This is one of those posts where the idea has been rolling around in my head for a very long time. For whatever reason, I feel the need to finally put it into words.
There is a struggle going on as to whether the word “autistic” is a valid now. As in, “Autistics deserve better”. There is a big push for “person first” language such as “people with autism deserve better”.
I’ll admit, I use both.
I’ll also admit, I think that people with autism deserve to have the vote in how they can refer to themselves and how they want others to refer to them.
Arguments against “autistic” range from silly (“autistic isn’t in the dictionary”) to something I can at least understand, if not fully agree with (“person first language honors the person, not the condition”).
On example of the push for person-first language cam in the last year or so. New York State passed a law requiring person first language in official documents. One autistic I know pointed out to me that groups such as the Society for the Blind or the Society for the Deaf, for example, might not appreciate the idea. Think of changing the name to “Society for people with blindess”. Any reason to do that?
Much of the discussion of “person first” in regards to autism, I am fairly sure, based on the nature of the term “Mental Retardation”. Once we hear “mental retardation”, it is hard to not hear “Mentally Retarded”, “Retarded” or the word that was discussed a lot in 2008: “Retard”.
“Retard” is vile and pejorative. It is an ugly playground taunt that has no place on the playground and unfortunately many adults never left behind. It has tainted the term “Mental Retardation”. Journals now recommend avoiding the term “Mentally Retarded”. Here is an excerpt from the Information for Authors on the American Journal of Mental Retardation (AJMR) website:
When context makes it clear whether an author is referring to people with mental retardation or when it is otherwise unnecessary to refer to intellectual level or diagnostic category, authors should use the most descriptive generic terms, such as children, students, or persons, without using qualifiers such as “with mental retardation,” “with handicaps,” or “with developmental disabilities.” Under no circumstances should retarded be used as a noun. Prepositional constructions such as “students with mental retardation,” or “individuals who have mental retardation’ are preferred over adjectival constructions such as “mentally retarded people,” except when clear communication dictates occasional use of adjectival designations. Because normal has multiple meanings and may inappropriately imply abnormal where it is not applied, this word should not be used. Instead, more operationally descriptive terms such as “intellectually average pupils” should be used.
(emphasis mine)
There is a lot of interesting stuff there. I like, most of all, the suggestion that generic terms (children, students or persons) be used as much as possible.
An interesting thing to note is that if you look on the journal archive page, you will see that starting in 2009, AJMR changed its name to the American Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AJIDD). This is in part to recognize the broader scope of the journal (which includes papers on autism, fragile-x and other conditions). When I first saw this change, I couldn’t help thinking part of the reason is to get away from the term “Mental Retardation” as well and this is confirmed by an editorial in the first AJIDD issue:
The Journal has also changed dramatically over the years, with the issues addressed reflecting advances in technology, the advent of new theories and methods in other fields, and changing societal concerns. These influences have also led to a name change for the Journal. In part, the change has been motivated by a desire to avoid the negative connotations that have come to be associated with the term mental retardation. I fully endorse this change in terminology because it reflects our field’s commitment not only to our science but to the people whose lives we hope to improve through our efforts. Quite simply, the change in terminology is a tangible sign of our respect for, and solidarity with, people who have disabilities and their families.
The phrase I focus in upon is “… to avoid the negative connotations that have come to be associated with the term mental retardation.” (emphasis mine)
You see, it wasn’t always that “mental retardation” held as negative a connotation as it does today. More to the point of this post–we don’t have to let “autistic” become negative.
From my vantage point it seems as though if we say, “Don’t call my kid autistic” or “Don’t call me autistic”, we are creating the negative connotation where one doesn’t exist today. What if “the blind” or “the deaf” had complained years ago? Would we now be cringing when we hear the names of societies for “the blind” or “the deaf”?
I am not so disingenuous as to ignore the major difference between deafness, blindness and autism. Of the three, autism is the one associated with intellectual disability and differences in personality. It is a harder battle to keep respect in the connotations of “autistic” than for “blind” or “Deaf”.
But, I for one am not willing to help make “autistic” a bad word.
Left Brain Right Brain 
“Aspie” for me, worse than “Retard” – I know I’m a lone voice. But to use the diminutive of the name of a disorder as a label…
If it was confined to use for us, by us – it’d be less of a problem for me.
But it’d still be a problem.
This debate is really about identity politics, and that is something only an individual can really resolve. I have this discussion among other friends… are they “black” or “African-American”? And its a pretty even divide, with everyone have their own reasons for preferring one over the other.
Then there is my son. He isn’t “white.” He’s “apricot.” And he will get upset if you call him “white.”
I have thus far abstained from referring to myself as a ‘person with homosexuality’.
I most often say “autistic people.” I don’t particularly appreciate person-first language (both for reasons Jim Sinclair mentions in the oft-cited articles, and because I just find “person with autism” an incredibly clunky thing to say). I don’t see anything wrong with saying “autistics” or “autists” either (although I find “autist” kind of an awkward word for my mouth)
I also generally use the blanket term “autistic” and not specify any kind of “diagnosis” (autism, asperger’s, etc.) unless it’s been made clear to me that this person I’m talking to/about has a specific preference to be called by something. I often discuss autism-related things with someone who prefers the term “aspie” or “asperger’s” for themselves, and when talking with them I take that into account.
That law about person-first language, while I’m sure well-intended, sounds a bit ridiculous in application. “Person with blindness”? Give me a break. What is wrong with “Blind person” or in an organizational name, simply “Blind”? Especially in an organizational setting where, indeed, a person’s blindness is kind of going to be the focus.
I personally identify as an Aspie, and don’t think I’ve ever used the term “person with Asperger’s”. I will use “person with autism” only when an individual clearly specifies that this is what they prefer to be/ for their child to be called, mostly because of the reasons stated by Jim Sinclair.
@Socrates
You’re not alone on this one. I also dislike “Aspie.”
Autistic is fine with me. “Person with autism” suggests there is a person, and then something tagging along with that person, autism.
Regardless, a person with autism is an autistic person.
Those AoA twats already wrote a blog called “Ban the A-word” last year, arguing that having Autism is a stigma, and “autistic” is an insult.
Pfff..
I also call myself autistic, hearing “Person has Autism” makes me cringe, because it’s usually accompanied by this patronizing soft language pseudo PC blurb, that George Carlin ridiculed so often.
A good example of this demonstrative “caring” language was the standard reply from Action for Children to complaints about their monster Dan ad. It contained all those usual phrases: “We didn’t mean to offend… sufferers of the disorder… living with the condition… those affected by autism…”
Basically they were saying: “Fuck off and complain to the Ad Standard Council!”
I find that sometimes people insist on “people with autism” because they see autism as such a horrid thing not to be so directly associated with one’s personhood, while I personally prefer to see autism regarded as something neutral in it self.
Autistic people, as far as I know, generally prefer “autistic.” I don’t know if someone like Jon Mitchell prefers “person with autism.”
If that’s the case, I would conclude that autistic people who are OK with being autistic prefer the term “autistic” and autistics who long for the mythical cure prefer “person with autism.”
There is a difference between “autistic” and “person with autism.” When you say “person with autism” you are implying that the autistic person is an otherwise normal person with something extra they carry with them. With “autistic” you are conveying that there’s a type of person called an “autistic person.”
Curebies obviously prefer person-first language because of the above.
I can see why people with some disabilities prefer person-first language. When the disability can’t really be separated from who the person is, however, my guess is that person-second language is preferred.
You wouldn’t say “person with blackness” or “person with gayness.” Think about why that would not be taken as an unimportant semantic choice by either black people or gay people.
Joseph said:
“Autistic people, as far as I know, generally prefer “autistic.” I don’t know if someone like Jon Mitchell prefers “person with autism.”
I think that in the minds of Mitchell and his mom, it’s always, “person cursed with autism”. To them, “person with autism” is too neutral and non-judgmental.
We can say a person has diabetes, is diabetic, or is a diabetic without being controversial. This is because the disease is not seen as the sum total of that person, and no one would argue curing it would be tantamount to murder.
That’s not true with autism. My daughter has a profound disability known as autism, she is autistic, but she is not an autistic nor an autist, She is much more than that. She is a human being, a child of God, not a disease.
Others feel that because of human developmental dynamics autism is so ingrained that cure is impossible or if possible would so drastically change the person that the old person would be killed off.
Autism has not benefitted my daughter in any way. So I support a cure. I don’t see that has making her a new person, but allowing the person she is blossom fully. Nothing would die, the burden of her disease would be lifted from her shoulders;
There have been people who have had their personalities greatly changed by brain tumors who have reverted to their prior selves after the tumors were removed. In these cases law-abiding peaceful people have turned into perpetrators of violent acts. There is no debate over which personality should win out. Of course there is also the problem of the tumor itself which has a good chance of literally rather than figuratively killing the person.
I wonder if a tumor has ever made a violet person loving?
If curing autism would result in such a drastic personality change, that a person would be figuratively killed, can one ask which person has more of a right to live?
You didn’t just say that, mayfly. Think about it. What does it say about the right to life of autistic people in general compared to the right to life of non-autistic people?
The right to life should not depend on the person’s characteristics. I don’t think most people would dare advance such an argument. (It’s an interesting point to raise in regards to prenatal genetic testing.)
About the claim that autism has not benefited some autistic people at all, I think it’s not relevant to person-first language. For example, some little people might say that dwarfism has not benefited them at all, yet still dislike “person with dwarfism.”
BTW, when was the last time you met a gay or black person who said they believe in civil rights only because they benefit from being black or gay?
Diabetes (especially Type 2) can be seen as a disease of overweight lazy people. By extension, ‘diabetic’ can be seen as a label of ‘lazy and fat’, thus people can and do attempt to distance themselves from it.
The idea that the label of ‘diabetic’ vs. ‘person with diabeties’ is not seen as a controversial subject does not tally with my clinical experience of people with diabeties.
Not a very smart condition to pick if you’re trying to argue against person-second naming.
Joseph I know exactly what I wrote. No one is talking about actually taking a life. The question is if there is an autistic personality and a non-autistic personality inside a person which one should be encouraged. I reject that the notion entirely, but those who feel that a cure is tantamount to murder, must in someway agree with it.
I don’t quite understand how the question on civil rights is germane. Are you saying it does not matter whether the person will have better quality of life without autism? Don’t confuse the quality of life with the value of life. Both personalities have equal value. Indeed if I thought there was anything to the two personalities theory then curing would be a much tougher proposition, because I have come to know and love my daughter as she is.
It is very germane to ask even in that case what would be better for her.
As I’ve seen other kids move up the spectrum due to education and maturity, I’ve never seen a child’s personality change. I have seen them become more confident and social, as they are able to throw off much of their chains of autism. They remain on the spectrum, and autism is still burdens them, but its weight is much much less.
Autism could benefit from more differentiating language, not less, like Eskimos and snow. The spectrum needs to be crafted elegantly in language with perspective so that the needs of the individual are met. To me, Aspie is an insider’s term that conveys self confidence. For those in the early developmental stages, especially those struggling with communication for subsistence needs, I choose a person first description – my child with autism – but labels in general should not be used gratuitously. I don’t think “autistic” needs to become an atomic word. It’s an expedient term that has can be used from a clinical distance, but not by me in how I talk about my family.
Um gottes willen, bin ich ja das was ich bin und likest thou not, then irrumare te.
peut etre je suis en retard avec quelgue chose, and so are the trains, especially with the snow, CP notwithstanding.
Dedj, the whole point was that the terms diabetic and autistic differ from each other in their social contexts.
Neither was I. But what you said, mayfly, did imply that an autistic person (assuming you concede this type of person exists) would have less of a right to life than a non-autistic person.
Call it civil rights, or asking for acceptance of one’s condition or way of being. The point has to do with your view that autism does not have any benefits. Be that as it may, a gay person would generally not argue that homosexuality should be accepted because it provides benefits. Neither would a black person, a woman, a dwarf, etc. Yet, you do appear to make the argument that without benefits, there should be no acceptance. In other words, for autistics to be considered equal, I get the sense that we are required to be better than equal.
You see it that way. The way I see it, an autistic person grows and matures, just like any other type of person. Would it make sense to say that an NT person moves up the spectrum of intellectual impairment as they grow up? It happens, clearly. A normal adult is generally much more intelligent (without adjustment for age) than a normal child.
Except they don’t, that was the point.
Generally, we accept ‘diabetic’ as a neutral term, because a: it’s so prevalant and we’re therefore likely to know someone with it, b: charaties and organisations have done the groundwork to dispel some of the negativity surrounding the label, and c: the debate about labelling of persons with physical conditions is significantly more advanced with positive condition-related self-identity having been around for donkeys years.
This doesn’t mean that the same points of contention surrounding labelling don’t exist for diabetes – it would be silly to claim they aren’t when charaties and organisations have to work so hard to dispel the ‘too much sugar’ and ‘fat and lazy’ stereotypes. People with diabeties can kick up a lot of fuss about the label, because there is still a lot of negativity about it around.
Dedj, I think we are fairly close on this. I didn’t consider the link between obesity and Type II Diabetes. However, I don’t think there are many diabetics which would object to a cure as it would change who they are. There is no Encrinodiversity Movement. Saying a person is a diabetic is thge same as saying he has diabetes. Saying a person is an autist)ic) is different than saying the person has autism.
It could appear as if there exist an assumption of that a life as autistic would be of less quality than a life as neurotypical.
I find it unscientific to assume any such thing.
It’s a bigger burden for many people due to stereotypes associated with any type of difference/disability that reflects how a person thinks and reasons than the difference/disability itself.
Overcoming another persons prejudices related to what can so easily be associated with your own personality can require the very skills that may be the area the person is less capable of. Often that skill is a limitation based mainly on how most of the dominant majority of people pride themselves….at the expense of others differences.
I think the dangerous treatments and ugly stereotypes for all thinking that is different or seen as less that typical indicates how far people will go to protect their pride.
I don’t think that autistics or anyone else can afford to be seen as needing what isn’t available and what the medical establishment attempts to treat in such dangerous ways.
Joseph, no matter which personality you choose to develop or suppress you are killing off the other one. So no matter what choice you make you are in a sense “playing God.”
Yes, a person who is low-functioning would have a better quality of life if the disability was removed. I measure this by having friends vs. being alone, being able to communicate vs. not having a voice, starting a family on ones own vs. not developing a long-lasting romantic relationship, caring about the plight of others, instead of lacking the capacity to feel or understand others’ pains, living as a part of society vs. being in an institution.
Now in the hypothetical situation where you have two personalities each with an equal right to come to fore, but only one can, perhaps quality of life is one thing which could be used.
Now the list above is certainly up for debate. Those higher up on the spectrum can and do many of the things which a person with low-functioning autism cannot. Also being NT us absolutely no guarantee that a person will have relationships or care about others.
“There is no Encrinodiversity Movement.”
Not strictly true, as there are several organisations , including the Department of Health and equivilant government depertments, that specifically look into the rights of people with diabeties as those right relate to their diabeties. There are even National Service Frameworks (effectively government mandates) dealing with exactly these issues. Ditto for any other major physical condition or the major mental health ones.
We accept condition-related identity in physical conditions precisely because of the work of physiodiversity movements, and because allowing people to identify thier condition as an intrinsic part of how they have become who they consider themselves to be is no longer considered controversial.
The history of societies acceptance of people in wheelchairs, or without vision, or the hearing impaired , is exactly identical to what autism and the neurodiversity movement is undergoing right now. That is, people try to seperate the person and the condition, then people react by pointing out that the charateristics of the condition are seen as intergral to the person when they are displayed by a ‘typical’ person, and that attempting to seperate the person from the condtions is both dispossessing the person and disempowering them.
We only accept the right to self-determine in physical conditions because we (as a society) have already been through this arguement, with the physiodiversity movement(s) winning several key and rather stunning victories.
People with diabeties still try to seperate the social identity of diabeties from the self-identity. In respect to autism, there is no difference. Merely stating ‘they are different’ does not make it so, except in your personal definition.
I don’t dispute that theoretical scenario. I do dispute the idea that it is the only or best way to achieve a better quality of life.
Joseph, we can give people better quality of life by being kind and loving and respectful, however the limitations of the person with autism, that can only go so far. If one could lift those limitations and treat the person with kindness, love, and respect that person would have a better quality of life.
Those with fewer limitations are in less need of a cure.
Ed, it is not a prejudice, that a person who cannot take care of himself is not as well off as a person who can. It is not a prejudice to say a person with friends is better off than being alone. But wait, there are people with autism who have friends and live independently. That is a different form of autism then the one I know.
If your only separation from the NT world is that you think differently, how has that resulted in prejudice toward you. Can you give me an example?
No I can’t and won’t attempt to answer a question so loaded.
I am more able and willing to attempt communication when I understand that what I see and can offer is what someone is interested in understanding.
Joseph is giving excellent examples and answers. If you are interested in learning, he’s your best bet.
Being autistic first of all means being different – which is neutral in itself. I would be wary of applying more attributes to being autistic such as what it would mean to quality of life and a person’s “limits”. I believe these things are very dependent on the interaction with a person and the person’s environment, and I also believe that certain environments could favorize an autistic mindset over a neurotypical in many respects.
100 years ago, a person who was black would have a better quality of life if the “disability” of being black was removed. That is still true today in many places.
We didn’t know how to remove the “disability” of being black then, and still don’t. By changing society such that being black was not as much of a “disability”, people who are black now have a higher quality of life than blacks did 100 years ago.
We don’t know how to remove the “disability” of autism, but we do know how to change society such that people with autism will have a higher quality of life.
It seems so obvious to me, that we should do what we can do right now to improve the lives of people with autism, rather than wait for a “cure” that may never happen.
daedalus, that racial comparison is very offensive to me. There is no way to bring quality of life outside of elimination of mental disability. There’s nothing else to it. The only thing about society that causes the disability is the fact that others have the capability that the mentally disabled lack, and that society doesn’t do enough to prevent impairments from happening.
Basic abilities shouldn’t be held by some people while others are deprived of them. It’s not all about having basic needs of comfort and safety met, but about the dignity of not being deprived of the capabilites that others have.
I would not sign this, it makes no sense to me. It could appear as if the author is defining quality of life as solely dependent on the mental disabilities of the individual.
Ivar, why don’t you want to discuss the merits of what I said?
With the limitations of any human being, quality of life can only go so far. If you go back one century, the limitations are even greater; which comes to show that society plays a crucial role in quality of life.
If you live in a desert island, you can have the greatest skills in the world and still have only a marginal quality of life.
Bullcrap, Billy. Read about the quality of life changes of people with Down Syndrome. Read about the deinstitutionalization movement. Read about institutionalization in Kanner (1971) and Kanner (1972).
That’s not enough Joseph. I don’t think enough quality of life has been attained if the impairments remain.
Every saturday I get some candy, and it compliments my saturday mood. I see that as something that brings quality to my life.
“There is no way to bring quality of life outside of elimination of mental disability.”
Really? This would be a major surprise to professionals working in the health and social care fields, who use multiple measures of QoL that aren’t dependant on severity of symptoms.
“The only thing about society that causes the disability is the fact that others have the capability that the mentally disabled lack”
Well , in a way, because we all lack abilities that others have. It’s the cut off line between ‘accomodated difference’ and ‘unaccomodated difference’ that creates impairments. In autism, this cut off line is part of the diagnostic criteria.
“and that society doesn’t do enough to prevent impairments from happening”
Ah bingo, you’re nearly getting it.
“I don’t think enough quality of life has been attained if the impairments remain.”
Luckily for us (and our health budget) it’s not up to you. You really would do well to listen to Joseph.
Sorry, but I must ask – what area is your clinical, academic or practice experience in?
BTW, daeadalus is correct in his analogy.
What mayfly said could be applied to a lot of things. If you can turn a black person into a white person, they will have better opportunities and thus a better quality of life. If you turn a woman into a man, they will tend to earn more. If you turn a gay person into a straight person, they will have better odds of marrying and lower odds of getting AIDS, etc.
All of those are true, but they are misguided approaches. They are also nonsensical to even consider as practical solutions.
BTW, the black race was seen at one time by some people as a kind of medical condition. It’s not difficult to find references. Let me quote a couple of passages from this (1864):
And…
How do you explain this stuff? Clearly, it has to do with the social construction of race at the time, and social constructions change.
“Really? This would be a major surprise to professionals working in the health and social care fields” What do they care? Unaccommodated and accommodated “differences” don’t make any sense, and have nothing to do with impairments. It’s not fair for someone to have a useful ability while someone else doesn’t, especially basic abilities.
“Luckily for us (and our health budget) it’s not up to you. You really would do well to listen to Joseph.” Who is it up to then? Why shouldn’t it be up to me? What do you want done? I don’t want to listen to him and endure the oppression of his intentions.
“Sorry, but I must ask – what area is your clinical, academic or practice experience in?” None. I don’t need any of that to know the common sense about the way things are.
Being black, female, or gay, don’t bring lack of capability leading to disability. Societal chauvinism caused the lack success they achieved. Mental disability isn’t anything else besides mental disability. Society doesn’t cause it, nor can changes in societal attitudes eliminate it.
Phony racist science from over a century ago doesn’t call into question whether mental disability is a disability or not. There is no sensible way to think so. Disparities in success between mentally disabled and non-mentally disabled people, aren’t due to anything besides uneven distribution of abilities among people. Societal actions that don’t interfere with the capacity to learn can’t make it better.
Impairments *are* unaccomadated differences. You don’t have an impairment until you are unable to meet a demand for a ability you don’t have. Bear in mind, the style with which you display that ability is also part of the demand.
“I don’t want to listen to him and endure the oppression of his intentions”
Then there is no point you being here.
“None. I don’t need any of that to know the common sense about the way things are.”
Then get some. You will very quickly learn that your ‘common sense’ isn’t actually all that sensible, realistic or even applicable outside the attendant value system.
If you’re not willing to learn, and not willing to listen, then this discussion is nothing more than us watching you do the blog equivilant of putting your fingers in your ears.
“Being black, female, or gay, don’t bring lack of capability leading to disability.”
No, but the attitudes of the time did. That is the point.
“Societal chauvinism caused the lack success they achieved”
Well done!!!
Now, let’s see if you can put the two points together…..
“No, but the attitudes of the time did. That is the point.” No, attitudes can’t make someone disabled. Preventing someone from doing something doesn’t necessarily happen through removing their ability to do so.
Sydney Smith
To rephrase it for those without enough imagination to understand what it means in this context:
It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing [for people with autism] because you can [not cure them and make them NT] – do what you can.
Dedj, get someone outside of these forums to agree that what you say is true or realistic. What is an “unaccommodated difference”? How does a lack of an ability not directly lead to an impairment?
“No, attitudes can’t make someone disabled.”
Total nonsense, we don’t operate in a vacuum. You really desperately need to listen to Joseph on this point.
“Preventing someone from doing something doesn’t necessarily happen through removing their ability to do so.”
Uh, being unable to do something that would be expected for your age, gender and culture is the very essence of ‘being disabled’. Note the word ‘culture’.
“Dedj, get someone outside of these forums to agree that what you say is true or realistic.”
Why? You haven’t, thus I’m working down at you level. Besides, it’s called the Social Model. Try looking it up one day.
“What is an “unaccommodated difference”? ”
Is this a serious question? It’s a difference in ability that is not accomodated – i.e. it lies outside societies tolerance, thus making it eligible to be an impairment.
“How does a lack of an ability not directly lead to an impairment?”
Because if there is no social obligation to have that ability, then lacking in that ability is accepted, thus there is no everyday situation in which one can be ‘impaired’. Again, one can only be impaired if there is a demand for that ability. Otherwise, you’re just different, not ‘disabled’.
I think you’re getting off of your main point, whatever that was to begin with.
“Total nonsense, we don’t operate in a vacuum. You really desperately need to listen to Joseph on this point.” How can you prove your point?
“Uh, being unable to do something that would be expected for your age, gender and culture is the very essence of ‘being disabled’. Note the word ‘culture’.” I’m tired of you dodging what I’m saying. One can still be able to do something but be prevented from doing so by somebody. Not being allowed to do something isn’t the same thing as not being able to do it.
The social model isn’t valid and makes no sense at all. “Is this a serious question? It’s a difference in ability that is not accomodated – i.e. it lies outside societies tolerance, thus making it eligible to be an impairment.” Yes it was. Differences in ability cannot be accommodated. Tolerance doesn’t have anything to do with it, and has nothing to do with something being an impairment or not. There aren’t really any useful abilities that aren’t demanded.
“How can you prove your point?”
That we don’t operate in a vacuum? It would be an insult to you for me to presume that was your question.
“I’m tired of you dodging what I’m saying”
But I’m not, you’re describing the mechanism behind what I’m saying to a T, but you’re veering off at a tangent at the last second everytime. One could make my arguement using your descriptions of how society works and not notice a difference.
I will have to say again, wheter or not a inability to do something is important enough to warrent calling it an ‘impairment’, is dependant on the requirement to do it and do it in that style.
Disability is simply a social statement saying ‘you can’t do what we want you to’.
“Not being allowed to do something isn’t the same thing as not being able to do it”
Oh , but it is, if the way you do it isn’t ‘allowed’. Try following the history behind disability access for an example of this.
“Differences in ability cannot be accommodated”
But they already are, as part of how society functions. Again, the recommendations by Joseph would be very, very helpful for you here. I can not stress that enough.
I’m getting the feeling that you’ve either not presented this arguement to other people before, or that you haven’t listened to what they’ve said. Either way you appear to be sorely lacking in relevant education and experience.
I’m not going to sit here and hand out free education to someone who has stated a disinclination to learn. Especially not if I’m going to be accused of ‘dodging’ the very questions I’ve taken time out of my day to answer.
“I will have to say again, wheter or not a inability to do something is important enough to warrent calling it an ‘impairment’, is dependant on the requirement to do it and do it in that style.” There aren’t many abilities that lack importance enough to not be impairments. What do you think about abilities that are important?
“Oh , but it is, if the way you do it isn’t ‘allowed’. Try following the history behind disability access for an example of this.” Someone still can do something even if they may not from someone keeping them from doing it in their own way. I doubt that such disallowing happens a lot.
“But they already are, as part of how society functions. Again, the recommendations by Joseph would be very, very helpful for you here.” How can mental disabilities be accommodated? What is so helpful about Joseph’s recommendations?
“Either way you appear to be sorely lacking in relevant education and experience” I don’t need your reeducation. I don’t need any other experience. You haven’t been straightforward with responses because of your mentioning of irrelevant situations.