What do you guys think of "person first language"?

[kbb0]

So person first language is the idea that we should say "person with autism" instead of "autistic"/"autistic person" or "person with cancer" in instead of "cancerous person" because you're trying to value the human part of them before whatever it is they have or are.

Originally my roommate (an NT with some neurodiverse qualities) who did a lot of research on autism to support me when I first found out was telling me about person first language and I thought "ok yeah I guess that makes sense". But then I was reading an article the other day about the argument against first person language when it comes to identity and I really liked that point of view. It said that when it comes to an identity (for example autistic, black, queer, Jewish), as opposed to something that doesn't do a person any good like having cancer which is usually not considered an identity, that by putting the identity second you are trying to erase a part of who they are. (Cancer survivor however would be an identity)

I honestly don't know if there is a right or wrong answer to this, I just know in my opinion I like the idea of being called autistic, though I wouldn't be upset or perhaps even notice if someone said individual with autism. I just wanted to hear your thoughts. Which do you prefer or do you simply not care?

Here is the article in full if you are interested in reading it. It presents both sides of the argument which I appreciate. Identity-First Language

I hope that made sense, I tried to be as clear as possible but I'm not always good at explaining things.

 

[Nervous Rex]

I definitely like the intent of person-first: to emphasize that a particular condition or role is not the person.

However, in my own speech, I find myself slipping into “I’m a programmer” and “I’m autistic.” I guess I’m too lazy to slow down enough to use person-first language.

 

[MrSpock]

I think it's a silly thing to worry about. In Latin languages objects come before the colours of those objects, in English colours come first... we would say a white shirt, whereas a French person would say a shirt white (only using different words, of course). I don't think that French people are being insensitive to colours any more than we're being insensitive to shirts.

People have enough trouble getting ideas across clearly without worrying about additional rules that do not aid in the efficient and accurate transfer of ideas from one person to another.

 

[On the Inside]

I also rather like the intent of "person first", and now that I think about it, that is how I often refer to people, and other beings, things. Sort of the Latin form, thing first, descriptor second.

But I am also one of those people who Identify myself by what I do, what I have. So I ride a bike, while others (those who ride bikes) are people who bike.

 

[Bolletje]

Who calls people with cancer “cancerous people”?
Other than that, I don’t really care whether we’re called people with autism or autistic people. When referring to myself I’m 50/50 between saying I have autism or I am autistic. Both are equally true to me, neither are offensive to me.

 

[On the Inside]

I guess I don't quite get the idea of identity being wrapped up in a description. While I might know that someone is Catholic, (or person of Catholic Faith) I do not presume that I know anything more about their identity from that.

Like I said, I don't quite get what it really means. I took a few courses in college that were based on the philosophy and politics of identity, and they were very challenging for me. Very interesting, yet difficult.

 

[kbb0]

I guess I don't quite get the idea of identity being wrapped up in a description. While I might know that someone is Catholic, (or person of Catholic Faith) I do not presume that I know anything more about their identity from that.

Like I said, I don't quite get what it really means. I took a few courses in college that were based on the philosophy and politics of identity, and they were very challenging for me. Very interesting, yet difficult.

Yeah I get how language can be difficult and interesting at the same time as someone who does not always understand hidden meanings but loves to write.

 

[On the Inside]

I find I really need to have it spelled out for me. Thats why I like people who wear sports team clothing. You instantly know something about them that is not a problematic identity thing.

 

[sarepta]

Just wanted to mention, when talking about language, that in Norway one can actually say "I am an autist". So it's not an adjective, as in "I am autistic", neither something you have, like "I have autism", just what you are. That said, I don't know if norwegian people with autism would prefer one or the other. Would it matter to you guys, if you spoke a language where you could say "I am an autist"?

 

[OkRad]

Touchy subject. It reflects the way people see us. Not just the term "autistic", but people tend not to be overly sensitive to any "other" unless they are touched by the adjective in question.

It also bothers me that people even have to adjectify others. I had an aunt who would do this with great regularity. "This is Pete. He has schizophrenia." It would not have made it any more palatable to say, "This is Pete the schizophrenic", or "Pete, he who hath schizophrenia," etc. etc. Why not just "This is Pete"?

If Pete wanted to say he had schizophrenia, then however he chose to say it, fine. But that would only solve the problem for him. Maybe his housemate also has schizophrenia and maybe he likes to call himself schizophrenic while Pete wants to be called a person with schizophrenia.

Everyone is different and I think it is best to let people define their own differences. Even if they have a blatant one and decide to reject that, well, excellent. Maybe Pete would like to say, "I am Pete. I am Inspired. Touched by the gods. " After all, the term "schizophrenia " is a very late one considering people have had it for as long as human have been alive.

 

[WildCat]

I really don't care. First name alone would be nice, but I suppose the PC crowd needs a guidebook on all things appropriate. I've been called worse.

 

[LearnedCoward]

I say I'm autistic, or that I have autism. Either is okay with me.

"I am a person with autism" is not. It's tortured language.

Besides, if you have to remind people that someone is a "person with a disability", you have to remind them that they are a person.

 

[Graphin]

I don't really know how normal people percieve this and the usage of the label changes their view. Having autism means for me having the label, and just somehow sounds bad for me. I see autistic as an adjective as for being on the spectrum, which describes a range of tendencies (the statistical way).

 

[Magna]

The following from a great article doesn't surprise me at all:

 

[SDRSpark]

It wouldn't upset me if someone calls me a "person with autism".

It would really tick me off if I referred to myself as an autistic person and someone tried to correct me.

I've noticed that this fight tends to only happen with neurological or psychological conditions - for example, I'm not aware of any such argument surrounding the terms "diabetic" or "person with diabetes" - they seem to be used pretty much interchangeably. I've never heard of anyone getting upset about it one way or the other (I'm sure that it happens, but it seems to be rare.) Someone is just as likely to say "I'm diabetic" as they are to say "I have diabetes" and it's not surprising to hear the same person use both terms depending on the day and context.

All that said, if I have to pick a preference, I prefer "autistic person". The idea that there is some normal person trapped inside me desperately trying to escape, or that there's some part of me that isn't autistic and that I can be "fixed" is still entirely to prevalent and I feel that person first language reinforces that belief. There's nothing wrong with being autistic, and until society at large figures that out, the two terms aren't exactly equal.

 

[Soleil]

I prefer "I'm autistic", but I'll use person-first language when it's syntactically convenient: "I have autism and ADHD" is easier and more natural than "I'm autistic and have ADHD", but I would never say "I am a person with autism and ADHD".

So I prefer "autistic", but I'll say "I have autism" too, but I'll never call myself "a person with autism" because that's just unwieldy.