Identify First Language (Autistic/ disabled) v Person-First Language (Person with Autism, Person with Disability)
Seriously, with the amount of airtime spent on this topic, one would think this is the only and primary issue facing autism. Can we move on already and just accept both. We have SO MANY CRITICAL ISSUE TO FOCUS ON and this is not one of them.
Let me remind you, person-first-language was literally the language of the disability rights movement (DRM). Without that, none of us can even move about in society. All our legislation uses this language
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
- United Nations Conference on Rights for Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)
These laws were meant to uplift us. So how can "person with autism" be degrading?
I was told that this was projects fragmentation, a separation of our autism from our human self. In fact if that is even possible, there are aspects of my 'undesirable parts of autism" that I would very much like to distance from, if that is even possible - like my behavioral challenges, mood swings, my OCD, my health issues. So that argument does not fly because I can't even separate those even if I want. So why are we having these circular arguments.
And if we think something is undesirable, instead of fighting it, let's take control of the narrative, let's own it, let's rebrand and repurpose it. When you reclaim language as a positive, it cannot be used against you. Others lose the power to use it as a negative against you.
The wheelchair user community have done this already - they have turned "cripple" into the very positive "crip" (Krip Hop, Crip Camp the Oscar nominated movie). That is such a BRILLIANT move and I am in deep admiration. I've heard one of my disabled professors, Dr Victor Pineda, being referred to as a "super-crip" by Stuart James (Exec Director of Berkeley Center for Independent Living) and I thought that term was so super cool.
Autism was a latecomer to the DRM and we adopted IFL later as well.
If a person wants to use IFL, that's fine too.
If a person want to continue using PFL that's fine too.
I would say let's use and encourage both.
Why is this important?
A few years back there was an NYT article that suggested re-introducing state run institutions. I think you will agree that institutions is "BAD" on so many levels - negates the entire DRM efforts which fought to get people out of institutions. There was a twitter storm over the article. But the criticism was NOT about INSTITUTIONS, but rather over the fact of "person with autism" used in the article.
How is "person with autism" more important than re-introduction of institutions?
What is this obsession of the autism community with a narrow focus on this one little issue of person-first over everything else. Our priorities are SO MESSED UP.
I understand that people can have preferences but seriously it does not merit the amount of discussion time it currently gets.
LETS ENCOURAGE AND ACCEPT BOTH. Let's make both as positive for us, so we don't have to keep circling this one issue.
Lets' move onto the real issues in autism please.
I'm reclaiming the use of "person with autism" and am not offended by it. It is not diminishing who I am. I am both 'autistic' and a 'person with autism'
- by Hari who is both "Person with Autism" and "Autistic"
PS: Language usages
Brits say : I'm going to visit my friend"
Americans like to say: "I'm going to visit with my friend"
Did the additional "with" change the meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment