(January 8, 2016 at 11:52 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: I guess I was a person who taught, not a teacher.  I am a person who makes a garden, not a gardener.  Of course these things were elective unlike my being a person with maleness.

You might feel differently if those things were considered disorders and highly stigmatized.

Just sayin'.

(January 8, 2016 at 11:52 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: I guess I was a person who taught, not a teacher.  I am a person who makes a garden, not a gardener.  Of course these things were elective unlike my being a person with maleness.

Yeah, but we're talking about disorders.

(January 9, 2016 at 3:09 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You might feel differently if those things were considered disorders and highly stigmatized.

Just sayin'.

I understand not wanting to be referred to something that has a lot of stigma attached to it, but isn't that the nature of being diagnosed with a disorder? I guess what I'm not understanding is how using the phrase "person with autism" lessens the stigmatization as opposed to using the word "autistic."

Let's not forget that there is a lot of stigma attached to the word "atheist." Is there anyone here that prefers to be called "person that does not believe in god?"

(January 9, 2016 at 4:18 pm)Faith No More Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 3:09 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: You might feel differently if those things were considered disorders and highly stigmatized.

Just sayin'.

I understand not wanting to be referred to something that has a lot of stigma attached to it, but isn't that the nature of being diagnosed with a disorder?  I guess what I'm not understanding is how using the phrase "person with autism" lessens the stigmatization as opposed to using the word "autistic."

Let's not forget that there is a lot of stigma attached to the word "atheist."  Is there anyone here that prefers to be called "person that does not believe in god?"

That isn't quite the position that I'm taking. I think, in general, it isn't necessary to refer to the disorder at all unless it's necessary to provide context - and it very rarely is IMO.

(January 9, 2016 at 4:24 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(January 9, 2016 at 4:18 pm)Faith No More Wrote: I understand not wanting to be referred to something that has a lot of stigma attached to it, but isn't that the nature of being diagnosed with a disorder?  I guess what I'm not understanding is how using the phrase "person with autism" lessens the stigmatization as opposed to using the word "autistic."

Let's not forget that there is a lot of stigma attached to the word "atheist."  Is there anyone here that prefers to be called "person that does not believe in god?"

That isn't quite the position that I'm taking.  I think, in general, it isn't necessary to refer to the disorder at all unless it's necessary to provide context - and it very rarely is IMO.

To illustrate, what is the semantic difference between these two interactions?

Person A: "Do you know Cthulhu?"
Person B: "Yeah, isn't he that bipolar guy?"

Person A: "Do you know Cthulhu?"
Person B: "Yeah, isn't he that cracker guy?"

Now, you might argue that "cracker" carries with it more baggage, and you might be correct, however, that only makes the difference one of degree.

Fair enough. Perhaps the proper response to being asked whether you prefer to be called "autistic" or "person with autism" is that you prefer to be referred to as "person that isn't defined by one single trait."

ETA: I got ninja'd by your second post. The difference I see is that one can be used as an insult while the other is a clinical diagnosis. Am I missing something?

(January 9, 2016 at 4:31 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Fair enough.  Perhaps the proper response to being asked whether you prefer to be called "autistic" or "person with autism" is that you prefer to be referred to as "person that isn't defined by one single trait."

If I were autistic, I would prefer to be referred to by my given name, just like everyone else. I guess I'm funny that way.

(January 9, 2016 at 3:09 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 11:52 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: I guess I was a person who taught, not a teacher.  I am a person who makes a garden, not a gardener.  Of course these things were elective unlike my being a person with maleness.

You might feel differently if those things were considered disorders and highly stigmatized.

Just sayin'.

Well a person of instruction is pretty stigmatized I'd say.  But point taken.

(January 9, 2016 at 3:39 pm)Pony Wrote:

(January 8, 2016 at 11:52 am)Whateverist the White Wrote: I guess I was a person who taught, not a teacher.  I am a person who makes a garden, not a gardener.  Of course these things were elective unlike my being a person with maleness.

Yeah, but we're talking about disorders.  

Yes...which ties into something I wanted to say earlier in response this post by Exian...he said:

Quote:To me, dancing around the possibly harmful always highlights the sensitivity. Sort of like when you were a kid in the other room: your parents are talking and it's all mumbled mush, but then they take the steps to spell something out (B-I-G S-L-I-M-Y E-R-E-C-T-I-O-N), and suddenly your attention snaps to it. Whereas, if it was just stated plainly, you wouldn't notice. The thing is, you might not even know what they spelled, but you sure as hell knew it was bad. Same with taking extra steps to be politically correct- suddenly the supposed shame is highlighted.

I meant to reply to this comment, earlier, but got sidetracked.

When I was in grade school, the colloquial term for any developmentally-challenged individual,
was "Mentally Retarded".

Now, I feel comfortable conjecturing that when the term "Retarded"
was first used in reference to the condition to which it was applied,

it was probably not initially applied with any intent of derision or cruelty;

it was merely that a term was needed to refer to a condition whose existence was undeniable
and a condition whose existence could not be ignored;
and a condition which frequently had associated issues that were at times unfortunate;
and to thus be able to conveniently address those issues,
as they were associated with that condition.

Now, to 'retard' something means to slow something down or stunt its progress.

(IE:  to say that an asbestos blanket is "flame-retardant" means it can be used to inhibit the progress of fire).

It was only because people began to abuse the term "retarded"
applying it as an insult to people who were not in fact developmentally-challenged whatsoever,
(and thus denigrating and shaming those who actually were,
implying that it must go without saying that such people are of less value in society)

...that it became politically-incorrect to use that term.

So, the term was changed:

It became more PC to refer to such individuals as "Mentally Handicapped".

This change was intended to remove the unpleasant and degrading stigma that had sadly and unjustly become associated with the term "Retarded"
and replace it with another term that didn't have the same stigma.

But in time, "Handicapped" took on the same stigma.

Then the term was switched to "Developmentally Challenged".

But even this eventually became the butt of jokes;

referring to any short person as "Vertically Challenged"
or a flat-chested girl as "Mammary Challenged"
a poor person as "Financially Challenged"
...and so forth.

My point:

Sometimes people are afflicted with conditions that are undeniably unfortunate;
it doesn't make them any less human or deserving of respect;

However,
Assholes will ALWAYS be amongst us,
and no matter how many times we change the term,
the stigma will always eventually follow it.

So we endeavor to educate public opinion to reduce ignorance and cruelty and stigma.

But IMO, constantly changing terms is like constantly quitting one job after another
because every workplace has one coworker you dislike;

Or constantly moving from one place to another,
trying to run from your problems.

It will always follow;
there will be assholes everywhere.

I can't help but consider how a significant percentage of black American culture embraced the word "nigger"

Of course, it is generally an unspoken rule that it is not okay for white people to use the term,
(even in the same context as it is used by black people)
and of course there are people, both black and white,
who reject its use, altogether, as unacceptable;

but the point is that a term with what is undeniably a definite negative historical stigma,

yet it became widely (if not 100%) reclaimed and used generally in camaraderie,
almost like a sort of club handshake.

I have heard people take issue with the term "black",
preferring instead the term "African-American"

but then I also heard a lady once take great issue with the term "African-American", too;
asserting that she was neither African, nor American;
and she insisted that people should "just say BLACK ! "
because, she said, "It's not like it's a bad word".

like "retard", which also was not originally considered a bad word,
"black" became something of a bad word because of how people abused it....to discriminate, to "other".

You could have a person who would never say "nigger"
who would have, instead, said "black"
but if they were still perceived as being oblivious or ignorant,
...or being guilty of "othering"...

...then "black" really became no better than "nigger".

Just like "handicapped" took on the same stigma as "retard"

The real core of the problem, as usual, boils down to ignorance or cruelty;
you can't make the problem go away with political correctness alone;
or constantly changing terms.

(January 9, 2016 at 4:32 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: If I were autistic, I would prefer to be referred to by my given name, just like everyone else.  I guess I'm funny that way.

Oh, sure, I get that. My comment was meant be a tongue-in-cheek response in order to explain to the person there's no need to worry about how to refer to my disorder, because I am not defined by that disorder.

Personally, I don't let any of that stuff bother me. It's just words, and words only have the power that we allow them to have.