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?

Tatty, I did wonder at first whether she might be saying she actually was autistic, but for various reasons I don't think that's the case. There are circumstances where the committee may on occasion have to consider disability issues and I'd hate to think that this person seriously thinks that autism involves no more than being a bit of an obsessive. Mind you, if that came up in discussion it would be the easiest way of getting to grips with it.

Unless of course she actually did mean that she is autistic - in which case it may be both sensible and brave of her to let a relative stranger know.

Waffly, I like it.

What Bigfoot or waffly suggested. Is this person normally a pillock?

Makes sense to me, in that I understand what what said. I think she's ignorant and had no experience with autism other than hearing it loosely connected with being overly fussed or a refusal to let things go. Just like the ocd example noted by other posters.
I like the autocorrect suggestion, it raised the point while giving her a way of saving face and a chance to rethink without putting her on th defensive.

Fideliney, she's newish on the committee and I didn't know her before, so I don't really know if she's normally a pillock. Her query did indicate that she couldn't have been paying attention when the issue she raised was discussed at a meeting, because it was all based on a misinterpretation of the facts. However, I was prepared to cut her some slack about that because it's not that easy when you're new to something.

However, thinking back, there are one or two other alarm bells. She is banging on rather a lot about this point and suggesting that she knows more about it than we might by virtue of having been on similar committees in other areas, and when she first raised it she made a fairly major but misconceived assumption that it was an issue which would inevitably directly affect her children and which suggested another area of prejudice. Sorry to be so vague about this, but if I give any more detail we really could potentially both be identified.

Hmm. Well you can't ignore it. You have to deal yourself (anything else overblown) so the question is, light remark or slightly more pointed remark? Hard to decipher as you can't share specifics

I would leave it as a one-off but be on the watch. I don't think she's trying to indicate she is autistic any more than people are trying to indicate they suffer from clinical depression by saying "I feel so depressed about work at the moment" or they're trying to indicate they really have OCD by saying "OMG don't put that down there - sorry, it's my new coffee table and I'm totes OCD about it!"

(I have both OCD and depression and while I don't get annoyed by depression as shorthand for sadness, I do get mildly annoyed by OCD used as shorthand for cleanliness or wanting to keep things smart. My OCD is nothing to do with being clean or tidy so when I've told people nervously "the reason I do [weird thing X] is because I have OCD..." I sometimes get the reaction "But I thought that meant cleaning everything obsessively! Or having all the jars facing outwards! Or being scared of germs!" None of the above in my case, and sometimes a pop-cultural idea of something makes it harder to explain the reality.)

I would be more disturbed by "autistic" used to mean "needs or likes routine and procedure" because as pp have said, it's so much more complex than that. It also seems more offensive for some reason?

Keep an eye on her, I would say.

Sounds like she's been watching too much Big Bang Theory and thinks everyone with autism is like Sheldon.

Oh gawd why are there so many people about who want to censor people's emails and conversations? I've never met anyone actually this stultifyingly goody goody in real life, and tbh if I did, you could guarantee that they wouldn't have many friends and people would actually hide when they saw them coming.

Let is pass you by OP. Be offended but fgs try to hold back from writing a little teacher's note correcting the person. You are possibly patronising/stroppy/bossy, so maybe also have a little think about your own faults before correcting others.

You're right, of course, Chelsy; the professional thing for committee members to do is to sling about disablist slang like 'mong' and 'spastic' and 'retard' in their emails and it would ve very 'goody goody' of anyone to object. Obviously

I'm disabled. I've started trying to pick people up in a gentle way about their ableism even when I'm sure it's unintentional. Because listening to the comments is upsetting and I deserve to be treated with respect. It's taken me a long time to learn that though because people like Chelsey are sadly in the majority - and I was born with my disability so it's not like it's a new experience for me.

sonly Thank you.

chelsy makes regular appearances on these threads, we all know she's a dismissive and obfuscatory twit. Sorry you, and many others with disabilities are belittled by her, I suspect she can't help it because no amount of explaining seems to make a difference.

I imagine it's just the same as the whole 'I'm a bit OCD about such and such...' - trivialising OCD, or in this case, Autism. I doubt she intended to offend with her ignorance but you would be doing her a favour by pointing out that it's not acceptable to use that word in that context.

a friend of mine recently referred to a black person as 'coloured'. It didn't offend me because she was not being malicious but I mentioned that it could be seen as offensive and that it's outdated. So now hopefully she doesn't risk upsetting anyone.

I,m not sure what she would mean by that and I would be highly offended by it because I have a four year old who was diagnose with autism a few months ago having said that I regularly hear rather ignorant people use the term schiz out as in get angry kick off and as a mental health nurse this makes me cringe as obviously schizophrenia can be life long and very disabling but if she is using it in a professional with no clear understanding that this could be highly offensive to people than that is worrying .

I work with a lovely person who comes out with every wrong word it's possible to say. Each time I gently tell her we don't use that word any more. Or you can't say that because... She's always mortified about it. I would mention it in a friendly way.

I do however, say I'm OCD about certain things. That's because I do have it and it I don't get a person to maybe stop doing a certain thing I will end up spending an hour trying to feel balanced again.

Just reply back asking 'What do you mean 'annoying autism about procedure'?'

Having said that before my son was diagnosed and he has classic autism my understanding of autism was that it was mainly how people interacted with other rather than anything else obviously through my own experience I have far more understanding of just how disabling autism can be .

BakeOLite do you say "I'm OCD about this" to people who know you have OCD though, or just to anyone? With the first, people already get you, for the second, they might not take you so seriously.

There's a sort of devaluing of terms. I see this with OCD. If I explain that I feel compelled to repeat something by saying "I'm sorry, I have OCD" then the person I am speaking to often doesn't get that it is different from them saying "OMG, I am so OCD about DH leaving the towels on the floor instead of in the laundry basket!"

Luckily, my OCD isn't severe, but if I am having a bad day I can't do some things well and have a lot of stress. Because I am not washing my hands repeatedly people reckon I don't have OCD, and quite a few people believe that OCD is a thing which is when you're a bit annoyed about people not being very tidy. So I get a fair bit of "Yeah, very funny" or "Pull yourself together" or "I saw it on TV, it makes people clean their houses all the time not [my issue]..." Which isn't hugely helpful, to be quite honest.

I would hate it if autism went this route with people saying "yeah, well I'm a bit autistic TOO. I done an online test and everything and everyone that knows me thinks I totally am. So I can hold down a full time job and have three kids and volunteer on the weekends, what's wrong with you?" And it will happen.

I wouldn't have even understood the reference to be honest. The people I know on the spectrum don't harp on a singular detail like that. They have a subject they won't shut up about (and I avoid bringing it up). I thought the stereotype of ASD was social awkwardness.

But arguing on a single detail like that and not dropping it, is just digging your heels in and being stubborn. I wouldn't have understood what she meant by it.

Or maybe I'm over thinking it.

Just act confused. "Annoy autism? I don't understand what that means?"

ChelsyHandy, in my original and subsequent posts I've made it very clear that I'm giving this person the benefit of the doubt and don't want to sound patronising etc. But clearly this is not a matter of wanting to censor this person's email: the point is, as I said, that the committee's work does involve some consideration of disability issues and it's potentially quite serious that this person has that attitude to what is one of the main disabilities we deal with.

I hope you detect the irony of asking me to think about my own faults in the course of a staggeringly judgmental post full of unevidenced assumptions from you. Judging from the posts responding to you, you have some thinking of your own to do in this area.

I expect she was rather clumsily trying to apologise for asking further questions in case they annoyed you.

maybe something like:

No need to apologise for being fastidious about procedure. I'd hardly compare it to autism as that is a little bit more complex and nuanced than an attention to detail!

You do know for sure she is not autistic, don't you?

Of course I don't know for sure she's not autistic, I'm well aware of the dangers of amateur diagnosis. I can only say that there are a number of reasons for thinking it's unlikely. I suspect, also, that if she were trying to say that in this message she wouldn't have said that it was only in relation to procedure.

Yes, I think it was an attempt to make a sort of joky apology for pushing the point, and I definitely only want to respond in similar vein at this stage.