#identity language

[quirkycerebralwiring]

Autism Acceptance Month: Day 27: Identity Language

I like being called an autistic person and not a “person with autism” because I definitely see autism as a central part of my identity. I would be a very different person if I was not autistic. In fact, it is impossible for me to imagine a non-autistic version of myself. I feel that the term “person with autism” implies that autism is either a small part of me (the way my eye colour is small part of me) or worse, a negative thing that needs to removed from me. The term “person on the (autism) spectrum” is not as bad as “person with autism” to me but I still feel like people who use this are trying avoid acknowledging that autism a central part of me.

[adultwithautism]

Day 27: Identity Language 

I don't mind I am both an autistic adult and an adult with autism. I know some have strong feelings and I will of course listen to your preferences. 

[galwaygremlin]

April 18th: Talk about identity. Is being autistic an important part of your identity? What does being autistic mean to you? Which do you prefer: identity first or person first language and why?

When I got my diagnosis, I also got a lot of “don’t let this define you, don’t let it limit you” reactions. EUGH. Autism isn’t something I can control having. I don’t “let” it do anything. It’s me. I am it. Every part of my personality, every part of my brain is autistic. There’s no “neurotypical Lise” that’s just hiding in here under all this autism. It’s autism all the way down, folks! /lh

I don’t really care which language is used to refer to me. I’m an autistic person, I’m a person with autism. To me they’re the same thing. If you’re using person-first because you consider my autism separate from me, if you’re doing it because you think my autism is something to be overcome or cured, that’s when I have a problem with it. Autistic is not a bad word. It’s not an insult. It’s not derogatory. It’s the truth.

[galwaygremlin]

day 17: How do you feel about terms like “special needs”? 

I need to preface this by saying two things: one, I have never been considered a special needs student by my school. Two, I live in an area that is just. so. socially. conservative.

I don’t think that, with the way disability is approached by abled people right now, the term “special needs” is inaccurate. Disabled people have needs that are outside what is considered acceptable range by abled people. The nicest way of referring to them is “special needs”. It implies there is care and consideration and respect going into accommodations for those needs.

However. It does other (other as a verb) disabled people. Places anything outside what NTAB people need in a separate category, makes it “logical” that we have to pay more, fight harder, work harder, suffer more to have our needs accommodated, because they’re “special”, so they can’t just be taken in stride. And that’s not fair to us.

In my area, it’s still a struggle to get people not to use the R-slur (or other offensive terms like “cr*ppl*d”, “cr*zy”, “sl*w”, “d*mb” to mean nonverbal, etc) in passing. Sometimes they use it as an insult, sometimes they genuinely think that’s an OK way to refer to disabled people. “Special needs” is... a little lower on the list of language problems to tackle.

But I get it, I understand why people wouldn’t want to be referred to that way, and I will always advocate for people’s right to the language they choose for themselves. No one should say “special needs” in reference to you if you don’t want them to. If you do feel like that’s the language that identifies your situation best, no one should stop you.

[alice-royal]

I don't mean to bug but I had a question. I saw your commentary about Sesame Street's new autistic Muppet and your comment about person-first language as a negative thing - I wasn't aware that was something to avoid. Do you mind elaborating? Thanks!

Okay, let me give you a link with a really nice explanation first: 

http://autisticadvocacy.org/home/about-asan/identity-first-language/

The absolute majority of autistic people (aka, the only people whose opinions actually matter on this subject) overwhelmingly prefer identity-first language, i.e. ‘autistic person’. The few people I’ve met who are sticklers for PFL are either parents, who are often misguided/whose opinions are trumped by autistics themselves, or are autistics who have been systematically programmed to hate themselves in the same way that LGBT+ kids with homophobic parents might hate themselves.

The gist of this whole thing is that autism has never been, is not, and will never be a separate entity from the autistic person. Just like your eye colour or hair colour or skin colour are not some separate evil thing that takes you hostage, neither is being autistic. They’re all genetic traits.

For me personally, I like to imagine autism as my eyes, or some sort of lens on my eyes that I was born with. Everything I see, hear, smell, taste, touch, perceive, imagine, dream of, want, need, etc. is viewed through the permanent, fixed, unchanging, omnipresent lens of autism. My entire identity and humanity, to me, is based on the fact that I am autistic. Trying to separate that from me is like ripping my eyes out or my skin off.

When’s the last time you heard someone remind you that it was person with blackness or person with femaleness? You can’t treat those traits or take them away. You can’t do that to autism, either, try as some people might.

Also, many of us take more offense at the premise of ‘people first’. ALL people are people. If someone has to use the term ‘people with xyz’ to constantly remind themselves of anyone’s humanity, they have a serious problem and it’s definitely not us.