Saying NO to the "A" word

Post Reply New Topic

Or are you just painting your own opinions onto others?

Saying 'that blind man' is no more disrespectful that saying 'that autistic man'.
Saying 'that red brick' is just indicating that the brick in question is coloured red.
Saying 'that autistic man' is just indicating that man over there who happens to be autistic.
If I knew his name I might say 'Jim - that man over there'.

I use the word 'autistic' in 'that autistic man over there' with no more emotional content, opinion, positive/negative weight, hidden agenda, intent or anything else, than if I had said 'that American man over there' instead. Or 'the tall woman'. Or 'the white cat.'

Sorry, but I have no idea what this means.

I disagree. I found it irrelevant and distracting.

It comes down to choice. Autism is not being blind nor does everyone that is blind desire to be known for their blindness but individuality, self and contributions. Yet to refer to a person as a disorder label when that difference comprises such a great deal of the being since birth when the label is to define disorder is questionable. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, feelings and preference. One either respects the feelings of others or brands them indifferently. If I was born different why should others make those difference stand out more then what is universally similar to being human. Is society or individuals within it so very insecure that it must do so or else it is a travesty? The best way to respect choice is to figure this out interpersonally and not on the macro level assume automatically socially.

You need help ci. You cannot be doing this all the time.

The sad thing is, you will not stop. Because you know what you are doing and are completely manipulative...

Actually this is part of my job and I have extensive notes concerning public relations on the matters. You can't just run a public relations organization without proper study into the matter. This issue is a given in public relations. I cannot assume an individual I represent wants to be called a disorder in press releases. On the other hand to say individual with autism conflicts with known anti-cure / pride based beliefs. No one I know around here is like this. So to say what has been demanded not to say such as individual with autism is a matter of public relations and is derived of certain politics.

It comes down to choice regardless. Ones individuality cannot be compromised by the political endeavors of others. It is in fact the opposite of manipulation but neutralization that makes choice the priority. The best alternative I have come up with because of the nit picking is to say "NO" to the "A" word all together and just say individuals with developmental disabilities, disabilities or differences generically. Yet to even point this out rather then strictly human may entice political sensitivity.

The best suitable phraseology may be Autism Spectrum Differences (Difference).

Of course, but noting that someone is blind does nothing to influence their abilities. They are blind, and they are just as capable of amazing things as anyone else.
Just as those of us with Autism are.

So, for example - when one of my sister's friend's children has a public meltdown in a store, and people start tut-tutting about 'some mothers not being able to control their kids' - she would normally patiently explain that he's not being naughty or playing up, but is Autistic (which, BTW, immediately changes people's perceptions of this 'bad mother' from one of disdain to one of support) - what word would you have her use instead?

When I see someone sit down in front of a few hundred pounds of wood and metal and make music, I think 'pianist'.
I see a person exhibiting abilities to make music on a piano. I don't see a few hundred pounds of wood and metal - I see a skilled person.
When I see a person with Autism doing the same thing, I think 'Autistic pianist'. I still see a skilled person exhibiting abilities to make music on a piano.

That's a loaded choice on several levels. You're eliciting a response according to your agenda, and it's similar to "Have you stopped beating your wife?".
1. I have no disrespect for the person to start with
2. I am not "branding" them
3. Nothing about what I might or might not do with them would be "indifferent"

A person confined to a wheelchair might disagree with you there. That's a difference which would "stand out" whether they wanted it to or not.
That someone may choose to make a huge issue about them simply being in a wheelchair (cruel jokes, overt denigration, aggression etc) is an entirely different matter - and obviously not acceptable.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're aiming at here, but you seem to equate the factual description "Autistic" with something that, when merely used in a personal context, is deeply offensive - almost as if someone had used a disgusting insult or a really cruel comment.
But it seems to me that this just shows your personal feeling about the word (and maybe you have good reason to feel very badly about it; I don't know, and I'm not criticising that possibility in any way) - but from my experiences and everyone I know, "Autistic" is just used as an additional descriptive term for a person: nothing more, nothing less.
As in: blind person, red brick, blond woman etc.

I meant the other stuff as well. I read your anti-pride and anti-cure posts. How much do you hate yourself? You seem to say it's disabling, you are against people "stopping" a cure, and you branded 'acceptance' as 'pride.' At least that is what I get from it. You seem to lead towards needing it to be fixed like Autism Speaks. It's the question that I thought of through all this.

I am speaking in context to adult with disabilities. A mother explaining something during a meltdown is not on the front pages of newspapers. I am speaking of the choices of adults that happen to have disabilities. It simply comes down to choice.

Typically a pride-mite will target the self-esteems of individuals with autism like saying they don't like themselves or they must suffer from depression. This is one of the reasons pride-mite politicians won't win public opinion favor. Autism is a disability of different core symptoms and each symptom if adverse to an individual is covered under human rights law as a right to be treated if chosen.

I asked you a question. I don't know that you don't.

These choices, if made or implemented as you're advocating, will affect everyone though.
Even mothers who don't make headlines.

You've used that phrase "It simply comes down to choice" a number of times.
Who makes the choice? Aren't the choices already being made by people with Autism adequate?

This cannot be determined as these social interactions are vast and the brain is not a collective mind mainframe of course. However my job is to assure fundamental choice when individuals are eighteen years of age or older and participating in the government funded agency I am founding. I must follow a strict law and take it very seriously. Laws of dignity especially and this topic is part of it. Individual choice supersedes even a collectives pre-dictation.

So if people aren't bothered by being called Autistic, or are even happy with it - you're Ok with that and have no reason to change it?
We seem to have come full circle.

Yes but it is now a circle with a line going from the middle to the outside. The line is choice and no one can modify choice. Just because a programmed usage exists for reasons of special interest or what not does not mean an individual cannot choose otherwise. I have a feeling however choice will be made more apparent and applicable but as a whole no great change will transpire but that of the realization of individualized choices in awareness and not merely assumption.

I think that all means 'yes, it is Ok to refer to people as Autistic', followed by a description of that also being the case for the foreseeable future.

It's not that simple. You will see.

Unlikely on this thread, I fear.