How do I deal with possibly unintentional prejudice?

[NameChangeForUsualReasons]

Giving details as vaguely as possible to avoid identifying anyone. Basically I'm on a committee, one of the new members recently sent round a general email querying our procedure for dealing with something. I answered it as it was something I knew about. Then she came back with a related query, ending up with a paragraph in which she apologised for sticking with the point, and saying she had an "annoying autism about procedure". Aaaaaarrgh.

I had to count to 10 several times before replying, and didn't address that specific point because it would have diverted from the main issue and I needed time to think about it anyway. I'm assuming in her favour that she just wasn't thinking, but I'm quite shocked that the thought even enters her head that it's acceptable to use "autism" in that way and especially to describe it as annoying. Even more so as she's in an occupation which could loosely be described as one of the caring professions. If she came up with anything similar at meetings I doubt that I'd be able to keep quiet, and there are one or two members who would probably shout at her.

So I'm trying to think of a tactful way to suggest that that was unfortunate phrasing, no doubt she didn't realise, please don't do it again. But it's difficult to work out something that doesn't sound stroppy/patronising/bossy. Any thoughts?

[Writerwannabe83]

Annoying autism about procedure?

I don't even know what that means or what she's trying to say?

[sonlypuppyfat]

Are you just looking for something to get annoyed about.

[Canus]

As the sentence makes no sense, I'd assume it was a typo/auto-correct, I think.

[sunbathe]

Perhaps she wanted anal?

[NameChangeForUsualReasons]

sonly, of course not. Are you another one who can't see what's wrong with "annoying autism"?

[Pumpkinpositive]

Reply, "Sorry, not sure what you mean by "annoying autism". Can you clarify? Are you disclosing to me that you have autism?" 0:-)

I feel that what was said is qualitatively different to people - and this is frequent - saying "Oh, I'm so OCD about x/y/z!" But I'm not sure why. Need to unpack that.

[Writerwannabe83]

But it doesn't make sense OP??

What has autism got to do with procedure?

I honestly have no clue what you or she are on about

[TattyDevine]

Ah gawd. Its the kind of thing I'd give a raised eyebrow followed by a rolly eye in a meeting, but would leave go in an email unless constantly repeated, in which case I might say "what is your issue with Autism exactly and how is it relevant?"

Is it possible she is on the spectrum and apologising (not that she should?)

Very cringey, though.

[Pumpkinpositive]

Are you just looking for something to get annoyed about.

Yah, because equating autism with "annoyingness" is just soooo right on.

[CocktailQueen]

I can see why you don't like it, OP. Like saying you're 'a bit OCD' about something. Could you email her or talk to her and ask her not to do it again?

[CocktailQueen]

X-post, Pumpkin!

[NameChangeForUsualReasons]

Canus, sadly I think the sentence does make sense. She was trying to suggest that autism equates to being obsessive and nitpicky about details, and nothing more.

[sonlypuppyfat]

Surely someone has written something down without thinking it through.

[Deverethemuzzler]

It sounds as if she meant 'annoyingly autistic'.
Which is annoying and stupid.

Even though I think its annoying and stupid I would give her that one and wait if she does something else.

[manicinsomniac]

It does kind of make sense. She's used the wrong forms of the words. She meant 'I'm annoyingly autistic about procedure' by which she presumably means that she likes things to be precise and in order. Rather a generalisation and quite offensive.

However, I think it's only more offensive than 'I'm so OCD about ...' 'I'm really depressed' 'Oh, I'm totally BPD' 'I'm a bit bipolar' etc because it's more unexpected. The latter have become part of day to day vocab and we don't see them as bad. People tend not to use 'autistic' as a general descriptor like that so it jars badly and seems very out of line.

[Pumpkinpositive]

Surely someone has written something down without thinking it through

Yes, I think you did so above.

No reason not to raise the issue with the email sender in a pleasant way.

[Writerwannabe83]

But wouldn't she say she had an annoying autistic trait? (If she is prejudiced about it.)

Because her sentence doesn't make sense are you sure it's not just a typo?

I'm sat here trying to figure out what word she may have meant to use

[bumpiesonamission]

Is it lol me when someone says 'that's so gay' or 'stop being so 'special'?!"

[bumpiesonamission]

'like' not lol

[sonlypuppyfat]

I rarely think things through sorry

[NameChangeForUsualReasons]

I don't really see why people think the sentence doesn't make sense. It's a slightly odd way to phrase it, but in essence she's just saying "I have autism" rather than "I am autistic". It was all in the context of a paragraph in which she was in effect apologising for banging on about the procedural issue, and I'm sure that "autism" is the word she intended to use.

[BigfootFiles]

Personally, I would reply with:

"Did autocorrect strike there? Autism is a lifelong developmental disability and if you are disclosing an autistic condition then please let me know. If not, I'll assume you mistyped."

[wafflyversatile]

''Did you mean fastidious? your autocorrect said autism!''