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 
Billy, what if the posters started posting in a language you didn’t understand and ignored your requests to post in a language you did understand?
Not understanding the language is a disability that can be accommodated by using a language that you do understand.
You are saying that the only solution is to teach you the language so that you are not disabled. Having everyone communicate in a language that you do understand isn’t good enough. Unless you understand every language that can possibly be used, you will always be disabled.
daedalus, I’m not talking about different languages here. It’s not comparable.
Billy, according to your comment above it is directly comparable.
Not being able to speak a language means not being able to interact, have friends and be a participant in society. How is that not a disability? How is other people using language that the language disabled person can understand not an accomodation?
daedalus, I don’t think this is amusing how you twist around my words. Think about the people who lack capability to communicate with and understand any language because their brains are scrambled. Mental disability isn’t a joke. I’m not even going to explain the ridiculousness of what you just said and straighten it out, when you already know the answer.
“There aren’t many abilities that lack importance enough to not be impairments”
I can think of several, dependant on context. Swimming for example. Utterly unimportant in a urban setting, rather impairing in a fishing culture. Running in older people is another, great skill for kids, irrelevant in a care setting.
“I doubt that such disallowing happens a lot.”
Oh, holy f*ck. You really do need to read up on the history of disability. The only reason we have got to the state that we are in now with regards to disability access, is precisely because of people removing these ‘disallowances’ (a term you introduced by the way – there does not need to be active ‘disallowance’)
“How can mental disabilities be accommodated? ”
Go ask you local dyslexia teacher, or local autism service, or student services at your local college. There’s a wealth of information that you’ve obviously not bothered to tap into.
“I don’t need your reeducation. I don’t need any other experience.”
Evidently you do. Your arguements are painfully outdated, and rather limited in their concrete absoluteness. It’s embarrasing to remember when I used to make the exact same arguements.
“Think about the people who lack capability to communicate with and understand any language because their brains are scrambled.”
I deal with such people on a weekly basis.
You use another modaility, or accept that they can’t communicate and move on to what they can do. Bang, half the ‘impairment’ disappears through simply changing the demand for it.
daedauls is bang on with his language example.
But of course, knowing all this requires study and experience, two things you’ve stated you don’t have and don’t want.
There is no reason to debate further if you’re just going to be an self-important ass about it.
Goodbye.
Dedj, nothing you say disproves that mental disability is inevitably horrible. Alternative ways of doing things, accommodations and crap, won’t get rid of the impairments. Accommodations don’t help enough and they don’t provide a way for the person to be able to do the thing to be done. Period.
“I deal with such people on a weekly basis.” I wish you didn’t.
“You use another modaility, or accept that they can’t communicate and move on to what they can do.” There is no other modality. Accepting that they can’t do it is unacceptable. There is no moving on.
His language example makes me sick. I have experienced real circumstances. I don’t need your pompous, unvalidated, and out of touch innuendos.
I am reminded of something I read many years ago, I looked for it but couldn’t find it. It was a story about a woman whose mother took thalidomide when she was in utero and she ended up not having any arms. That was her only disability, and she had nearly fully compensated for it by using her feet. Her feet and toes had the dexterity of hands and she used them as another would use hands. Because she had no arms, she would zip up her dress in front and then turn it around.
She was married, with a child and did the shopping. She wore sandals and would take her foot out of the sandal, pick up produce and put it in her cart.
One day the manager of the grocery store where she shopped came to her and said that some of the other customers were bothered by her using her feet to pick up produce, that they thought it was unsanitary. It wasn’t, she washed her feet as often as other people wash their hands. She was always very careful to only touch the pieces of produce that she was purchasing.
She could tell that the manager didn’t believe what he was saying, and that he felt terrible telling her that she couldn’t shop at his store, but she knew that he would lose customers if she continued to shop there, and it was a small local shop that couldn’t afford to lose customers.
I don’t remember much else from it, but here was a woman who had a disability (no arms), had compensated for that disability (by using her feet), but was prevented from participating because the store wouldn’t let her pick up things with her feet. She didn’t need artificial arms, what she needed was for people to not freak out when she used her feet to pick things up.
I remember an interview on 60 minutes similar to that a long time ago. I couldn’t find that one.
This may be the one you were refering to in a video:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Woman-with-no-arms-takes-care-of-baby-drives-goes-shopping
You really like to say stuff that is obviously untrue, don’t you Billy? Countless examples have been cited showing that societal attitudes can and have disabled people.
Without any society whatsoever, you’d be severely disabled with little quality of life.
Daedalus, that is the best example I have ever read. If you don’t mind, may I borrow it?
Go ahead. It isn’t my example, I just remembered seeing it. It may have been 60 minutes that I saw it on.
The video only gave one example where a ticket taker at a movie wouldn’t take her ticket. It isn’t clear how she was supposed to see the movie she had aready paid for in that circumstance.
“You really like to say stuff that is obviously untrue, don’t you Billy? Countless examples have been cited showing that societal attitudes can and have disabled people.” The examples didn’t prove it. Attitudes can’t weaken someone’s skills or ability to learn. Attitudes can’t weaken someone’s brain. It doesn’t make sense. You don’t define truth. There’s no logic to that attempt to make real mental disability seem like it’s no problem.
“Dedj, Alternative ways of doing things, accommodations and crap, won’t get rid of the impairments. Accommodations don’t help enough and they don’t provide a way for the person to be able to do the thing to be done. Period.”
Except a significant portion of our health and social care budgets do exactly that. Ditto for the education budget. I’ve seen and been responsible for putting exactly these things in place, and I’ve directly seen the effects. You really are talking crap here.
“There is no other modality. Accepting that they can’t do it is unacceptable. There is no moving on.”
Wow, that would sure be a surprise to people using ASL, BSL, makaton, Braille, Moon, signalong, writing, touch talking, FC, ACD’s, objects of reference, motoric communication……….I don’t need to go on.
Again, you are utterly clueless, and obviously inexperienced.
“His language example makes me sick. I have experienced real circumstances.”
Many of the people here have experienced disability personally, including myself, but your personal feelings are irrelevant to the arguement anyway.
Also I’ve told you exactly what my arguement is called, and even invited you to look it up yourself. I’ve even given you hints about who you can see locally about it. You’ve thus far made nothing but self-referential and self-important statements and statements of deliberate refusal to seek any outside source what so ever. For you to call me ‘unvalidated’ is an absolute laugh.
This is just getting sadder and sadder. I hope, but doubt, your next response is worth reading.
“Attitudes can’t weaken someone’s skills or ability to learn.”
Durrrr! Performance is affected by volition, wolition is directly affected by self-efficacy! Self-efficacy is affected by negative experiences! Attitudes contribute to experiences!
This is basic pysch and occupational science!
This shouldn’t be so hard for you to grasp!
What exactly don’t you get?
Have you even bothered to look any of this up anywhere? To ask anyone?
“Except a significant portion of our health and social care budgets do exactly that. Ditto for the education budget.” I doubt they have made any breakthroughs. They can’t get rid of many impairments.
“Wow, that would sure be a surprise to people using ASL, BSL, makaton, Braille, Moon, signalong, writing, touch talking, FC, ACD’s, objects of reference, motoric communication……….I don’t need to go on” Who that is mentally disabled would want to settle for that stuff, whichever of those things apply to the mentally disabled?
“Many of the people here have experienced disability personally, including myself, but your personal feelings are irrelevant to the arguement anyway.” I doubt many people here have experienced disability, much less mental disability. I know that I don’t matter when it comes to the way you want things to be.
How is self-efficacy undermined by negative experiences? How do lack of basic skills/abilities not inevitably lead to impairments/mental disability? I wouldn’t look these things up as I don’t expect to see such things taken seriously.
Billy, Why don’t your read this paper where they show exactly that, that exposure to attitudes does affect mental abilities, in this specific case math performance in women decreases when they are led to believe (falsely) that math ability is related to genes on the Y chromosome.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5798/435
This is a specific example where “attitudes” (the idea that women are not good at math because genes for math are on the Y chromosome) “weaken someone’s skills” (those women’s ability at math).
Sometimes a the marketing of a disabling attitude doesn’t require as much thought as it does just knowing how to demand from someone in need that they learn the habit of impulse buying.
Such as: We operate with categorical scarce resources when defending those who we may consider weak in order to preserve those resources for the already proven, deserving strong.
As long as won’t (or convincingly show that you can’t) speak for yourself, you can sell us your right to dignity and self-determination with your complacency.
If however you are able to define your needs in an what we determine as an overly articulate manner, we may determine that you are smart enough to not need any assistance at all and capable enough of committing the evils associated with deceit.
For being presumed deceitful in this way, your punishment will come in a different form (or at least with a different label) and you will again define yourself to us (and what we consider the rest of civilized society), as a dependent, obsolete, and an unnecessary element to “our” society.
daedalus, removing someone’s motivation doesn’t decrease their ability to learn. Performance doesn’t always reflect ability. And that example doesn’t apply to many other things.
Are you for real? I don’t think you know the first thing about the factors involved in a person’s ability to learn. Heck, I’m no expert in that field, but I can easily see the above is nonsense.
Go to Google Scholar and look up “motivation and learning.”
Intelligence isn’t determined by motivation. If someone loses the motivation or the proclivities needed to learn, there isn’t a reason why those things can’t be restored so they can learn. This doesn’t apply to innate ability to learn. Mental deficiency doesn’t result from someone discouraging them to learn or perform. Basic abilities can’t be diminished by removing motivation.
“Basic abilities can’t be diminished by removing motivation.”
What are basic abilities?
Let’s assume this “innate ability to learn” construct exists, and it is fixed at birth for your entire lifetime.
Why does it matter that an action reduces your actual ability to learn and not your “innate” ability to learn? How is that relevant to what we’re discussing?
You shouldn’t act like innate ability to learn may not be true.
“Why does it matter that an action reduces your actual ability to learn and not your “innate” ability to learn? How is that relevant to what we’re discussing?” I don’t know. I wouldn’t consider such actions as decreasing “actual ability” to learn. It isn’t relevant to this discussion, and I didn’t want the topic of motivations/mindsets to learn to be brought up.
Ed, don’t pretend you don’t know. Think about things like speaking, understanding how to use language, using basic home appliances, how to shop, remembering to do things, driving, reading, writing, etc. How would you like going without those abilities?
I’m not pretending. I took the statement as your own definition and wanted you to clarify it. It *is* your own definition and it is filled with prejudice and assumption with no interest in understanding.
Ed, it’s not filled with prejudice and assumption. Period. No sane person would dispute the definition that I just said.
I dispute it. It’s false.
Ed, no way it’s not. You wouldn’t dispute it to many other people, or in regards to your own wants.
I’ve disputed it and proven it’s false for nearly 5 decades to everyone who has ever been in contact with me in any way.. So has have the rest of the population you claim to be advocating for.
Your insults are outrageous. You have no basis for what you claim and no interest in knowing. I assume that you’re lack of interest in learning here is an indication and the result of denying a lot of things for a long time.
Ed, you haven’t proven anything false. Your pompous attitude doesn’t make what you say right. Quit disputing reality. I don’t want to be reeducated and indoctrinated into your oppressive nonsense. Nobody can dispute what basic abilities are or their importance.
You deserve any insult I wish to throw at you, and I haven’t thrown the insults at you that I’d like to. The insults of your arguments sicken me. I know what it’s like to be mentally disabled from enduring it for a long time, so I’m not denying anything fundamental.
“Nobody can dispute what basic abilities are or their importance.”
My existence as well as that the entire population of mentally disabled people, proves that the validity of weather the impotence of these abilities is anything more than needless social demands. By that existence, we dispute “your” reality
Endure on.
Ed, it does not prove that. No way at all. Abilities aren’t needless social demands. It’s not fair to lack a basic ability, whether other people think that the person without that ability should have such an ability or not. If some other person is able to do something, why shouldn’t I get to be able to, especially if it’s something basic?
Who is that “we”? Where do you get off speaking on behalf of mentally disabled people? What justifies you in doing that? You won’t have the power to subjugate those like me forever.
They are needless demands in that society needs to learn to respect for people without them rather than demanding we be fixed.
I think you should get to have what you want if others who can’t aren’t treated in disrespectful ways as a result.
I looked up subjugate. It said yoked. I’m not doing anything like that. Nor could or would I have ever.
“Where do you get off” represents to me a bad trend in communication. If there is nothing to be learned here for anyone, I’d prefer to drop it.
I’m speaking for myself about what I see and have seen and my interpretation of my experience.
We, who society considers disabled, represent a myriad of abilities and disabilities as does the rest of society. We want more just as they do.
Many of us are denied what is basic to life like food water and shelter as a result of how we are seen. Many with no “official” label. Our needs are denied mainly because of their (the rest or the dominate)demands on us. I have come to believe this through my experience.
You or anyone else getting over the fence won’t eliminate the fence, it will just make it stronger and appear more valid. No ones liberation needs to come at the expense of others. This is unnecessary oppression and abuse.
I think you are potentially controlling me because of how you undermine motivation for efforts to devise cures for the things I endure. I don’t like that disparities in ability between me, and you and others, are maintained. Even if society respects those without the “needless demands”, that’s not enough, because people don’t like it when others are very much more able than them.
“Many of us are denied what is basic to life like food water and shelter as a result of how we are seen. Many with no “official” label. Our needs are denied mainly because of their (the rest or the dominate)demands on us” The injustice of that doesn’t justify keeping the mentally disabled from getting cured of their disability.
This thread has unfortunately deteriorated into an attempt to refute meaninglessness.
Let’s go back to basics for a minute. What is disability? Having a disability simply means that there’s something you can’t do that most people can do.
For example, if tomorrow everyone in the world suddenly grew wings, with the exception of Billy Cresp (who remains the same person he’s always been), then Billy Cresp would now be disabled. At that point we might see Billy grow fond of accomodation.
“This thread has unfortunately deteriorated into an attempt to refute meaninglessness.”
What? That isn’t true. I refute that as meaningless.
Joseph, why would I be fond of accommodation in such a situation?
I’ll leave but I didn’t describe what anyone said as meaningless and don’t like hearing it about me or anyone else.
Joseph, I have not read all the requirements. There is a difference in being held back by prejudice vs. being held back by inability.
The grand-parents of the 6 year-old boy who is almost completely mainstreamed now after nearly four years in special education are celebrating that because he has done it, despite his autism.
I read about wonderful accomplishments by young folks who have autism, but they are all about what an NT child would be doing anyway.
Does this mean the events are not worth celebrating. Off course not. They are fantastic events. They and the child are worth celebrating, but autism itself is not.
This is not to say that there are no autistic traits which can be helpful in problem solving, but when those traits become dominant, the traits can become a burden.
Obviously if the person has the capacity, they decide whether the burden should be lifted, and if they are burdened at all.
I wrote my last posting in haste. Joseph, companies do not have to make any special accommodations to employ people of different races. Also there is nothing which prevents a person of any race from doing any job.
People with physical handicaps are able to work in many cases because of accommodations. It would be insane to not employ someone in a wheelchair because there was no elevator to the second floor or no access to the building itself.
Physical handicaps can prevent a person from doing certain jobs. The person who could not interpret photographs could excel at writing software. He would be programmer who happens to be blind. The disability has nothing to do with the job.
When it comes to autism, I’m still not sure what accommodations need to be made and their costs. Certainly what can be done to aide those who are high-functioning enough to work. But companies are not welfare agencies and need a positive return on such an investment.
That’s why I’m calling myself Epsilon Semi-Moron this month, because obviously all our worth as humans depends on how productive we are.
/sarcasm.
If you don’t get that, you just don’t get it.
FWIW, it wasn’t about you, Ed.
“I doubt they have made any breakthroughs. They can’t get rid of many impairments”
Sorry but if your definition of ‘basic abilities is this:
“Think about things like speaking, understanding how to use language, using basic home appliances, how to shop, remembering to do things, driving, reading, writing, etc.”
Then , yes , that’s exactly what adaptations and accomodations do. Try asking an OT or SaLT what they do for a living.
“Who that is mentally disabled would want to settle for that stuff, whichever of those things apply to the mentally disabled?”
We weren’t talking about ‘settling’ for it, you were talking about lack of availablilty of it. You dodged the point and not very well either. P.s. , they’re all very well known methods used, but you’d know that if you had experience.
“I wouldn’t look these things up as I don’t expect to see such things taken seriously.”
I’ve already told you the name of one of the models of disability. I’ve already told you some people locally who apply these methods noted above and this model in practice. You’ve been given several hints by others and have even been given direct references.
This has been heavily discussed in the literature. It is extremely niave of you to assume it hasn’t, and monstrously arrogant to assume you’ve managed to come up with something “commonsense” that hasn’t been debated about before.
You have stated a lack of knowledge, a lack of experience and a lack of desire to gain either. You are clearly lacking an understanding of social systems and a lack of very, very basic pscychology.
I’m not going to guide you by the hand through this, as you seem to be accustomed to and appear to be expecting. It’s downright rude of you to have proudly done bugger all research but still expect to be taken seriously.
I would ask for an apology for your behaviour, but that would be applying my value system to you – something your arguement demands cannot and does not happen.
ooops, sorry for my dramatic exit, Joseph. I was in a defensive mood. Your point makes sense.
The exchange just before your comment was personal and there seemed to be a request that I show or prove qualifications of impairment and character as to why my view was relevant rather than on the merit of what I said. That was in part due to how I had gotten off track from the discussions content. I never see that as leading to a productive discussion. The points being made are worth pursuing without interfering personalities.
Yes, I believe we should clear the slate and go back to whatever initial point Billy was trying to make.
He’s obviously extremely confused, as evidenced by his constant switching of words and terms and irrelevant counter questions to responses.
A characteristic only becomes an impairment when that characteristic is in demand, the impairment only become a ‘disability’ if one would otherwise be expected to have that characteristic, and that characteristic is of importance.
Bear in mind – numerous examples of inabilitiies that are not also disabilities have been given. Examples of how context sets impairment have been given. References and examples of how adaptations, accomodations and attitudes can change demand and therefore definition of ‘disability’ and ‘impairment’ have been given.
Models of this mechanism have been referred to. Examples and mechanisms for attitudes affecting atributes, and thus impairments, thus disabilities, have been given.
Basically all of Billy’s concerns have been addressed, with examples given. Advice on further reading has been given repeatedly.
“Sorry but if your definition of ‘basic abilities is this:
“Think about things like speaking, understanding how to use language, using basic home appliances, how to shop, remembering to do things, driving, reading, writing, etc.”
Then , yes , that’s exactly what adaptations and accomodations do. Try asking an OT or SaLT what they do for a living.”
Dedj, are such adaptations really effective at making those things possible? Seriously. I’d be amazed. I wonder how they work.
I don’t care what literature the social model of disability and such things can be found in. I don’t agree with it. I don’t necessarily have to adhere to whatever someone in the social sciences part of academia says, as there seldom is a consensus about what they claim and views put out by them don’t stay the same over time. What is so lacking in my understanding of social systems?
I’ve looked at some literature about the social model of disability before, and when I see different people talking about it like it’s solid fact, they don’t consistently use the same terminology when referring to the concepts that they mean. So I doubt there is a strong agreement about the validity of the social model among those professionals who would know about it.
“A characteristic only becomes an impairment when that characteristic is in demand, the impairment only become a ‘disability’ if one would otherwise be expected to have that characteristic, and that characteristic is of importance.” Lots of capabilities fit those criteria and aren’t to be ignored.
“Models of this mechanism have been referred to. Examples and mechanisms for attitudes affecting atributes, and thus impairments, thus disabilities, have been given.” None of them were valid.
You’re entitled to not agreeing with it, and you can even propose your own model of how things should be done if you’re so inclined. Certainly, no one said it’s a perfect model. But the reality is that the model is used and millions of people depend on it every day.
It’s kind of like not agreeing with education. Well, OK, what do you propose instead?
I don’t know how many of the mentally disabled could depend on such a model, a model that originally came from activism by the physically disabled.