An autistic man died in a hot van today.

[conuly]

When children die in hot cars, I normally point out that it's surprisingly easy to forget a child in the back seat, and that this is fortunately a rare occurrence. No, I really do that.

However, in this case they had two counselors and a driver for four adults. I don't know how things are run, but I know that drivers of school buses are required to walk to the back of the bus at the end of their run, every day, to post a sign saying they checked for children. Why? To prevent this sort of thing from happening.

However, let's digress slightly. Way down at the bottom of the comment page there's THIS off-topic comment:

This message is for the author...I have noticed that gothamist does not use "person first language". Rather than saying an "autistic man" it is much more respectable to say "a man with autism". As a regular reader who works with people WITH disabilities I believe that as a popular website you should set the example for the public. People with disabilities are people first and wish not to be recognized by their differences. This is a horrible thing that happened and we can all help this cause by paying more attention to the way we discuss individuals with special needs.

This sort of comment really bugs me. I mean, it really REALLY does, and I just now, today, had a breakthrough and I think I get it! And it's not just because this sort of comment is all "I'm sooooo cooooool because *I* use obnoxious sparkly person first language and YOU don't, loser!" (I don't like person-first language as a general rule, can you tell? I feel it is more stigmatizing than just, I don't know, talking normally. Plus, it sounds really stilted.)

No, what gets me is that this guy, who "works with people with disabilities", thinks that his opinion is so important and so special because he has, like, great insight! Because he WORKS with DISABLED people! OMG!

He also lumps PWDs into a big group that all agrees on the same sort of terminology and who want and/or need him to speak for them*. Because if he spreads the gospel of person-first language far enough, this "horrible thing" can be "helped" because at least we'll all use the right words!

When you read it like that, it sounds all patronizing and condescending, doesn't it? (And while I don't want to be *judged* by my differences, I think having them recognized is a good thing. If you don't recognize people by their differences, how will you know to accommodate their needs?) And I'm sure he doesn't mean to come across that way, but... dude. Before you spout off about how "autistic" is "just not respectful!", go ahead and educate yourself first. Just google it. Make an effort, no matter how small, to make sure that there aren't any prominent dissenting opinions from the people who actually are in a position to know what they're talking about.

I actually left a comment, but it didn't go through. Probably just as well. If I got a polite, respectful reply back it'd ruin my whole day, I'm raring to argue. And if I got "Well, what do you know, you're not like the people *I* know...!" I'd actually be upset.

*In fact, nifty link notwithstanding, as a group autistics have a diverse range of opinions about which terminology is best. This is because we actually *are* a group of people instead of a monolithic entity. This is why you will rarely catch me saying "Autistics like" or "Autistics want" because it's not right. MOST or MANY or SOME is more the thing you should say, as accurately as you can manage.

Comments

[steorra]

The fact that this article

This sentence breaks off midstream.

[conuly]

You're right. I was going to say something, and then stopped. I thought I got rid of it all!

[mc776]

We talk about "male" and "female" people, and even about "men" and "women" and "boys" and "girls," not about "people with maleness" and "people with femaleness."

...maybe we should start doing that. O_O (though I totally agree with the writer's third point, which in turn is of no prejudice to the unparentheses'd point I made just now.)


But anyway, yes, this quibbling over other people's precise conformity to one's own prescriptive garbage should be called out and stamped out whenever possible. >:| (Heck I'm almost tempted to ask if I could comment with a rant on your behalf...)

[conuly]

Go ahead. My comment didn't go through. Twice it didn't! If you can go through, I'm all for it.

[mc776]

"You must be logged in to comment."

Bleh.

And I see a couple people have already responded with some form of effective verbal facepalm, so I'm even less inclined to. :|

[conuly]

I don't think "fart" counts.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

We use person-with language when we are speaking about mental or neurological diagnoses, because we believe those are things that have been attached to people. We're sick of hearing "I am DID", "my son is ADHD", we even heard "my daughter is epilepsy" once. While we're not going to get into the whole DID vs. MPD vs. just-plain-multiple thing here, and whether or not we think mental disorders actually exist or were partly or wholly made up to make $ for drug companies, we don't think it's a good idea to say "I AM" coupled with a psychiatric diagnosis. If people believe, for instance, that being multiple is an illness called DID, saying "I am DID" makes about as much sense as saying "I am spinal stenosis" or "I am migraine headaches" if you had those.

(Although we used to know this guy in another system, when he was grouchy we'd say "Got a headache?" and he'd say "I am a headache.")

[conuly]

Well, I don't think DID and ADHD *can* take "to be". They're not adjectives, they're nouns. But epileptic instead of epilepsy at least follows normal speech patterns (although if epileptics as a group prefer "has epilepsy", I'll go with that of course, or if a few individuals do I'll go with that when talking to/about them).

So saying I'm autistic makes sense, but saying I'm autism doesn't, which is probably why it's only used for creepy ads.

[leora.livejournal.com]

While I am not a migraine, I am a migraineur. I'm not sure why certain diagnoses get special labels for people who have them and others don't, possibly it's a matter of how old the label is and how commonly people it applied to were discussed. Since ADHD is a much more recent diagnosis, I don't think a term that means person with it exists nor an adjective form (such as the ability to say, "I am a blind person" where you can't say "I'm an ADHD person" (which I personally am not, but that isn't the linguistic problem with it).

[redbird]

I wouldn't say "she is autism," but both "an autistic person" and "a person with autism" seem reasonable: they're both adjectives. If the person has a preference for one or the other, I'll go with that, of course: their selves, their self-descriptions.

It also seems to me that the adjectives can be normalizing: she is tall, he is blind, she is Canadian, they are Deaf, he is young, I am bisexual. We don't feel a need to talk around things and say "people who are young" or "they have Canadian-ness." Someone who isn't comfortable using bi or bisexual as an adjective probably isn't comfortable with the concept/reality.