Gardenia Report post Posted March 17, 2008 Just thought I would ask this as it has cropped up in another thread. Does anyone find it offensive to say that their child is autistic. My other child has diabetes and I don't think anyone has ever corrected me when I say he needs his insulin he is diabetic, whereas I have been reprimanded in the past to be told your child is not autistic he has autism. Is it political correctness going too far. Gardenia Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bid Report post Posted March 17, 2008 As someone on the spectrum I prefer 'autistic'. I say 'I am feminine'...I wouldn't say 'I have femininity', would I? Although I do say I 'have' AS, but I think that is more to do with the grammar...because I might say 'I'm Aspergers'...?? Bid Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mumble Report post Posted March 17, 2008 This forum doesn't allow swearing and I have no pennies left for my dinosaur swear box, so I'll make my reply simplistic: I am autistic. But quite frankly, if people want to mutter and worry about whether they're offending me or not, let 'um, as long as at the end of they day they get on with their job of supporting me. Sometimes (sorry Bard, I know this goes against your siggy) it's good to see others squirm a little. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bid Report post Posted March 17, 2008 (edited) It's interesting, isn't it, because it seems to be people who aren't autistic who feel the need to insist we 'have' autism!! Maybe they should try listening to people on the spectrum for once? Bid Edited March 17, 2008 by bid Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mumble Report post Posted March 17, 2008 Maybe they should try listening to people on the spectrum for once? Ooooohhhhhhh, that's a bit radical, isn't it? :lol: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LizC Report post Posted March 17, 2008 Hi i don't think it really matters but I kind of use both. I would say he has autism, but he is autistic. Or he has aspergers or he is an aspie! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted March 17, 2008 I'm pink therefore I'm spam... Personally, as i said in the other thread, I think its more important how people respond than the words they use... if somebody said Ben had 'Shatner's Bassoon Syndrome' and responded to him appropriately I'd rate that as much more important than somebody getting the 'has/is' bit right and getting everything else wrong... By the way, he hasn't got Shatner's Bassoon Syndrome - It's Nimoy's Flugelhorn Disorder and co-morbid Uhura's Sousaphone with complications of the Splatnik Ganglion Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Report post Posted March 17, 2008 "Autistic", "has autism", "has aspergers", "has AS", "has ASD", "is on the spectrum"... I've used all those phrases when talking about my daughter to people. It's not a question of what fits best, I think I instinctively choose the term which I think will be most recogniseable to the particular person I'm talking to, and convey the most accurate impression, depending on their background and experience. She herself won't use any label to describe herself - she even objects to ticking the gender box on forms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KateBall Report post Posted March 17, 2008 Just my own feeling - that if you "have" autism it sort of makes you think that it was acquired or could be taken away neither of which I feel describes the reality. I think you either are autistic or you aint (or according to the so called professionals who don't know one way or the other how to explain what you might be - instead you might "have" autistic traits ). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LizK Report post Posted March 17, 2008 "Autistic", "has autism", "has aspergers", "has AS", "has ASD", "is on the spectrum"... I've used all those phrases when talking about my daughter to people. It's not a question of what fits best, I think I instinctively choose the term which I think will be most recogniseable to the particular person I'm talking to, and convey the most accurate impression, depending on their background and experience. WSS^^^! I do the same, use various terms 'is' 'has' 'on' depending upon the circumstances. I remember being pulled up here for saying my son has autism rather than being autistic like I was trying to separate the autism from my son! Clearly I wasn't, it is an instrinsic part of him hence he IS autistic but autism isn't the sum of his parts either. He has his individuality and I would hate him to be defined simply by his autism, there is more to my boy, he is him! Lx Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elun1 Report post Posted March 17, 2008 Personally I think if you worry about this too much or pull other people up over this sort of thing you have too much time on your hands!!! Elun x Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucas Report post Posted March 17, 2008 It's down to personal preference and I'd be suspicious of anyone that said only one way of refering to it is correct. The objection I and quite a lot of others have to being described as 'having Autism' is that it has the opposite effect of what is intended. Some want to try and say 'person with Autism' emphasises the person and plays down the condition. It fails to recognise that self-identity is important to personhood and Autism is often see as part of it because it isn't easy to write down what is 'me' and what is 'Autism'. How many aspects of anyones personality can be taken out and replaced before they actually are a different person? A person is more than their memories, goals or predispositions. All can change and you'd still have the same person, but sometimes a very small thing happens and then they don't even recognise themselves. Right now there is a debate going on about what qualifies for a person to be British or be a 'person with British citizenship or residence'. That's one that's almost as perplexing. Is there Britsh person that we would describe as 'having Britsh nationality' rather than saying they are British? Never in a general context we don't. If we used the 'person with' or 'they have' langauge as the default general term we'd clearly be using a disfavourable canotation for them specifically. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted March 17, 2008 Is there Britsh person that we would describe as 'having Britsh nationality' rather than saying they are British? Zola Budd? Greg Ruzedski?? I have a British passport/I am a British passport? The yolk of an egg is white/The yolk of an egg are white? Are whites lemonade?? I'm a secret lemonade drinker........... Would you say 'he has a learning disability' or 'he is a learning disability' or 'he is learning disabled'... the only one of those that sounds wrong to me is the middle one, which sounds (IMO) most like 'he is autistic' implying that nothing outside of his autism is relevant or worthy of consideration. Ben has used both terms - I've never felt a need to correct him and i'm just proud/glad that he's confident enough to say it (way to go little dude )... but then he's not autistic - he's Bones' Cornet Disorder BD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bluefish Report post Posted March 18, 2008 My son is autistic.... he has autism... he is hfa.. he is aspergers... he has aspergers?? Who cares! He is my son and those that understand understand. and those that never wil never will.I think that those of us as parents who have asd children will always meet people that will never get it no matter which way we explain it.. and the adutls out there who are asd will have probably found it does not matter how you word it people either understand or they dont!! I have found sadly that most people THINK they know about autism but infact have no idea. I have been congratulated by some parents when I have tried to explain he is (or has) hfa. like it is some sort of prize. I cant blame them as they have no idea or understanding of the reality of it. I have found that the wording has or is has made no difference(so far) to the way people preact.... But then when my son is older maybe he will have a stong opinion as to how he is described? lets hope so......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mumble Report post Posted March 18, 2008 The yolk of an egg is white/The yolk of an egg are white? Erm ... the yolk is the yellow/orange bit, Baddad. I think the white is called the albumen? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lynden Report post Posted March 18, 2008 It was me that was brought up on it in an essay I wrote, which kinda surprised me seeing as it was for my postgrad cert in Autism Studies. I hadn't really thought about it before then. I agree with Kathryn and Liz though, I use both phrases depending on who I'm talking to. Lynne x Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bagpuss Report post Posted March 18, 2008 From my own perspective I don't feel it really matters how you phrase it, and I've used "has autism" "is autistic" "is Aspie" "has Aspergers" "on the Spectrum". I certainly wouldn't take issue with how anyone chose to describe themselves or their child, blimey, got bigger things to worry about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bid Report post Posted March 18, 2008 Just to confuse things further, a few years ago during my induction training at work (a residesi special school) we were told that the phrase 'special needs' is no longer acceptable!! I think I upset the trainer a wee bit because I pointed out that I was a parent of a child with special needs, it was the first I'd heard it was unacceptable, I didn't find it offensive and I would continue to use it as it was my child and my reality What annoys me is the fact that it seems to be people/professionals? who aren't parents and aren't on the spectrum themselves who make these arbitrary decisions about what we 'should' be saying As someone else said, the majority of us are too busy getting on with our lives to really care that much one way or another... Bid And no, I can't remember what we are meant to say instead of 'special needs'! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
baddad Report post Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) Erm ... the yolk is the yellow/orange bit, Baddad. I think the white is called the albumen? It's an old riddle, mumble - and you got it right , Q: Which is correct 'The yolk of an egg is white, or the yolk of an egg are white? (assuming the grammatical difference to be the point of the question, the average kid says 'Is white' to which you reply: A: No - Erm ... the yolk is the yellow/orange bit. The white is called the albumen And did you know that in olden times the yolk of an egg was called the 'Arrs'? It became the definition of an idiot - someone who didn't know their arrs from their albumen... --------------- Now, if a blue house is made with blue bricks and a red house is made with red bricks, what's a green house made of? Edited March 18, 2008 by baddad Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tally Report post Posted March 18, 2008 Just to make it even more confusing, my dad insists egg yolks are red! Personally, I use both terms ("is autistic" and "has autism") interchangeably. I think people should use what they feel most comfortable with, and I don't find either offensive. I think it has become an issue because of people saying it's wrong to describe someone as autistic, and other people have only responded to that. It's not considered politically correct to call someone autistic/diabetic/epileptic, because you are suggesting that the person is defined by their condition. You are supposed to say the person has autism/diabetes/epilepsy, because then you are acknowledging the person is a person like anyone else, and they have this condition. But I think there are differences in autism, because I believe it does affect the personality, and forms part of what makes the person themselves. If a person were cured of autism, I believe they would have a different personality to what you previously knew. If they were cured of diabetes or epilepsy, there would be no change to the personality, and you might not even be aware. There is a difference in meaning. That said, I do know people who describe themselves as diabetic or epileptic, and are quite happy with this description. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Report post Posted March 18, 2008 Zola Budd? Greg Ruzedski?? If Zola Budd had won an Olympic medal and Greg Rusedski had won Wimbledon they would have been British, no question. Q: Which is correct 'The yolk of an egg is white, or the yolk of an egg are white? (assuming the grammatical difference to be the point of the question, the average kid says 'Is white' to which you reply: A: No - Erm ... the yolk is the yellow/orange bit. The white is called the albumen And did you know that in olden times the yolk of an egg was called the 'Arrs'? It became the definition of an idiot - someone who didn't know their arrs from their albumen... --------------- Now, if a blue house is made with blue bricks and a red house is made with red bricks, what's a green house made of? Stop him, somebody, quick!! K x Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mumble Report post Posted March 18, 2008 Now, if a blue house is made with blue bricks and a red house is made with red bricks, what's a green house made of? :bounce: I know, I know. I'd forgotten about this one - I used to annoy my Mum all the time with it, repeating it over and over and over and over again - GLASS!!!!!! :bounce: Just to confuse things further, a few years ago during my induction training at work (a residesi special school) we were told that the phrase 'special needs' is no longer acceptable!! It's a difficult one, because things change and sometimes we can see certain terminology as no longer acceptable - and maybe in the future SEN will be (although at present none of us could probably see why). My Mum refers to my brother (ASD) as 'handicapped'. She always has (well it was the term in use 30 or so years ago) and always will. She's not going to change however much anyone tries - is it wrong - I don't know. I feel uncomfortable about her using it, but then maybe that uncomfortable feeling is more to do with what I think others will think? - I'm not sure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bagpuss Report post Posted March 18, 2008 Just to confuse things further, a few years ago during my induction training at work (a residesi special school) we were told that the phrase 'special needs' is no longer acceptable!! I think I upset the trainer a wee bit because I pointed out that I was a parent of a child with special needs, it was the first I'd heard it was unacceptable, I didn't find it offensive and I would continue to use it as it was my child and my reality What annoys me is the fact that it seems to be people/professionals? who aren't parents and aren't on the spectrum themselves who make these arbitrary decisions about what we 'should' be saying As someone else said, the majority of us are too busy getting on with our lives to really care that much one way or another... Bid And no, I can't remember what we are meant to say instead of 'special needs'! I use the term special needs all the time, and would of been as surprised as you were Bid........crikey, the world has gone mad Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Report post Posted March 18, 2008 It's a difficult one, because things change and sometimes we can see certain terminology as no longer acceptable - and maybe in the future SEN will be (although at present none of us could probably see why). My Mum refers to my brother (ASD) as 'handicapped'. She always has (well it was the term in use 30 or so years ago) and always will. She's not going to change however much anyone tries - is it wrong - I don't know. I feel uncomfortable about her using it, but then maybe that uncomfortable feeling is more to do with what I think others will think? - I'm not sure. Today's acceptable phrase will become politically incorrect tomorrow and then a term of insult further down the line. "Idiot" and "cretin" were acceptable medical terms once. So were "spastic" and "retarded". "Handicapped" is not an insult yet but considered a little quaint nowadays. Given the way language evolves, I expect the term "special needs" along with others in current use will one day become unacceptable and will be replaced by others. I like the term "additional needs" - it's more neutral and accurate. K x Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lynyona Report post Posted March 18, 2008 I get angry with dh he always describes kieran as special needs he never ever uses the word Autistic or Autism Why? he is Autistic or as Autism does he think by using the word special needs it paints a better picture and makes him less Autistic.Myself i have used both terms Autistic as Autism and also ASD and on the spectrum usually only to people that will know what im on about with on the Spectrum one. lynn Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sugarplum Report post Posted March 18, 2008 When talking about my son i say either, just whatever makes sense in the sentence i suppose, i think i tend to say that he is autistic more than say he has autism though Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bid Report post Posted March 18, 2008 (edited) Today's acceptable phrase will become politically incorrect tomorrow and then a term of insult further down the line. "Idiot" and "cretin" were acceptable medical terms once. So were "spastic" and "retarded". "Handicapped" is not an insult yet but considered a little quaint nowadays. Given the way language evolves, I expect the term "special needs" along with others in current use will one day become unacceptable and will be replaced by others. I like the term "additional needs" - it's more neutral and accurate. K x I have to admit that increasingly these days i find myself saying 'additional needs'... Bid Edited March 18, 2008 by bid Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mumble Report post Posted March 18, 2008 'additional needs' Additional to what baseline, though? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kathryn Report post Posted March 18, 2008 Additional needs requiring special educational provision as per the legal definition i.e. education which is additional to or different from that normally provided to children of the same age in mainstream. (I'm paraphrasing here). I suppose "special educational provision" would have to become "additional educational provision" we could then get rid of the word "special" altogether in relation to education. K x Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BusyLizzie100 Report post Posted March 18, 2008 Today's acceptable phrase will become politically incorrect tomorrow and then a term of insult further down the line. "Idiot" and "cretin" were acceptable medical terms once. So were "spastic" and "retarded". "Handicapped" is not an insult yet but considered a little quaint nowadays. Given the way language evolves, I expect the term "special needs" along with others in current use will one day become unacceptable and will be replaced by others. I like the term "additional needs" - it's more neutral and accurate. K x Hate to say it, but I have heard people using the word 'special' in a derogatory way, too. As in, 'He's a bit special, isn't he?' where in the past someone might have used the word 'retarded', for example. That upset me quite a lot, because 'special' is still very much part of day-to-day language, as in special schools and of course special educational needs. Lizzie x Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Karen A Report post Posted March 18, 2008 Hi All.Unfortunately I have come across ''Special Needs '' being used in a negative way too ...''he's Special Needs'' I think that whatever new vocabulary is brought in it does not take too long before it used in a negative way. Karen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
