RE: To call them autistic or people with autism
January 8, 2016 at 12:08 pm
(This post was last modified: January 8, 2016 at 12:09 pm by MTL.)
BrokenQuill92 said:
MTL said:
When you used the illustration, " A person with blackness " makes me think of the whole argument about "colour-blindness" and how some people called that phrase out as nothing more than well-intentioned bullshit;
saying that it is nonsense to be so politically-correct that you pretend not to see race at all;
that the point was not to deny reality or be disingenuous,
but rather to see race....yet not have it make any difference.
So it occurs to me that the lesson in this discussion is that it doesn't matter whether we use language that defines a person by a certain trait, or not;
because that trait may very well be a big part of their identity;
the lesson is that we not make assumptions or cherish biases BECAUSE of that trait.
You can say I'm a female, instead of a Person With Vagina...just don't be a chauvinist.
You can say someone is black, instead of a Person With Blackness...just don't be a racist.
You can say someone is Autistic, instead of a Person With Autism...just don't make assumptions about their limitations.
I have to say, though, that the term "disabled" always rankled with me.
This is because the term "disabled" doesn't simply refer to a person with a disability,
it also means something has been rendered non-functioning;
IE: a disabled car or a disabled factory.
When applied to people, this is not only cruel, but highly-misleading.
Being female, being black, being Autistic....none of these words mean the same thing as "disabled".
But being a person with a disability does not, by any means, necessarily equate into being "disabled", either.
I have met many so-called "able" people who were helpless,
and I have met many persons with disabilities who were more self-reliant and capable than those without disabilities.
For example, I have frequently asked directions from "able" people and not received accurate information,
but I once stopped a blind man on the street in a strange city and asked for directions and he was able to give them very accurately indeed.
Was he blind? Absolutely.
Was he disabled? Certainly not.
Quote:While not having autism as you guys know I'm blind. I feel like pwd is trying too hard and invalidates my lived experience. Im a blind person. No it's not all I am but it's as much apart of me as my skin color or gender or sexual orientation. And no one calls me a person with blackness, a person with pansexuality, or a person with femaleness.
MTL said:
When you used the illustration, " A person with blackness " makes me think of the whole argument about "colour-blindness" and how some people called that phrase out as nothing more than well-intentioned bullshit;
saying that it is nonsense to be so politically-correct that you pretend not to see race at all;
that the point was not to deny reality or be disingenuous,
but rather to see race....yet not have it make any difference.
So it occurs to me that the lesson in this discussion is that it doesn't matter whether we use language that defines a person by a certain trait, or not;
because that trait may very well be a big part of their identity;
the lesson is that we not make assumptions or cherish biases BECAUSE of that trait.
You can say I'm a female, instead of a Person With Vagina...just don't be a chauvinist.
You can say someone is black, instead of a Person With Blackness...just don't be a racist.
You can say someone is Autistic, instead of a Person With Autism...just don't make assumptions about their limitations.
I have to say, though, that the term "disabled" always rankled with me.
This is because the term "disabled" doesn't simply refer to a person with a disability,
it also means something has been rendered non-functioning;
IE: a disabled car or a disabled factory.
When applied to people, this is not only cruel, but highly-misleading.
Being female, being black, being Autistic....none of these words mean the same thing as "disabled".
But being a person with a disability does not, by any means, necessarily equate into being "disabled", either.
I have met many so-called "able" people who were helpless,
and I have met many persons with disabilities who were more self-reliant and capable than those without disabilities.
For example, I have frequently asked directions from "able" people and not received accurate information,
but I once stopped a blind man on the street in a strange city and asked for directions and he was able to give them very accurately indeed.
Was he blind? Absolutely.
Was he disabled? Certainly not.
