I am autistic, an autist, not a “person with autism”
I am autistic, an autist, not a “person with autism”
I don't like being referred to as a "person with autism". I can't just set it down, it's not something I can remove. It is fundamental to the way I interact with the world, right down to how stim enters my brain. If my brain has types of inputs no allistic person can even approach, and methods of processing inherently different, it is an existence no allistic person can reach. There is no version of me that is not autistic.
A "cure" is the same as shooting me and replacing me with someone else.
The type of person I am is autistic. I am autistic.
I know it is a big trend in anarchist spaces to use person first language, but in many situations that just sounds like eugenics to me. Personhood is not some distinct universal experience. There is no “ideal human mind” floating out there in the aether for them to recognize in me.
I get that person first language helps some people recognize that thoughts happen behind my eyes, but if the only way they can do that is by imagining I’m them, I don’t care.
This language long predates whatever "spaces" you're taking about, it even predates the "spaces" idea.
The medical communuty, especially psychology, was making this switch multiple decades ago, because it's more useful.
Within CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy), it's a foundational element to say "I have condition X", rather than "Condition X has me", otherwise there's no hope of learning new ways, new perspectives, on a given condition.
I refuse to say "I am X". You may choose that, but I'm not going to be constrained to such limiting, ossified, internal dialog.
And (edit: traditional) CBT is widely known to not be effective (and in fact often harmful) for autistic individuals. There is no "winning" over autism, you can only learn to live with it, and its limitations.
I used to have the mindset of "not letting autism restrict me". It led to two rounds of severe burnout, depression, cPTSD, and anxiety, lasting multiple years, as well as severe skill loss.
Uhm I don't know your cultural background but at least around where I am the "own limitations" part is a crucial element of the therapy aspect. Accept your own limits to and work with your strengths.
Managing and accepting restrictions is what is thought here for therapists (at least the fields I'm in closer contact with.
This "widely knowing" people are at least not scientists as the last meta study I am aware of basically says "not enough data": https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7265021/
That said: there is a high risk of discussing local variations on various therapy approaches and it's even highly likely I'd guess that you're absolutely correct for your medical cultural background and my lense is highly dissorted (from your pov) by my own.
I feel pretty much the exact opposite on your choice of words.
Although at the end of the day I don't really give a shit what people call me. I am me.
I think you got the eugenics relationship reversed: reducing a person to one of its characteristics, is the eugenic way, which aims to eliminate all the unwanted "characteristics == people" in search of some "ideal human".
When you say "I am an autist", you're dismissing all other characteristics about yourself, including that of being a person with human rights attached to it... along with a skin of some color, hopefully two legs, a couple eyes, some ability to read, use some tools, some knowledge, etc.
In non-eugenic spaces, personhood is the recognition of a minimum common ground, not some ideal to be compared against. If any of the "anarchist spaces" you mention, does it the other way... an "eugenic anarchist space" would be news for me, but strictly speaking they are orthogonal classifications.
Yeah, I can see where they're coming from, but someone being called a "person with autism" is being explicitly recognized as a person, while calling someone an "autist" is not necessarily recognizing such.
That dehumanization is much closer to how eugenicists would refer to supposed "sub-human" groups (e.g. "blacks", "gays", etc).
I've always said "I have autism" rather than "I am autistic", as it makes it a characteristic rather than my whole person.
Although it could be argued that since autism isn't really an ailment like diabetes, is it fair to state it as such? We need adaptations to function in society, but it's not a disease nor does it needs curing.
Huh, I thought this was a non-issue nowadays and people knew to use "they are autistic" etc, guess I was incorrect.
For the record, I'm also autistic, have autism and unlike others here think it hasn't limited my thinking or stopped me from changing and working within the bounds I have like everybody, regardless of neurotype, has.
I actually think the opposite of most commenters here, by not allowing us to be ourselves and recognise how we work, that's the thing that sets us back, overwhelms us etc more.
If we are wanting to improve ourselves we must first recognise what and who we are and then work within that so we can do that, but it should never be done for other people or because society demands it, that way leads to bad ends.
I don't like "autistic person" I would rather just have "autistic".
Fair enough, I just wasn't sure how to work with that grammatically, thanks for helping me!
As far as "labels" go, I personally avoid them. I am me, you are you. Each one of us is a complex, layered, and often changing unique individual. I definitely have characteristics which can be useful in helping someone (someone else, or myself) to have a better understanding of who I am when explored at some depth.
However, I am not just a gathering of characteristics. "Me"-ness is greater than the sum of my parts. Does autism play a substantial role in what it means to "be me"? Sure. It's still just one thing out of so, so many that make up "me," and it's all too easy for someone (someone else, or myself) to put too much weight on that one aspect of me, and not enough on me.