“Person with
autism.” We've all been taught that this is the politically correct
terminology. The stated reason? It's important to establish that
you're talking about a person before anything else. That sounds nice
and accepting, doesn't it?
The big problem with
this rule is that I don't remember “people with autism” being
consulted about it. It is reasonable to assume that a group of people
might have an opinion on how they are to be referred to. I'd like to
state some of my opinions on it.
Before I continue, I
want to stress that what I'm saying here is my opinion and nothing
more. I've talked to several autistic people that mostly agree with
me, and I've also talked to some who don't. I don't mean to present
this as a representative opinion of the entire autistic community.
Only as a way to start a discussion.
I'll go ahead and
get the obvious part out of the way first. The label can, and
probably should, be left out unless it's relevant. Similarly, you
wouldn't refer to a person as neuronormal if it isn't relevant.
Now, the real
question is when the label is relevant, do you say “autistic” or
“person with autism?” The honest truth is that either one can be
acceptable. The most important thing is that you speak with respect
to the people you're talking about, and that they are not seen as
being anything less than full human beings. If you can do that, I
don't really care which one you use.
If you've been
reading from the beginning, you most likely would have the impression
that I have something against the phrase “person with autism.”
Here's why. As I said before, the reason given is to establish that
you're talking about a person. I'm not exactly comforted by the
thought that some people have to remind themselves that I'm a person
when they talk about me. I feel that it's a sign of a deeper problem
that a simple change in terminology is unlikely to change.
The other reason I'm
not fond of person-first phrasing is that it tends to reinforce the
idea that autism is akin to a disease. That there is a normal person
trapped inside a shell of autism. This is simply not the case. No
matter how functional a person becomes, the autism will always be
there.
My preference is
“autistic.” When something runs as deep as how your brain is
wired, it's hard to separate it from the person. Autism isn't simply
a set of behaviors. It affects how we think, how we process
information, and even how we sense the world around us. It's a part
of who we are, and that will never change.
I do understand that
there are people who disagree with me because they don't want to be
defined by their autism. I completely respect that, and, in fact, I
don't want to be defined by it either. However, I don't feel that the
answer to this is to go to person-first phrasing. I think the answer
is to simply bring it up when it's relevant and not mention it when
it isn't.
In conclusion, I
believe the most important thing is to see autistic people as people.
That should not require stating it before the label, in much the same
way that you don't talk about people with homosexuality or people with
blackness. Person-first phrasing does not
always promote person-first thinking.
No comments:
Post a Comment