I don't like being referred to as a "person with autism". I can't just set it down, it's not something I can remove. It is fundamental to the way I interact with the world, right down to how stim enters my brain. If my brain has types of inputs no allistic person can even approach, and methods of processing inherently different, it is an existence no allistic person can reach. There is no version of me that is not autistic.
A "cure" is the same as shooting me and replacing me with someone else.
The type of person I am is autistic. I am autistic.
I know it is a big trend in leftist spaces to use person first language, but in many situations that just sounds like eugenics to me. Personhood is not some distinct universal experience. There is no “ideal human mind” floating out there in the aether for them to recognize in me.
I get that person first language helps some people recognize that thoughts happen behind my eyes, but if the only way they can do that is by imagining I’m them, I don’t care.
I’m perfectly fine with “person with autism” and “autistic” but if you call me an “autist” I will punch you in the throat
Same. Applies to everything ...religion, sex and gender, etc. I tend to think if you treat people with respect and apologise if you fuck up (And learn from the fuck up.), youll be fine. Of course there are people that wont allow you to move on, and thats up to them, you arent gonna get on with everyone.
Yup. I just dont want people stressing over stuff...like i do.
I can't directly relate. I strongly prefer 'person with schizophrenia' to 'schizophrenic' (or similar, worse terms). I feel that, first and foremost, I am a person, as are all people, neurodivergent or not.
But also, I support you in being referred to as you want. I don't need to relate to your experience to just, refer to you as an autist (when I would need to refer to it at all), after you tell me you prefer that.
Yeah I really don't agree with this thread and i don't like the language discourse prescribing to others how I should be referred to. OP prefers "autist," I prefer the exact opposite. I can't relate to wanting my identity to be defined by autism rather than be referred to as a person who experiences it.
Can't wait to be called an asshole in the future because i disagree with others telling me how to speak, especially in reference to something that affects me directly
I've heard repeatedly, from different autists, how they explained this to teachers for pschology, pedagogy etc. and the teachers listened, nodded along and then immediately went on to keep using person first language.
yeah I've had similar experiences as well, it has lead to me having little trust in teachers in general
It's a general problem with academics and marginalized people, the academic world just moves slower than the communities they're dealing with and they're always lagging 10 years behind in their language and can't spontaneously course-correct because direct input from the people they're talking about counts less to them than what's on the books. Really shows you the priorities.
I don't think slower is the right way to put it, they often end up on the front lines of building oppressive structures themselves
Is that not what “person of color” is trying to do?
Not really, it's a more accurate and meaningful term to replace "minority", especially since white minorities in non-white regions can still have white privilege
I prefer non-White because that's what the category is really about, defining people in opposition to the political racial ideology of Whiteness
I have seen people in the comments on some platforms argue for that when I mention stuff like this, its a time
I think “black person” is more or less equivalent to “autistic person/person with autism”.
CW racist language
What OP is asking would be closer to calling someone “a black”, which sounds offensive for obvious reasons - it reduces personhood and emphasizes their difference, one that historically was used to discriminate
Only because in that case the word was used to persecute. Same how both "A latino(a)" and "a latino person" are fine, but "a hispanic" is really bad
specifically "a hispanic" is bad because it's wrong linguistically? Was it used historically (or now) to be racist? I looked up historical use real quick and only found stuff about adding "Hispanic" as a choice in the 70s. What did i miss?
I too am interested to know this. I don't want people to think I'm assuming all people from Latin America as being Mexican, so when I'm unsure where exactly they are from I have used 'is Hispanic' in the past.
I'm aware of the S word slur that likely derives from this. Is this why Hispanic is bad? What word to describe the Latin American or Spanish cultures would be better advised?
Only because "blackness" isn't really a typical (or technically appropriate) word? I've heard "people with darker skin" or equivalent and it seems to have been fine, in appropriate contexts.
People with darker skin sounds weird as fuck and is kinda meaningless phrase
"Dark skinned people" is better
As a cracker, I'm in no position to assert what is or isn't better. But as I say, I've heard the phrase/equivalent used many times by many a person and it's been fine.
I am a person with autism the way I am a person with legs, they're kind of an important part of me
I'm hearing chuds now casually diagnosing their "eccentric" friends as autistic in conversation, I'm guessing due to the increased presence and recognition of autism and neurodivergence in broader culture but that's just a thought. But I guess we are getting to the "but I have an autistic friend!" stage of ableism, yay progress?
Sounds like the root issue is that you wish that people saw your autism as something you are, and that it’s not something you have.
As a neurotypical person (not “a neurotypical”) I would struggle to call someone “an autist” because that term is often used by chuds trying to marginalize autistic people.
I would absolutely be fine with saying someone is autistic but in my opinion there isn’t any meaningful semantic difference if I said they are an autistic person. Do you agree?
Someone who uses the phrase “person with autism” is just trying to emphasize personhood. I don’t think they are necessarily trying to imply that autism is separable from the person, although I guess that could be the case depending on context.
Not op but “autistic person” is generally what most people prefer over “person with autism”
Clarity edit: what I mean is yes, “autistic person” is generally taken the same way as “is autistic” by people who prefer identity-first language and they tend to be comfortable with that. Can’t speak for op though
personally, I don't mind "person with autism." To me, implication you ascribe to it seems like one that isn't necessarily inherent to the text, but I understand your problem with the phrase.
interesting that you even prefer "autist," I'd bristle at the term.
interesting that you even prefer "autist," I'd bristle at the term.
My only experience hearing the term "autist" used was from channers, so it gives me bad vibes as well.
If an allistic person calls me an autist, i'd be sus as hell, and want to know what their views are towards autistic people. But I don't like the idea that we shouldn't use certain terms to describe ourselves because of ablistic bigots using the term as a pejorative. I use the term autistic, rather than autist, and it recently sparked a convo with my mom where she was explaining to me that the term has a negative connotation. But my position on that is similar to the T slur: I get to say it and other trans people do (respectfully ofc) but I don't wanna see cis people throwing it around.
I get your perspective and you're not wrong but personally for me I would be so happy if there was a cure for autism. It's a destructive and limiting force in my life.
Yeah also that. And that goes doubly so for my ADHD, which people often treat similarly.
Personally, I wouldn’t have any problem with “person with autism” a priori or in a vacuum, but what bothers me about it is that it is used with the actual intention of separating my autism from who I am, and that combined with the fact that it’s often allistic people promoting it makes it feel like framing my autism as something negative and that I ought to be treated in spite of it rather than framing it as something normal. Which sucks because it is a part of who I am and it feels like they’re just denigrating me for being autistic but in an indirect way.
Certainly an interesting first post to make on Hexbear.
Seeing person first language as eugenicsy feels a bit weird to me. By law, only a person can have rights, protections, and privileges. And I feel like person in no way implies an "ideal human mind", given that even an organization can be a person (a "judicial person", though perhaps it's a silly comparison given how legal and actual uses of terms vary), and even when unconscious people are still often referred to as a "person". The only entities that usually aren't considered a person are slaves, and animals, so it feels like refusing personhood would be even more problematic. Adding on to all that, I've basically never heard a proponent of eugenics using person first language.
The people first vs identity first debate seems to have a lot to do with the specific identities involved, specifically how "harmful" it's perceived. Blind people, hard of hearing people, and autistic people often see their condition more as being a part of them. Homeless people, people with drug issues, people with diabetes, people with AIDS, people with cancer, generally see their condition as inherently problematic, and so want to be associated more with themselves than their condition (even when it's not curable). An autistic person can be at peace with who they are, in a way that no drug addict or cancer patient could be.
All that said, I think identity first language can work better in some situations, mostly because it's less verbose. "in common usage positive pronouns usually precede nouns" and all that. "Autistic person" rather than "person with autism", "homeless person" rather than "person experiencing homelessness". It still gets most of the idea across, but it's easier to put on a sign or in a headline.
Oh, and like people have said, "autist" is a 4chan word with some not amazing connotations, and it's often used by people who aren't necessarily autistic. Perhaps it's better to avoid that word (unless you have some intention of reclaiming it? I'm not sure it's reclaimable, or if it's even worth bothering).
I'm with you on this.
If you wouldn't say "person with gayness" or "person with womanness" or "person with blackness" because it sounds weird and dehumanising then please don't call me a person with autism.
While we're at it, don't refer to me as being "on the spectrum" because that comes off as euphemising autism and it gives the false impression that autism is a scale that spans from "less autistic" to "more autistic".
On the other hand, as much as a I find those terms uncomfortable and grating, it's a good indicator of how neuronormative someone is going to be so I'm not about to coach an ableist person in ways that they can couch their bigotry in socially-acceptable language; I'd rather someone throw up those red flags early on so that I know what kind of person they are.
In
we tend to use "autistic person" rather than "person with autism" since personne avec autisme doesn't sound right at all. Best of both worlds!
