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?

I think you are hugely overreacting, and I say this as a parent of an autistic child. It's a turn of phrase. Don't worry about it.

If it is relevant to her work on this committee then I think you should mention it to someone higher up.

id just take it how it was meant, without offence. As a parent of autistic children, it actually initially strikes me as lighthearted use of a term,that in some ways shows the traits that a lot of people may have, at a bigger level are a sign of autism.

i dont think it helps to make a word taboo to use in anything other than the most serious of circumstances.

i think most parents of autistic kids that ive met, are pretty happy to bandy the term around freely. Its our life. If it was used as an insult, then i think it would be more worrying

Really branleuse ? I am also the parent of a child with autism would it be OK for me to say I am being downs syndrome about this or epileptic although I,m not sure in what context,I could use a term like those .

Branleuse. I have ASD. I resent it. You wouldn't use Spaz anymore, so why use this. It's rude.

YANBU to be irritated. It's a poor turn of phrase but I'd hold fire on saying anything because I'd be worried she was clumsily trying to disclose she has an ASD.

Slightly off topic but on a training course I attended, I was told the term is now ASC (Autism Spectrum Condition) - has anyone else heard this?

I would want to clarify what she meant. I don't think you are over-reacting.

Personally, I try to look at intention behind wording, and like with the previous comments about OCD, use of the term isn't in the majority of time used to denigrate or deride the condition, simply as a decription of certain behaviors.

So for me, unless anything is meant as insult or to be rude, I don't get offended or go on the warpath.

As the parent of DC with ASCs I find the jokey usage unhelpful myself.

I'm surprised by your experience of parents bandying the word about lightheartedly Bran TBH. Doesn't that just make it harder to get needs taken seriously?

Maybe she is on the spectrum?

In our family we joke about our OCD tendencies. That's because we all have them (some more extreme than others) in our family.

I've not heard this term about autism used though.

I don't think there's anything to make a fuss about. I've heard someone say something like "I was crippled with laughter". There's not much difference between that and your example, is there? It's just use of words.

Very different Happy

But the autocorrect option is a very elegant way to query/clarify/highlight with minimal fuss or criticism.

Happy. Apart from the fact that crippled isn't really used anymore, use of words is what denotes and promotes prejudice. Just look at the language being used by the government at the moment: Scroungers and Strivers, Hard working families,etc. An insidious little story that lies dormant in the consciousness until you see one of those scroungers and wonder whether they're fiddling the system. It's language, it's used to control, it's powerful and shapes society. It is therefore important to challenge use of language thereby trying to ensure an even and fair playing field for all.

I actually said something similar to someone in work yesterday about the way I approach a particular piece of work. The reason I said it was that I think we can all have traits of particular illnesses even if we dont have a full diagnosis. I often notice OCD traits in my thinking. I have have alot of intrusive thoughts in certain situations. I often feel I have slight tourettes when I am unable to refrain from saying inappropriate things out loud. I feel like I am borderline alot of things but not enough of any one to get a diagnosis. Maybe its that I can identify with alot of what people are going through so I use the terms associated with the illness. I can't say I ever got offended when I heard someone saying that they nearly had a heart attack, had a fit, went mad, lost the plot etc... I don't automatically think they are being out of line. Certain traits and behaviours are associated with certain illnesses. They are all human traits and the particular trait I identified in work is one that i am very proud of (it involves spreadsheets) and I would have said it in a positive way not in a way to out down someone with autism.

But autism is a very broad spectrum isn't it?

Being brilliant at maths couldn't be attributed as an autistic trait because not all people with autism are good at maths.

So using autism and OCD to describe certain stereotypical behaviour just reinforces the stereotype.

I know people who think people with autism are all like rain man. It's not very helpful.

I'm not sure OCD is the most helpful comparator.

Autism is a lifelong developmental disability. It is not a set of behaviours.

Build You are right. Kim Peek was also so much more than Hoffman portrayed him to be. Oh, and Dh did Philosophy at uni, I did History, Ds is doing Literature. Dh and Ds are both brilliant at maths, me, I'm so terrified of it, I don't even try.
We are very good at myriad things, just the same as the rest of the population. If you've met one person with ASD, you've met one person with ASD.

Problem with using a MH word as a descriptor is that is reinforces a stereotype.

Not all OCD people are anal about patterns or cleanliness.

Not all ADHD people are "And then I went to the store and SQUIRREL!"

Not all Austistic people harp on details like that.

It puts all people with those disorders in a tiny stereotyped box and when you don't fit that stereotype, it make it hard to get diagnosed or have people take your diagnosis seriously.

But let's not be silly and say that Autism is a multifaceted disorder, but something like OCD is not. They're both complicated and they both affect different people differently.

Ahem Squig Autism is NOT a MH condition

neither is ADHD.

My DD isnt talented at anything.

Except being gorgeous and happy.

Being happy is a talent. I am a miserable fucker most of the time.

^^oops a great talent.

Good point.

Me too

I mean