Saying NO to the "A" word

Post Reply New Topic

I like your perspective in this post, it seems about as balanced and reasonable as what I have come across, in acknowledging both sides of the issue.

I have commented with regards to dignity being a potential form of treatment. I will also say it's been my attempted point all along. Constructive debate and idea cooperation is seldom happening in these conversations. You and a few other here and there. Like the other post here http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt161026.html the post are designed for a reason. When I am implicit for constructive reasons few participate but when I'm attempting to trigger emotional responses even that from my own emotions there is more involvement that has a potential of constructive resolution. So if constructive and balance seeking debate is what honest discussion desires then the structured posts that specify a specific reason like the above link need more participants. These issues brought forth are necessary and part of my study on human rights matters that I must complete as an advocate and are ethical priorities in global autism issues.

That does look like a very constructive post, and would be happy to respond to it.

And you are correct, in general people respond more with their gut than their mind. In fact scientific studies indicate that most all of our rational and irrational thoughts are initiated by emotion. The "knee jerk" reaction to "stigmatize freely", certainly has kept this thread going a very long time.

I can't wait to give my first speaking arrangement as I've been invited to do. It's going to come from an angle of speaking that few in the autism community have done and will make them folks listening really think and feel in ways they didn't expect. From the business community like the Chamber of Commerce gathers to live on radio. Just whenever I give it a go. Damn thunder bolts of human emotions and a bit of a kick in the butt to the realization of awareness to cause. Autism and related advocacy needs more "brave" folks that are willing enough to speak like it because some folks just got to let go of that pride and some forms of ego to state the truth and be creative with it.

Will be on the YouTube eventually. Move them there mountains or else no one else will. Ain't nothing going to change unless the leadership has the stern ability to rock social worlds. The rip and roar knock it to them and the warm, fuzzy and uplifting audacity of change stuff. All the professionals are up in arms over transitional youth issues and still past generations are left out. The professionals are not going to be much help its like I've been telling some of them that are supportive of me just sit back and relax because I do things they don't have the audacity to do.

Last edited by ci on 12 May 2011, 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Passion for life keeps everyone moving. Without it life comes to a standstill. Those that have it the most are most likely fully alive. I hope you enjoy every moment of it. I used to have it; and I loved every minute of it.

I think of it just as a process. A strategy and necessary coarse of action. I suppose passion comes in with my realizing eventually I'll just bother with gardening and the social behavior will not be required anymore. I just tell folks kind of what to do and develop the coarse of action.

The big picture has needed a fine tunning and is indecisive and has had poor ratings.

As long as you keep a passion for gardening that sounds like a plan that will work.

On whether or not it's a loaded question. It's a loaded question if one considers the answer choices as part of the question.

I think, though, a better label is rhetorical question. A rhetorical question being one asked to make a point, rather than to get an answer.

Except, it's quite inappropriate to ask people to answer (via a poll) a rhetorical question. But I think that's what was done here.

Me, I chose not to answer it.

I see polls like it often. This poll however does not fit the standard beliefs as what is implied is the opposite of what is commonly promoted. It's designed only to get people to think which it has and for the most part resulted in constructive conclusion. Had it been a poll against Autism Speak in a like matter no one or very few would have complained.

Taking apart your poll, firstly, the thread title:
Saying NO to the "A" word
By starting off negative, this makes it all a bit confusing.

Next, the poll question:
Do you respect the right not to be called Autistic?
By continuing, and making the poll question also negative, it is even less clear whether a "Yes" or "No" answer to the question means that the voter does "respect the right" or not.
Also, what you call yourself is up to you. What you are diagnosed as is another matter. Whom you reveal your diagnosis to is a third consideration. I don't really understand which part of that your question concerns.

Next, your "Yes" answer:
Yes - Each Individual Should Choose Identity priority and reference.
You have made this a very enticing response - by including the "Choose" word - making it the "obviously correct" response. Naturally, no one would vote against a person's right to choice. However, I don't know what "Identity priority and reference" means.

Now for your "No" option:
No - Stigmatize freely for political reasons and without respect to personal choice.
Here is where your poll fails. Again you have used "choice", to keep up the pressure. However, this "No" answer is now double-barrelled - it now links in the emotive "Stigmatize" and "political". One cannot take this option without admitting to a crime against every autistic person. This is what makes the whole poll into a "Loaded question" ( <- which is a link, as before.)

Finally, from your OP, I still couldn't work out what it was you really were asking about. It did seem in there that you want to be called autistic, or "with autism", when it would get you something, but not at any other time. Disclosure is your choice. If you don't tell someone your diagnosis, they don't know it.

At the link above, you will find the standard example, which I addressed to you earlier: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" You recognised that you could not answer the question with either a "Yes" or a "No", as either answer would imply that you had been beating your wife. The fact that you were unaware of this common example question shows in your responses: you took it as a personal attack - which it was not.

Your poll has the same problem. I want to call myself autistic. You imply that I cannot do that without infringing on your personal choices and stigmatising you for political purposes.

If your poll had been "Which do you prefer to be a called:" with the two options "a person with autism" and "autistic", I'd happily choose the latter. You could even throw in another option: "a person with an ASD", which I would also reject.

Over here, we are now officially using the label ASC - which is "autism spectrum conditions" - as an alternative to ASD. I'm still not sure what I think of that one. It seems a trivial change, but it does downplay the genuinely disabling effects to a mere "condition".

It's really simple.

The poll was from a perspective that being labeled can be a stigma. Not everyone believes this way. The poll nor the OP is an authoritative dictation on the matter so there is no need to worry. It's an individuals feelings and opinion thus perspective.

It comes down to if calling someone autistic when they don't want to be called that name will others respect the right not to be called it. Should you not respect that right then it is the OP's opinion your being disrespectful. It is not the OP's opinion that should someone choose to be called that they are being discriminated against.

You see I allow other people to choose whereas others try to dictate universally "individual with autism" vs. "autistic". It's a kind of awareness politics that ends up being senseless. So what I'm saying is choice wins and not dictation.

Protected Circumstances

1. In the pursuit and right to dignity to be called a disorder is not necessary for preserving the right to treatment, accommodations or social services. So dignity rights in certain settings prevail and the right to choice supersedes awareness politics. It's a matter of technicality of individuated choices and the right to dignity.

2. Better yet the right to dignity is also held intact against awareness politics to not be refereed at all to a disorder but rather simply human. However in the right to treatment universally in context of a label dignity does not supersede the right to mention the said condition such as autism or autistic disorder in reference to people. So in certain protected settings the right to dignity and the right to privacy prevails against the awareness politics either way.

Nathan Young