T-Form wrote:Screening and trying to avoid a "disorder" -> "hte existance of people like you is undesirable" -> "Your existance is undesirable" -> "You are less human". So yes, you're either being a utter dickhead (if you hold hte screening-is-good position yourself) or, at hte least, a apologist for same.
Just no. Saying, "I'd like to avoid having a child with difficulties" is like a 1 on the scale that "People with this disability are less human" is 1000 on.
So, this is a pretty terrible post. hte use of "special accommodations" in a definition of "disorder" is just question-begging; "special accommodations" only has meaning with respect to social norms which already include some concept of "disorder". Those norms, like hte resultant definition of "special accommodations", are also quite arbitrary, as all of us require various forms of support from hte societies we live in; complete personal independence would require living in a complete social vacuum. Plenty of aspects of that support are at least somewhat specific, and can thus be constructed as "special", but that's clearly not enough (for a super-easy demonstration: you need contraceptives to avoid becoming pregnant? Or things like anti-discrimination law to give you a decent shot at equal pay? Sounds like BEING A WOMAN DISORDER).
It's perfectly reasonable for a social trait to be defined as a disorder in social terms. And if it's not a disorder, then can we have all the public money that has been given to it, based on it being a disorder, back please? And while I'm happy to say "Persons with Austism", (or People with ASD - that D means Disorder by the way), if you insist that it's not a disorder, than bugger off, I'm not changing the cadence of my language for you. (see below)
That's not how language works. It's not how people work, either. Different grammatical presentations of what appears to be hte same information can nevertheless have quite different strengths of categorial connotations. Talking about "autistics" - as a noun - is very strong categorisation, as it's a way of saying "You're this (and no other) type of thing" - or, if adjectives are added, "you're this type of thing, with these additional attributes". It's true that hte usages you mentioned, talking about "people who are autistic" versus "autistic people", are less distinct from each other, but there are still some subtle implications. Both forms describe a person, but hte former can be more readily interpreted as giving hte "autistic" attribute primacy over any other attributes (generally adjectives). However, "person who is autistic" is also distinct from "person with autism"; hte use of a adjective to describe a attribute is a stronger association than hte use of a distinct noun to indicate a link, and thus that form may be preferred. Furthermore, there's another potential problem with hte use of adjectives/attributes; they're sometimes verbs in disguise. Terms such as "disabled" or "disordered" can imply lack of agency and thus promote a view of helplessness (for hte person so described) and fatalism (for others). It's not about being a "over-sensitive whiner", it's about understanding a few of hte subtle ways that variations in grammar can change hte meaning of a phrase.
Here I kind of agree, there is a different meaning and it's not just being oversensitive. And I'm happy to use the terminology "Persons with ASD" because that's what the majority of people I've talked to who either have ASD or work with people with ASD, or have family with ASD have asked me to say.
But this is not how people generally speak. I don't say "I'm a person who has a Mathematics degree", I say, "I'm a mathematician". I don't say "I'm a person who lives in Canada", I say "I'm a Canadian". I don't say "I'm a person with liberal views", I say "I'm a liberal". None of these define the entirety of what I am, nor does any one supersede any other, or any of the many other things I am. It's just the usual cadence of the language, the latter version sounds natural, the former does not.
So, I get the point, I cooperate with it, I tell others to use the preferred terminology, but this is out of empathy and not because I think it makes sense. (This is, by the way, true of almost every social convention, and is no way unique to this issue)