don't lecture me Nathan, Ok?
You know nothing about me, my beliefs, my condition or my diagnosis.

Again, you're off on a tangent based on your own over-thinking on something which I not only did not say or imply, but have stated so to make it clearer to you.

Are you referring to someone specifically with "someone identifies as a disorder they would be expected to especially be sensitive to compassionate attempts to seek a remedy", or are you just expressing your own opinion?

Might I remind you again that this has nothing whatever to do with what I said.
The only person claiming "it's like being gay" is you.

It is a well known fact sexuality is used to these politics and you have zealously asserted your own and is perceived as an indirect non-relevant assertion in the conversation for similar persuasion as commonly derived of others. You just do not want to reason and are getting desperate using sexuality politics. Once someone is identifying with the disorder they become more aware of the disorder and themselves as having the disorder. Some stop there and some then attend forums like this. It's all a spectrum but I do not want to continue this conversation as you seek not balance but evasion of common sense principles. People are not robots and do not think exactly alike.

If you do not like psycho-babble yet the conversation is about it and theoretical but you call it crackers and yet do not submit your own variations thereof I think your just afraid to admit possibilities. When you are ready to re-enter the conversation in a constructive matter instead of calling names, putting myself down and really looking to micro analyse the issue let me know.

I think I have outlined a comprehensive common sense based framework of identity based indoctrination and persuasion. I think it is important to realize the vast majority of individuals with ASD do not partake in these social politics and have not been polled on the issues. I also believe it's important that folks asking for answers expect to get them in ways they might not understand and should ask for clarification instead of wasting one another's time with bickering when intellectual persuasion will suffice.

Personally, I prefer it to be seen as an identity thing than a disease one has, but it can still be something one has and not an identity thing.

Yeah. I can understand that. Who wants to feel like they are a disease. This emotional response however becomes more complex things and it does make the politics complex. How does compassionate awareness coincide with the at times emotional rejection of the label and what might be the attempted dissociation with the disorder notions along with the label that becomes an identity. I will be thinking about this today and may make another post in the next 48hrs on how compassionate adaptation might better coincide with self-esteem emotions in these kinds of politics.

Wait...is he saying the word Autism has a political impact analogous with that of the word "gay"?

(I'm sorry for needing a translator, I absolutely cannot understand his incessant babbling.)

Typical non-productive reply for reasons of insult rather then reasonable dialog. Advocates have used the autism is akin to being gay in politics time and time again online. As if those diagnosed are being discriminated against as a form of intolerance. It's a way to pressure people into believing only what they say. In other forms it's used to obligate a reader into a certain point of view or else they are of intolerance and bigotry.

Right, because gay rights are well-secured, their contention long in the past.

Where the hell do you live, exactly?

There is still much progress to go for equality and individuals with ASD and other developmental disabilities.

Humboldt County California.

Right, because I'm sure you speak reasonably, ci. Completely typical here.

EDIT: Deleted ad hominem attack. Got riled up there.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 02 Apr 2011, 5:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.