AIBU to ask you to STOP

[Dawndonnaagain]

using the term 'autistics'. Four fucking times this weekend on different threads. You mean person with autism, people with autism, child with autism. Autistics is not shorthand for any of those. Pack it in.

Ah OK I see, I think. There are a lot of people determined to be offended here that's for sure!

Well, welcome to Mumsnet Sophie!

A young man asked me if I'd call a gay man, "a man with homosexuality." To his mind, refusing to call him autistic indicated that autism was seen as this hideous affliction, so awful it should never be directly appended to him. And he found that incredibly offensive.

I've come to the conclusion that there is no one right way to handle this, so use the one that best suits the people you know most directly affected.

Yep Sophie - where people are angry and offended by posters being upset and offended. It's a circle of kindness.

caprin if the OP had said 'this upsets and offends me' and provided examples proving her point then I'm sure we'd have had a very different outcome.

Instructing people to STOP doing something that actually no one was doing anyway is much more likely to piss people off.

I'm pretty sure the op asked people to stop.mits right there in the op.
And I'm pretty sure you would have attacked her anyway. But that's just a hunch.

waiting I have absolutely no problem with it. We all use it in this house, along with Aspie. I'm Autistic, I received my diagnosis eleven years ago. I have three children with ASCs. I just object to Autistics as a collective noun. It's rude, it's often used as an insult. There are lots of people with autism, there are lots of families with Autistic children, that's what they are, people with autism, not autistics.

Sorry, Dawn I missed this and I agree with you. It's rather like referring to "the blacks" or "the gays" or "the Jews". Othering, and indicative of distaste.

I thought this was a person-first argument. Missed your point.

its a very emotive subject.

I run a page on FB about Autism, and i've been chatting to some of the other page admins in the community.... most people don't agree with the OP, ftr.

The issue is, like i said, Person-First/Identity-First is a big thing in the community as a whole, and ultimately, you're allowed to be offended, and you're allowed to ask people in your circle not to use that language to refer to you/your kids.

What isn't acceptable, is telling other people what they can and can't say.

The person who posted a few months ago to tell everyone to stop using 'Aspie' was told the same thing.

Adrift,
That's interesting. Would the people on your Facebook group be ok with 'autistics like routine' which is the one I've heard a few times and frankly irritates me enormously.
I'm surprised it's seen as neutral. There is something about it that so screams 'other' to me that no linguistic gymnastics can make me comfortable.

attacking and questioning are very different caprin

If OP provided examples of people saying 'the' autistics I'd be right behind her as that is offensive.

caprin genuine question- how would you prefer 'autistics like routine' to be phrased and why?

Adrift I don't think that is the OP's point? (I thought it was too, earlier.) She is objecting to the use of "the" to describe autistic people plural. She says she and her children are all autistic, and she has no issue with that terminology - but "the autistics" she does. Which tbh seems fair enough as it is othering, but PP have said they don't think they've seen anyone doing it, anyway. I don''t think I have, to be fair, but then again it's a huge site and I miss a lot.

It is fair to say that there have been some truly horrific, ableist posts on MN in the past, though. I still remember one where the OP found a relative frantically annoying, and decided this meant they were probably autistic. On that sole basis. MN deleted the thread on the grounds... well, the gist was that it got deleted as it was bloody horrifying.

I would say "most autistics like routine" or "a lot of autistics like routine" because of course with anything there is going to be variation and not everyone with any diagnosis is going to be exactly the same.

Surely it is all about context and intent?

Using a collective term for people sharing a similar (but variable) characteristic such as 'people with autism' or 'autistics' is fine as long as neither term has been commonly used to denigrate that group. It is still a collective term., be it a group of words or a specific noun. There also has to be some form of majority agreement from members of that group that a term is the correct one, and not offensive or inappropriate.

It only becomes offensive if the collective term is used to diminish individuals who belong to that group rights to be seen as valued, unique and different from each other.

Saying 'people with autism are all great at solving complex maths problems'' is more offensive than saying 'autistics may need additional pastoral support at university'.

I would say ' routine is a characteristic of autism'.

i haven't seen anyone use 'the autistics'

the OP did say in her original post was her issue was with 'autistics' which i have argued.

I have posted evidence of autistics being used BY the autistic community, including a young woman who posts a you tube series called 'ask an autistic' and a film where she uses the term 'autistics'. I see it all the time on FB pages in the autism community. Its really part and parcel of the whole identity-first movement.

Its about context in my eyes. If someone is using it in a negative fashion, then no, its not ok, i haven't seen anyone use it that way on any of the threads, its been used, like mine was, in the same way we say asthmatics and diabetics.

Personally I don't like autistics. And actually the times 'autistics like routine' was used it was either irrelevant or inaccurate. So tbh I can't think of a situation where I would want to hear it.
I might just summon some respect for someone who used 'most/many people with autism/autistic people like routine - is this true of your son?'

To be clear though I'm not telling anyone what to do. If someone says 'autistics like routine' I will assume they are a fuckwit and to date I have ultimately been proven to be 100% correct in that impression.

People can say what they like. I'm free to form my own opinion based upon how they refer to my son and his peers. As people keep saying - personal choice. That works both ways.

I agree with that SilverBirch.

I can see what you mean there sirzy and great but what happens when you need to refer to people collectively whose common factor is their autism

It's a tough one, I think. It's so emotive on both sides and I never really know which is fairer. I also worry that DS (and DD, given her M-CHAT-R results last week) may grow up and hate the version I chose to use for them at this point in their lives and identify strongly with the one I rejected... but then again, that's how a lot of parenting works, isn't it.

It's hard trying to bring a child up with a sense of themselves as valuable, in a world that so viciously and unfairly stigmatises all forms of autism, and all autistic (people) so heavily. Terminology is just part of that. It's infinitely loaded.

But it's wording that collectivness so it doesn't make too many assumptions. I certainly don't get offended by "autistics like routine" just like I don't get offended by "asthmatics wheeze" because both are common assumptions, dependant on context I may correct someone who said either but I wouldn't be offended and certainly don't have any issue with the use of the word autistics!

It's context I suspect. I've never heard anyone use 'autistics' that didn't either use it in a dismissive and othering manner.

And I have an asthmatic daughter and an autistic son. My DD has never been shouted at on her way to school. I see no difference but the mainstream population does see a huge difference between asthma and autism

I don't like "autistics" either, but have no problem with saying someone is "autistic". I don't honestly know why. It's not very consistent, is it. Obviously I wouldn't judge an autistic person referring to themselves in any way they chose - none of my business. But I would twitch a bit if an NT person said, "an autistic" or "autistics" instead of "autistic" or "autistic people".

And the routine thing... I don't think it makes someone an arse, but it does make them someone with a low level of training (a day course or less) wanting to prove they know all about autism, IME, if they cite routine as a universal necessity. It's so much more complicated than that, as well as not being the main thing necessary in order to make my son feel safe, anyway, even though he does like routine.

A friend has a child with PDA and routine is a disaster for her - she feels hemmed in by one and they have to try to constantly ring the changes so she is on her toes and doesn't have time to kick against it. Exact opposite of what DS needs.

Yes, the 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' thing

You're right caprin but that just reinforces the point that calling a group 'people with autism' or 'autistics' is just sumantics. The reall"?problem is people's perception of the people in that group.