why are you referring to these people as autistics?

Post Reply New Topic

I posted the article with a link back to the original article on another message board mostly made up of parents. The one reply I received back was as follows.

My question to you is, why are you referring to these people as autistics? It is like labeling someone a Sped, an alcoholic, a bipolar. They are people who happen to be on the autism spectrum. They should be addressed at people, not labeled. So adults on the autism spectrum are not happy with autism speaks.

My question to this community (now be nice) is what can I say back that would help educate others.

I would like to share this information...

Last edited by SarasDad on 20 Sep 2009, 5:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think the activist community, in realizing how much more they have in common with their lower functioning brothers, decided to just take on the label, Autistic, rather than split hairs on which diagnosis means what. The sense is, once you get everyone on the spectrum in a place like this talking together, that which divides those with classic autism from those with Aspergers seems to be a lot less than that which divides those on the spectrum from NT's. I think in real life it looks different, but here it really doesn't. Taking on the title of autistics, including for oneself, seems to have been a kind of unity thing.

Does that make sense or even answer the question? I'm speaking from observation here; the language had evolved before I got involved.

Huh? I don't understand the statement being made there.

Why is WHOM referring to WHAT people as Autistics?

What's a Sped anyway?

People on the spectrum should be addressed as people and not labeled as WHAT - 'Autistics'?

I for one am not offended by the term, as long as it clarifies what is being discussed. Yes, I am a person, but if you're referring to issues brought on by being on the spectrum, then for purposes of that discussion, I am an Autistic. So what? It certainly isn't ALL that I am.

Actually, considering the breadth of the spectrum, perhaps using that term as a blanket 'catch-all' is rather misleading. So I seem to be coming around to - there it is - nope, 'Autistic' IS a bad term to use, simply because it's far too vague to really describe a person or even a category of persons on a far-flung 'spectrum'. ::Whew:: But I'm still not personally offended by it.

I think adults on the Autism Spectrum dislike Autism Speaks because they encourage the notion that having Autism means you're DAMAGED and need to be FIXED. Also they seem to fall in bed with every quack theorist that comes down the pike. Those of us old enough and intelligent enough to realize Autism is not caused by vaccines or milk or vitamin D deficiencies or whatever the villainous culprit is this week are not fond of organizations who embrace people like Jenny McCarthy, who actually seem to exploit their autistic children to build their own celebrity.

Sped
1. One who attends special education classes.
2. The special education program.
3. An insult used when someone does something stupid.
1. "He is a sped."
2.a "She is in sped ed."
2.b "She is in sped."
3. "Darren you are such a sped."

2. sped
a derogatory term meaning ret*d. comes from the phrase special education

may also be used as sped sled, meaning the short little school buses all the special ed kids ride on .
Oh my god, I'm such a sped. I just spelled my own name wrong.

Aah, how logical. I shall add that to my vocabularian...er...vocabularial...uhm...etymological(!) database. Thanks.

I think what the person was noting is the subtle difference in the way you used the label. There's nothing wrong with autistic/autism in terms of the word being offensive. They are pointing out the difference between saying "an autistic" vs. "a person with autism." It's a trend in the disability community and in health care.

In hospitals, doctors frequently will refer to "the bronchitis in room 3," rather than "the patient with bronchitis in room 3." In terms of other disabilities, it's the difference between "a blind person" and "a person who is blind."

By calling a person only by their disability "an autistic" or by their disability first "an autistic person," highlights their disability instead of their personhood. However, calling them "a person with autism" highlights the fact that they are a person first, and autism is only a part of who they are.

Personally, I don't care at all. But it's becoming the politically correct way of doing things.

As someone else said b4, who is referring to whom as autistics? Obviously, autistic individuals are people, and this should not only be noted but spread as the truth. But I've noticed that terms like autistic or bipolar help individuals who are different find "like minded" individuals or those people who are in similar situations/dealing w/ similar issues to the ones they are.
Autistic may be too broad, but in order to cover everyone on the spectrum from low-high functioning, it works. I think some of the negative stereotypes to do with being called "autistic" may need to be lifted some more though. (I read somewhere that the term "autism" was actually derived from a supposed symptom of schizophrenia/autism & schizophrenia not same thing!) Its where I think the bad stereotypes may have come from. Though I personally think changing the spectral conditions general label from autism would be way too confusing.
We, humans are all people/human. But those of us who have labels (autistic, bipolar, handicapped, etc.) feel different/separated anywhere from once in awhile-their entire lives. This is why I think calling someone "autistic" is not an insult, it acknowledges the part of them that is different from the NT majority. I don't know who I'm quoting but something like "recognize similarities and embrace differences" should be a motto.

The reason why most people in the community prefer "autistic" is because the "person with autism" term implies that :

a) Autism is something negative that you "have" eg. "person with cancer"
b) Autism can be seperated from the person, while "autistic" states that autism is an integral part of their identity

To many, saying "person with autism" is almost as silly as saying "person with maleness", or "person with blackness"

I don't like people first language. It is awkward, and oftentimes the language people use doesn't reflect their behavior. If they say "person with autism" yet don't treat me like a person, as often is the case, their use of politically correct language, doesn't change anything about their bad attitude.

Oddly enough, that isn't so very silly! They're all value judgements, which society attaches to people.

.

I'm unsure what you posted where?

I personally find the PC, stilted "person with autism" nounal phrase rather objectionable - for the reasons given earlier: that it implies a defect, and one that can be removed.

I'm fine with being called an autistic, and when in company of other autistics, autistics are what we are.

The response you got back has one of my top pet hates in it: "these people". How more effectively can you marginalise a group, than by dismissively referring to them as "these people".

Anyway, conceivably, I'd change "Why autistic people don't like Autism Speaks" to "Why autistics don't like Autism Speaks", but probably not to "Why people on the autism spectrum don't like Autism Speaks", and never to "Why people with autism don't like Autism Speaks".

QFT... it seems that very often "politically correct" language is used in lieu of respect. I guess people figure that if they say words that are designed to "give people person-hood" they don't have to actually bother treating them like a human being.
It doesn't actually mean anything, PC language just gets to be automatic to the point that it's less, because there's no thought behind it. People become so afraid of things-that-might-not-be-politically-correct that the language gets less accurate... like replacing "black" with "African American," before realizing that the person in question isn't American. When there are strict rules for how to say something, that's what makes it a label. Labels are in your mind, not on your tongue. Usually. They don't taste very good. And the sticky stuff might be toxic.

I'm gay. I'm not 'a gay', and I'm certainly a 'person with gayness'.

So I say 'I'm aspie' instead of 'I'm an aspie'. It's a characteristic, not a group.

On the other hand, we say 'he's a redhead', but 'he has blue eyes'. So the language convention isn't at all consistent in English.

Also, when I'm not talking about myself (rare as that is <grin>) I'll say 'aspie/autie', which a friend said sounds like a sports car.

Cool, I'd prefer people mistake me for a sports car rather than a freak of nature! I'm sorry to say (hopefully your not offended) but your line "person with gayness" got me thinking about the song "I am pretty" from West Side Story b/c of the line "I am pretty, and witty, and gay" (gay as in happy).

Last edited by Peko on 14 Sep 2009, 11:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

Personally, I think if you say "autistic people" or "people with autism", you're saying the fact they are people or human like NT's is not implied . Saying "autistics" should have "people" as in we're human implied in it.

It isn't settled with everyone agreeing, is it?

I think that saying, "I'm autistic" or referring to a group on the spectrum as "autistics" is a way of embracing the condition, and saying, "this is who I am, and I'm happy with it." Some are comfortable with that; some are not; it will all depend on how you feel about the condition, yourself, and what the condition means.

Some may notice that I've taken to saying AS when speaking about about groups on the spectrum, as a whole, but some posters don't care for that, either. Still, it struck me as the most nuetral and least likely to offend. Language that is embraced by members of a group isn't always available for use to members outside of the group without taking on a different connotation, so caution by those outside is usually called for. As someone who considers myself more NT than AS, I don't feel I can own the term "autistics," unless referring to or quoting someone else who has chosen it.