Preference of the terms "Autistic" or "Person with Autism"?

Page 3 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


Do you prefer the term "autistic" or "person with autism"?
I prefer "autistic" 67%  67%  [ 45 ]
I prefer "person with autism" 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
I prefer neither "autistic" nor "person with autism" 3%  3%  [ 2 ]
I am indifferent (Either/both is/are acceptable) 27%  27%  [ 18 ]
Total votes : 67

Shadweller
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 28 Dec 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 145
Location: Manchester UK

03 Dec 2022, 4:18 am

ToughDiamond wrote:
Looks like most Aspies don't want person-first nomenclature then. It seems that health professionals have decided what's good for us without asking. Personally I don't see why anybody would prefer person-first anything, but if a ND really wanted me to use it, then it'd probably be a case of "oh allright then, it doesn't make sense to me but it doesn't have to." Left to my own devices I'd just use go for the easiest, and that's not the person-first one. I don't normally mix with people who would use my choice as an excuse for Aspie-bashing, and I'd expect them to mock me if I did use person-first to them. The health professionals' views don't matter much to me in this respect.


Aspies suffer enough mockery and ridicule as it is, without consciously adding to the burden by using derisable, ridiculous, nonsensical, pretentious, and politically correct sounding language.

It's safe to say that I really do not like it.



ToughDiamond
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2008
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,137

03 Dec 2022, 11:15 am

Shadweller wrote:
Aspies suffer enough mockery and ridicule as it is, without consciously adding to the burden by using derisable, ridiculous, nonsensical, pretentious, and politically correct sounding language.
It's safe to say that I really do not like it.

Yes I sense a pretentious and condescending element to person-first, even if whoever it was that invented it really meant to help us.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,238
Location: Long Island, New York

03 Dec 2022, 11:27 am

Like I said on page 1 I prefer to be called “Autistic”. I am not the language police. If you tell me what I should call myself then I will react. Otherwise it is live and let live. Eight years ago when “person with autism” was universal among non autistics it was a problem. We fought back and now the media use both and according to this survey parents mostly prefer “autism”. We basically won this fight. While a minority there are people on the spectrum who prefer “person with autism”, we should respect that, there are more important things that need to be dealt with.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Shadweller
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

Joined: 28 Dec 2021
Gender: Male
Posts: 145
Location: Manchester UK

03 Dec 2022, 12:17 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
Like I said on page 1 I prefer to be called “Autistic”. I am not the language police. If you tell me what I should call myself then I will react. Otherwise it is live and let live. Eight years ago when “person with autism” was universal among non autistics it was a problem. We fought back and now the media use both and according to this survey parents mostly prefer “autism”. We basically won this fight. While a minority there are people on the spectrum who prefer “person with autism”, we should respect that, there are more important things that need to be dealt with.


I would say that that is a very fair and balanced view of the issue.



lostonearth35
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,783
Location: Lost on Earth, waddya think?

03 Dec 2022, 12:24 pm

I absolutely cannot stand it when people say "with/has autism".

I absolutely cannot stand it when people say "high/low functioning"

I absolutely cannot stand it when people say the R word.

I absolutely cannot stand people. :evil:



shortfatbalduglyman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,709

03 Dec 2022, 12:50 pm

Sciency_Owen wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Double Retired wrote:
I think "Autistic" and "Autistic Person" are both viable candidates.

I'll admit that when I think about it, I'm not too crazy about "Person with Autism". To me that sounds like Autism is some kind of viral infection. But, other folk might like the term.


you're missing the point. What he is asking about is an issue known as "person first language". Some make a cause out advocating person first language in autism. Some on this site were passionate about it some years ago.

Some feel strongly that you should refer to the person as "a person with autism" and not as "an autistic" because the latter is labeling them by the diagnosis, and dehumanizes them and so forth. And that it makes a difference - and is better- to say it "person first" to show that they are "a person how happens to have the condition". That the condition is not their whole identity. Some on WP years strong advocated that.

So if you buy into that then "autistic person" is just the same thing as "an autistic". Has the same disadvantage, AND its longer to say on top of that.

I dont advocate person first myself. I think that its silly. I am an aspie. Or I am level one autistic, or whatver. Fine with me. Someone describing me as "a person with aspergers" ? Kinda like saying "I am a person with maleness", or "I am a person with Americanness". Silly. And like you said "a person with autism" sounds like you're supposed to avoid them because their autism might be contagious. Lol!

Can you elaborate on the dehumanisation that occurs when some iteration of the term "autistic" is used? I only ask, as to me, it seems to be a way of categorising people, in the same way you may categorise people by hair colour ie. that is a blond/blond person, that is a brunette/brunette person etc... So that means you could say "my friend X, is an autistic/autistic person" or "I am an autistic/autistic person. I can also say that I myself have not experienced dehumanisation by myself being referred to as autistic, and that the only dehumanisation that actually occurs comes from stigma around autism itself, not labels.



________________________


What Owen said

Just because someone doesn't keep telling you that you are a "person", doesn't mean that they are trying to "dehumanize" you

However I do get your point. Actually I feel that way sometimes. A couple of years ago my former "friend" had the nerve to tell me that she would tell me whenever I (allegedly) did something she did not "like" and she expected me to stop, immediately, permanently, completely and cheerfully. So I asked her, what about when you do something l don't "like"? She was like "like what?". "Jaywalking", I said. "People in (city) do it all the time", she correctly told me.

"People " sounds like eight billion, but literally means two or more

She told me a correct statement, but at the time, I felt like she was"dehumanizing " me by implying that, since I don't do it (jaywalking) all the time, I was not a "person ". But maybe she didn't mean it that way.

She was not trying to "dehumanize " me.

She's just not articulate enough to phrase her statement well enough for me to receive.


(But because she was condescending and demanded that I never do anything she didn't like, while refusing to modify her own behavior to suit my preferences, she is no longer my "friend " )


__________________
Although the word "neurotypical" is better than saying "normal".

However, many conditions, such as down syndrome and brain damage, are literally "neurotypical", even though they are not *neurologically typical" per se



skibum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,295
Location: my own little world

05 Dec 2022, 9:59 am

I respect whatever other people want to be called and I will address other people however they want to be addressed. But when it's about me, I insist that they use identity first language. I do not tolerate person first language when people are addressing me. And when I speak in general terms, like not addressing a specific person but when I talk about Autistic/disabled people in general, I use identity first language.


_________________
"I'm bad and that's good. I'll never be good and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me."

Wreck It Ralph


skibum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,295
Location: my own little world

05 Dec 2022, 10:03 am

You can also say that you are neurodivergent. That is a good term. It does not specify that you are Autistic, but it does specify that you are not neurotypical. You can also say, "I am an Autist," and if you were given a diagnosis or Asperger's, you can say, "I am Aspergian, instead of I have Asperger's." Any of those will do. It has also become very popular to simply say, "I am on the Spectrum." People immediately know that you mean the Autism Spectrum as opposed to maybe the color spectrum! :D


_________________
"I'm bad and that's good. I'll never be good and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me."

Wreck It Ralph


skibum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,295
Location: my own little world

05 Dec 2022, 10:11 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Double Retired wrote:
I think "Autistic" and "Autistic Person" are both viable candidates.

I'll admit that when I think about it, I'm not too crazy about "Person with Autism". To me that sounds like Autism is some kind of viral infection. But, other folk might like the term.


you're missing the point. What he is asking about is an issue known as "person first language". Some make a cause out advocating person first language in autism. Some on this site were passionate about it some years ago.

Some feel strongly that you should refer to the person as "a person with autism" and not as "an autistic" because the latter is labeling them by the diagnosis, and dehumanizes them and so forth. And that it makes a difference - and is better- to say it "person first" to show that they are "a person how happens to have the condition". That the condition is not their whole identity. Some on WP years strong advocated that.

So if you buy into that then "autistic person" is just the same thing as "an autistic". Has the same disadvantage, AND its longer to say on top of that.

I dont advocate person first myself. I think that its silly. I am an aspie. Or I am level one autistic, or whatver. Fine with me. Someone describing me as "a person with aspergers" ? Kinda like saying "I am a person with maleness", or "I am a person with Americanness". Silly. And like you said "a person with autism" sounds like you're supposed to avoid them because their autism might be contagious. Lol!
I agree that person first language is silly. But I also find it incredibly dehumanizing and bigoted. It actually has the opposite effect of what people were trying to do by using it.


_________________
"I'm bad and that's good. I'll never be good and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me."

Wreck It Ralph


skibum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,295
Location: my own little world

05 Dec 2022, 10:27 am

Sciency_Owen wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Double Retired wrote:
I think "Autistic" and "Autistic Person" are both viable candidates.

I'll admit that when I think about it, I'm not too crazy about "Person with Autism". To me that sounds like Autism is some kind of viral infection. But, other folk might like the term.


you're missing the point. What he is asking about is an issue known as "person first language". Some make a cause out advocating person first language in autism. Some on this site were passionate about it some years ago.

Some feel strongly that you should refer to the person as "a person with autism" and not as "an autistic" because the latter is labeling them by the diagnosis, and dehumanizes them and so forth. And that it makes a difference - and is better- to say it "person first" to show that they are "a person how happens to have the condition". That the condition is not their whole identity. Some on WP years strong advocated that.

So if you buy into that then "autistic person" is just the same thing as "an autistic". Has the same disadvantage, AND its longer to say on top of that.

I dont advocate person first myself. I think that its silly. I am an aspie. Or I am level one autistic, or whatver. Fine with me. Someone describing me as "a person with aspergers" ? Kinda like saying "I am a person with maleness", or "I am a person with Americanness". Silly. And like you said "a person with autism" sounds like you're supposed to avoid them because their autism might be contagious. Lol!

Can you elaborate on the dehumanisation that occurs when some iteration of the term "autistic" is used? I only ask, as to me, it seems to be a way of categorising people, in the same way you may categorise people by hair colour ie. that is a blond/blond person, that is a brunette/brunette person etc... So that means you could say "my friend X, is an autistic/autistic person" or "I am an autistic/autistic person. I can also say that I myself have not experienced dehumanisation by myself being referred to as autistic, and that the only dehumanisation that actually occurs comes from stigma around autism itself, not labels.


Using "Autistic" or identity first language is not dehumanizing at all but person first language is. Identity first language is simply descriptive, person first language adds a value judgement, and it is not a good value.

Person first language is incredibly dehumanizing. If you have to remind yourself that I am a person every time you address me or talk about me, that's because you don't believe I am one. Person first language has nothing to do with making sure that I feel like a person instead of my label or disability. The only reason that I could possibly feel like a label or possibly feel that I am just my disability is if other people make me feel that way by how they treat me. If neurotypical people actually treated me with respect and if they treated me as if I were their human equal, they would have no reason to remind me that they think I am a person. I know I am a person and Autism is not a problem for me. I am severely challenged as a level three Autistic not because I am Autistic but because I am constantly socially abused and neurologically tortured by how non Autistic people treat me. They treat me as if I was not person. So for them to feel better about being so socially abusive, they decided to use person first language so that they can convince themselves that they treat me humanely. So once they have convinced themselves of that, they can continue living in this delusion convincing themselves that they respect us while they continue to socially abuse us.

If you look at the history of person first language and how it came about, it was started by a community of people who had HIV and Aids. They created person first language because they were not being allowed to have control over their own medical decisions. They had to remind the medical community that they were people who had the basic right of autonomy and that they had the right to make medical decisions for themselves. But now when people use person first language, they say it's to make the person they are talking to feel like a person first.

Why do they automatically assume that I don't know that I am a person? The only reason someone would assume that is if they don't consider me a person. That is dehumanizing.


_________________
"I'm bad and that's good. I'll never be good and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me."

Wreck It Ralph


ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,238
Location: Long Island, New York

05 Dec 2022, 1:04 pm

skibum wrote:
Sciency_Owen wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Double Retired wrote:
I think "Autistic" and "Autistic Person" are both viable candidates.

I'll admit that when I think about it, I'm not too crazy about "Person with Autism". To me that sounds like Autism is some kind of viral infection. But, other folk might like the term.


you're missing the point. What he is asking about is an issue known as "person first language". Some make a cause out advocating person first language in autism. Some on this site were passionate about it some years ago.

Some feel strongly that you should refer to the person as "a person with autism" and not as "an autistic" because the latter is labeling them by the diagnosis, and dehumanizes them and so forth. And that it makes a difference - and is better- to say it "person first" to show that they are "a person how happens to have the condition". That the condition is not their whole identity. Some on WP years strong advocated that.

So if you buy into that then "autistic person" is just the same thing as "an autistic". Has the same disadvantage, AND its longer to say on top of that.

I dont advocate person first myself. I think that its silly. I am an aspie. Or I am level one autistic, or whatver. Fine with me. Someone describing me as "a person with aspergers" ? Kinda like saying "I am a person with maleness", or "I am a person with Americanness". Silly. And like you said "a person with autism" sounds like you're supposed to avoid them because their autism might be contagious. Lol!

Can you elaborate on the dehumanisation that occurs when some iteration of the term "autistic" is used? I only ask, as to me, it seems to be a way of categorising people, in the same way you may categorise people by hair colour ie. that is a blond/blond person, that is a brunette/brunette person etc... So that means you could say "my friend X, is an autistic/autistic person" or "I am an autistic/autistic person. I can also say that I myself have not experienced dehumanisation by myself being referred to as autistic, and that the only dehumanisation that actually occurs comes from stigma around autism itself, not labels.


Using "Autistic" or identity first language is not dehumanizing at all but person first language is. Identity first language is simply descriptive, person first language adds a value judgement, and it is not a good value.

Person first language is incredibly dehumanizing. If you have to remind yourself that I am a person every time you address me or talk about me, that's because you don't believe I am one. Person first language has nothing to do with making sure that I feel like a person instead of my label or disability. The only reason that I could possibly feel like a label or possibly feel that I am just my disability is if other people make me feel that way by how they treat me. If neurotypical people actually treated me with respect and if they treated me as if I were their human equal, they would have no reason to remind me that they think I am a person. I know I am a person and Autism is not a problem for me. I am severely challenged as a level three Autistic not because I am Autistic but because I am constantly socially abused and neurologically tortured by how non Autistic people treat me. They treat me as if I was not person. So for them to feel better about being so socially abusive, they decided to use person first language so that they can convince themselves that they treat me humanely. So once they have convinced themselves of that, they can continue living in this delusion convincing themselves that they respect us while they continue to socially abuse us.

If you look at the history of person first language and how it came about, it was started by a community of people who had HIV and Aids. They created person first language because they were not being allowed to have control over their own medical decisions. They had to remind the medical community that they were people who had the basic right of autonomy and that they had the right to make medical decisions for themselves. But now when people use person first language, they say it's to make the person they are talking to feel like a person first.

Why do they automatically assume that I don't know that I am a person? The only reason someone would assume that is if they don't consider me a person. That is dehumanizing.


Back when allistics demanding the use of person-first language was a thing because they claimed identity first language is offensive I told them I have been Autistic for six decades more than you so I get to decide what is offensive to me not you. Shut them up every time.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


skibum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,295
Location: my own little world

05 Dec 2022, 2:17 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
skibum wrote:
Sciency_Owen wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Double Retired wrote:
I think "Autistic" and "Autistic Person" are both viable candidates.

I'll admit that when I think about it, I'm not too crazy about "Person with Autism". To me that sounds like Autism is some kind of viral infection. But, other folk might like the term.


you're missing the point. What he is asking about is an issue known as "person first language". Some make a cause out advocating person first language in autism. Some on this site were passionate about it some years ago.

Some feel strongly that you should refer to the person as "a person with autism" and not as "an autistic" because the latter is labeling them by the diagnosis, and dehumanizes them and so forth. And that it makes a difference - and is better- to say it "person first" to show that they are "a person how happens to have the condition". That the condition is not their whole identity. Some on WP years strong advocated that.

So if you buy into that then "autistic person" is just the same thing as "an autistic". Has the same disadvantage, AND its longer to say on top of that.

I dont advocate person first myself. I think that its silly. I am an aspie. Or I am level one autistic, or whatver. Fine with me. Someone describing me as "a person with aspergers" ? Kinda like saying "I am a person with maleness", or "I am a person with Americanness". Silly. And like you said "a person with autism" sounds like you're supposed to avoid them because their autism might be contagious. Lol!

Can you elaborate on the dehumanisation that occurs when some iteration of the term "autistic" is used? I only ask, as to me, it seems to be a way of categorising people, in the same way you may categorise people by hair colour ie. that is a blond/blond person, that is a brunette/brunette person etc... So that means you could say "my friend X, is an autistic/autistic person" or "I am an autistic/autistic person. I can also say that I myself have not experienced dehumanisation by myself being referred to as autistic, and that the only dehumanisation that actually occurs comes from stigma around autism itself, not labels.


Using "Autistic" or identity first language is not dehumanizing at all but person first language is. Identity first language is simply descriptive, person first language adds a value judgement, and it is not a good value.

Person first language is incredibly dehumanizing. If you have to remind yourself that I am a person every time you address me or talk about me, that's because you don't believe I am one. Person first language has nothing to do with making sure that I feel like a person instead of my label or disability. The only reason that I could possibly feel like a label or possibly feel that I am just my disability is if other people make me feel that way by how they treat me. If neurotypical people actually treated me with respect and if they treated me as if I were their human equal, they would have no reason to remind me that they think I am a person. I know I am a person and Autism is not a problem for me. I am severely challenged as a level three Autistic not because I am Autistic but because I am constantly socially abused and neurologically tortured by how non Autistic people treat me. They treat me as if I was not person. So for them to feel better about being so socially abusive, they decided to use person first language so that they can convince themselves that they treat me humanely. So once they have convinced themselves of that, they can continue living in this delusion convincing themselves that they respect us while they continue to socially abuse us.

If you look at the history of person first language and how it came about, it was started by a community of people who had HIV and Aids. They created person first language because they were not being allowed to have control over their own medical decisions. They had to remind the medical community that they were people who had the basic right of autonomy and that they had the right to make medical decisions for themselves. But now when people use person first language, they say it's to make the person they are talking to feel like a person first.

Why do they automatically assume that I don't know that I am a person? The only reason someone would assume that is if they don't consider me a person. That is dehumanizing.


Back when allistics demanding the use of person-first language was a thing because they claimed identity first language is offensive I told them I have been Autistic for six decades more than you so I get to decide what is offensive to me not you. Shut them up every time.


:hail: :hail: :hail:
That is one of the BEST responses I have ever heard!! !! LOVE it!! ! I will definitely use it. THANK YOU!! !! !! !! !!


_________________
"I'm bad and that's good. I'll never be good and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me."

Wreck It Ralph


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

05 Dec 2022, 2:23 pm

There are other things in life more important than semantic distinctions.

As long as a person treats me with dignity, I don't care whether I'm called "autistic" or "a person with autism."



skibum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,295
Location: my own little world

05 Dec 2022, 3:24 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
There are other things in life more important than semantic distinctions.

As long as a person treats me with dignity, I don't care whether I'm called "autistic" or "a person with autism."
That is very true. But unfortunately, and I can speak for myself, and I believe that many Autistic people might feel this way, I know that my Autistic friends in real life certainly feel this way, we don't get treated with dignity and respect. When we do, it's so rare that it completely takes us by surprise. If we actually did get treated with dignity and respect, what people called us wouldn't really matter. But it's because we are so socially mistreated literally all the time and any time we bring it up, neurotypical people explain to us why they are justified in their actions and that we just have to accept it, that the issue of how we are addressed has such importance.

If you are not in a situation where you are feeling the constant social abuse, you are very lucky. But so many of us are not in that situation.


_________________
"I'm bad and that's good. I'll never be good and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me."

Wreck It Ralph


shortfatbalduglyman
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,709

05 Dec 2022, 6:25 pm

ToughDiamond wrote:
Looks like most Aspies don't want person-first nomenclature then. It seems that health professionals have decided what's good for us without asking. Personally I don't see why anybody would prefer person-first anything, but if a ND really wanted me to use it, then it'd probably be a case of "oh allright then, it doesn't make sense to me but it doesn't have to." Left to my own devices I'd just use go for the easiest, and that's not the person-first one. I don't normally mix with people who would use my choice as an excuse for Aspie-bashing, and I'd expect them to mock me if I did use person-first to them. The health professionals' views don't matter much to me in this respect.


________________________________________________________________________________

tough diamond:

the "health professionals" that decided that "person-first nomenclature" was the current, politically correct method of referring to someone with a diagnosis, had good intentions.

maybe some "people with other diagnoses" (please note that I just used "person first nomenclature" also prefer "person first nomenclature".

quite frankly, i think there is nothing great about being a "person". nor is it necessary to keep reminding someone that they are a "person".

but maybe some people do feel "dehumanized" when they are not constantly reminded that they are people.



skibum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,295
Location: my own little world

06 Dec 2022, 12:24 pm

shortfatbalduglyman wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
Looks like most Aspies don't want person-first nomenclature then. It seems that health professionals have decided what's good for us without asking. Personally I don't see why anybody would prefer person-first anything, but if a ND really wanted me to use it, then it'd probably be a case of "oh allright then, it doesn't make sense to me but it doesn't have to." Left to my own devices I'd just use go for the easiest, and that's not the person-first one. I don't normally mix with people who would use my choice as an excuse for Aspie-bashing, and I'd expect them to mock me if I did use person-first to them. The health professionals' views don't matter much to me in this respect.


________________________________________________________________________________

tough diamond:

the "health professionals" that decided that "person-first nomenclature" was the current, politically correct method of referring to someone with a diagnosis, had good intentions.

maybe some "people with other diagnoses" (please note that I just used "person first nomenclature" also prefer "person first nomenclature".

quite frankly, i think there is nothing great about being a "person". nor is it necessary to keep reminding someone that they are a "person".

but maybe some people do feel "dehumanized" when they are not constantly reminded that they are people.
I think the health professionals maybe had good intentions, but I am not sure. But either way, they don't have the right to insist that people identify the way that they want them to. But I couldn't care less what they insist. They need to respect whatever the individual's choice is.

I had once worked for a company that provides group homes and work for disabled people. The company is called Shadowfax. I am deliberately saying that because I want people to know who they are. I had also worked as a carer for a Parkinson's patient a few years ago. When I was hired at both companies, I had to sign documents saying that I would only use person first language. I tried to refuse to sign them but I was told that I would not be allowed to work if they were not signed so I signed them. A few months later, I was in a meeting at Shadowfax. I said something and I used identity first language. They reprimanded me. I had a fit and told them that if I am talking about myself, I will use identity first language. They told me that I wasn't allowed to even when talking about myself. I eventually got fired from that place because I asked for a disability accommodation so that I could do my job better. When they fired me, they made me sign a document that I would never ever be allowed to work for them ever again in any capacity at all for the rest of my life. I was so disgusted that their company has the same name as Gandalf's Horse.


_________________
"I'm bad and that's good. I'll never be good and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me."

Wreck It Ralph