"Aspie"

[Myrtonos]

I'm not saying that hair colour is offenisve, I've heard that the terms "ginger" and "ginga" are offensive.

 

[Cosmophylla]

It has a similar tone to a number of terms that are offenisve, other than the oft-mentioned example here are terms "ginga" and "darky".

So it is used in cases where the speaker intends to marginalise the victim?


When I heard "Aspie" used a number of years ago the tone seemed to try to convey otherness, or even "kookiness", weirdness, oddness, unusual or unpredictable or possibly immature behaviour. In itself that isn't so bad but it also implied mental illness, so when coupled with the still-prevalent (but slowly fading) stigma surrounding mental illness it can seem quite unkind. But to my mind the effect is to make the speaker, rather than the intended victim(s) look uneducated, narrow-minded, and dull.

Both of the examples you listed also seem uneducated and narrow-minded, I've never heard "ginga" or "ginger" used in a derogatory way but it could be that I choose not to hear people saying it. (I have absolutely zero comprehension of why anyone would find fault with a particular colour of hair... An utter nonsense to me. Red/ginger hair is bloody brilliant if you ask me.) I heard the term "ranga" used in topical mass media reporting when Julia Gillard was prime minister... I had been unfamiliar with that term as well, have no idea what it actually means (and don't really care because it sounds stupid anyway) and it also makes no sense to me at all.

As for the other slang term you mentioned, I don't think I've heard anyone say it. Certainly not anyone I would continue to listen to, anyway. Again, I can't see why anyone would find the colour of someone's skin a cause for insults. It's just weird.

I've never heard the shortened version of homosexual used and also I find it strange because it means "human", i.e. "Homo sapiens", so using it as an insult is nonsensical as well.

These all point to a desire to marginalise, to highlight differences and to imply that difference or otherness is undesirable. By extension it means the speaker enjoys towing the line, following others, riding on the bandwagon. And is fearful of difference. It also suggests a dissatisfaction with oneself, manifested in insults towards others as a means of boosting one's own self-esteem.

But still I can't understand why someone would say it to offend... What is the meaning behind the insult? Not just the psychological side of it (tall poppy syndrome, for example). I apologise to anyone if I'm being annoying, I just want to understand why people would say it to hurt others. I mean, how is it hurtful? Is it used against people who are not autistic?

 

[shinkansen]

I haven't told anyone at my office about my recent diagnosis. Prior to my diagnosis, something happened in the office, which does highlight misunderstandings.

In the office, we were talking about rail travel and it's my special interest. I said a few things about rail travel which prompted a colleague to exclaim "Rainman !" to me. I didn't respond.

If I get called "Rainman" again, I'm wondering if I should politely say something.

 

[tree]

I have used the word 'aspie.'
I am not especially fond of it.
Asparagus, as a joking/light hearted reference,
is a word I have used in conversation with a
couple people who could understand.

A problem with the word 'aspie,' to me, is that
it can seem overly cute, being a diminutive.
Mispronunciation can render it ass-pie.
Asperger's also suffers from people mispronouncing
the word. How many time have I heard it mangled
to ass-burger? Which then leads to in-group
humor about misunderstanding/mispronunciation.

I don't remember who claims the honor of using the
word 'aspie' first, in print. I read a book by some
female who said she did it first, but I don't remember
who that was. Does anybody recall?

 

[Myrtonos]

You might not be especially fond of "aspie", but what about "person with asperger's syndrome"? Is it true that Tony Attwood was the one who introduced it to the public?

 

[tree]

You might not be especially fond of "aspie", but what about "person with asperger's syndrome"? Is it true that Tony Attwood was the one who introduced it to the public?

I don't know who did.
Tony Attwood is a male.
The person who claims to have originated the term 'aspie'
is a female. That I remember. She refers to it in a book she
wrote, a rather casual book, not an academic work.

"Person with asperger's syndrome".....
As a person who has been diagnosed/labeled with
various physical syndromes, the phrase brings to my mind,
a stiff image. I'd prefer being labeled "person with asperger's
syndrome" to being called 'aspergical' though.

"Person with..." seems to imply that there is a blank object
to which novel additions have been imposed upon. Eagle
syndrome/asperger's syndrome.....[Not connected or similar.
Eagle is a physical condition. I am just trying them out, next
to each other, for comparison sake. To see what I think/how
I feel about the phrase "person with....etc"]

 

[Myrtonos]

I don't know who did.
Tony Attwood is a male.
The person who claims to have originated the term 'aspie'
is a female. That I remember. She refers to it in a book she
wrote, a rather casual book, not an academic work.

First of all, that the person who claims to have originated the term. Does she have any connection to Tony Attwood? The question was whether Tony was the first to introduce it to the public, not whether he coined the term.

"Person with asperger's syndrome".....
As a person who has been diagnosed/labeled with
various physical syndromes, the phrase brings to my mind,
a stiff image. I'd prefer being labeled "person with asperger's
syndrome" to being called 'aspergical' though.

What is the image and what is stiff about it?

"Person with..." seems to imply that there is a blank object
to which novel additions have been imposed upon. Eagle
syndrome/asperger's syndrome.....[Not connected or similar.
Eagle is a physical condition. I am just trying them out, next
to each other, for comparison sake. To see what I think/how
I feel about the phrase "person with....etc"]

So it seems you are saying that Asperger's is not an addition imposed upon a person. Would you say the same about attraction to the same sex? I've never heard of Eagle Syndrome.

 

[tree]

I don't know why anybody other than a dentist, orthodontist, or
the person affected by it would have heard of Eagle Syndrome.

To me, the phrase "person with asperger's syndrome" makes a visual
image of stiffness because of holding up the word/idea of a "person"
and connecting it to a syndrome. The person is being regarded as an
object, is the way it seems.

Probably Tony Attwood has done the most to popularized the term
'aspie.' I still don't remember and haven't been able to find the name
of the woman who claimed to have originated the word. It's been 3
years+ since I read the book she wrote. Seems like she may have
been English.

Hashing out whether humans are blank slates encumbered with syndromes
and tendencies or whether humans are composed essentially of elements
doesn't seem a fruitful set of concepts for me to think about. My only
point about the image seeming stiff to me is just that it does, for me.
Saying 'person with syndrome" makes a picture in my head and the picture
is of a 'person' as object with 'syndromes' being added. As if there were a
blank or ideal and then complications were added.

I was talking about the effect of words upon my thoughts.

 

[Myrtonos]

I don't know why anybody other than a dentist, orthodontist, or
the person affected by it would have heard of Eagle Syndrome.

In that case, I'm not sure what you mean.

To me, the phrase "person with asperger's syndrome" makes a visual
image of stiffness because of holding up the word/idea of a "person"
and connecting it to a syndrome. The person is being regarded as an
object, is the way it seems.

This contrasts with the idea that "aspie" somehow lumps the person and the syndrome together.
Do you imagine a person somehow (physically) holding up the term Asperger's syndrome?

Hashing out whether humans are blank slates encumbered with syndromes
and tendencies or whether humans are composed essentially of elements
doesn't seem a fruitful set of concepts for me to think about. My only
point about the image seeming stiff to me is just that it does, for me.
Saying 'person with syndrome" makes a picture in my head and the picture
is of a 'person' as object with 'syndromes' being added. As if there were a
blank or ideal and then complications were added.

So what mental image do you get from "person with the flu"?

 

[tree]

Does this mean you are willing to think about
how I think?
I am not very used to people who are willing to consider
how I can observe my own thinking pattern/style.

My sibling, for instance, last week said that I was only
interested in what I was interested in and that everything
I thought was trivial. I think, in general people are interested
in what they find...interesting. And saying that everything I think
is 'trivial' is condescending, shows a lack of interest in my
thoughts, and an inability or unwillingness to observe her own
thinking pattern. This seems ironic to me.

"Do you imagine a person somehow (physically) holding up the term Asperger's syndrome?"
No, the image I see when I hear or read the phrase "person with Asperger's syndrome" is
on the left a generic human, no features. On the right is an amorphous substance labeled
"Asperger's syndrome." Sort of a blob with the words, 'Asperger's syndrome' printed on it.

What mental image do I get from "person with the flu"?
I think of myself when I had a temp of 105, fifteen years ago
when I had the flu and I was laying in bed for several days.
A grayish image. Faded. My bed faced the window.

I used Eagle Syndrome as an example of another 'syndrome' in order to
contrast/compare how I thought/felt about describing a person as 'having
a syndrome.' I used Eagle Syndrome because that is one diagnosis I have
had and I remember feeling alienated when the doctors in the room said
this to each other, but at no point made an effort to include me in the
talk. I felt like an object. Of course, to them, I was an object.

 

[Myrtonos]

Does this mean you are willing to think about
how I think?
I am not very used to people who are willing to consider
how I can observe my own thinking pattern/style.

Just asking.

"Do you imagine a person somehow (physically) holding up the term Asperger's syndrome?"
No, the image I see when I hear or read the phrase "person with Asperger's syndrome" is
on the left a generic human, no features. On the right is an amorphous substance labeled
"Asperger's syndrome." Sort of a blob with the words, 'Asperger's syndrome' printed on it.

Now I understand.

What mental image do I get from "person with the flu"?
I think of myself when I had a temp of 105, fifteen years ago
when I had the flu and I was laying in bed for several days.
A grayish image. Faded. My bed faced the window.

So it's not like there is a generic human on one side and a substance labeled "Flu" on the other.

I used Eagle Syndrome as an example of another 'syndrome' in order to
contrast/compare how I thought/felt about describing a person as 'having
a syndrome.' I used Eagle Syndrome because that is one diagnosis I have
had and I remember feeling alienated when the doctors in the room said
this to each other, but at no point made an effort to include me in the
talk. I felt like an object. Of course, to them, I was an object.

I'm not saying you pretend to have Eagle Syndrome, but before you wrote as if you made it up. I didn't realise it actually existed.

 

[tree]

Myrtonos

I didn't even think that you were saying I was pretending to
have Eagle Syndrome or making it up. Never considered those
ideas. Eagle Syndrome came to mind because I was familiar
with it.

No, at the moment you asked about 'person with the flu' the
image it made in my head was the memory of myself laying
in bed with the temp, being sick for days. And the image was
from the outside, as if I was standing just behind myself.
I didn't see the scene as I lived through it. So, the syntax of
the phrase "person with....whatever" seems to do that, for me,
in general. Make a picture of person-as-object + whatever the
attribute is. The phrase invoke a personal image for me, but
it's still object + attribute.

Saying that I was not used to people asking about how I think
doesn't mean I am negative about it. Quite the contrary.

 

[Cinnamon115]

I've been looking online to see if I can find the law/regulation that says I have to use person first language when I'm teaching, but I can't find it. I sent in a question about that and if I can call myself Aspie while teaching to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act website, so maybe they will respond back soon. This whole thing is confusing me.

 

[tree]

I've been looking online to see if I can find the law/regulation that says I have to use person first language when I'm teaching, but I can't find it. I sent in a question about that and if I can call myself Aspie while teaching to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act website, so maybe they will respond back soon. This whole thing is confusing me.

It may be that I am the only one to not know what this is, but
I looked it up. I didn't know, this morning, that there was a name
for it. That was silly of me. Of course, every thing has a name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language
http://www.inclusionproject.org/nip_userfiles/file/People First Chart.pdf
The second of these links is particularly illustrative.

 

[Cinnamon115]

I looked at those too, but they only recommend using person first language. My teacher in class told me that it's required by federal law or regulations to use it when teaching. I couldn't find anything that says it's required by law, so that's why I'm confused.

 

[tree]

I looked at those too, but they only recommend using person first language. My teacher in class told me that it's required by federal law or regulations to use it when teaching. I couldn't find anything that says it's required by law, so that's why I'm confused.

Maybe your teacher would be
willing to tell you and the rest
of the class the particular law.

Just alluding, but not being
specific, leaves ambiguity.

 

[Cosmophylla]

[So, the syntax of
the phrase "person with....whatever" seems to do that, for me,
in general. Make a picture of person-as-object + whatever the
attribute is. The phrase invoke a personal image for me, but
it's still object + attribute.

This is the way my mind pictures it, as object plus attribute, as well:

Person with a dog.
Person with a black hat.
Person with a walking stick.
Person with autism. (This just looks/feels incongruous. Autism isn't something you can carry.)
Person with the flu. (I also see this as memories, but simultaneously see it as flashes of images of contagion. That is, images of the virus being passed from person to person. In some contexts, this phrase, "person with influenza" could be used. Such as in public health warnings.)

There is also this wording:

He has a dog.
She has a black hat.
The woman had a walking stick.
I have autism.
We have the flu.
I have myalgic encephalomyelitis. (True)

So this is also "people first language"? Wikipedia tells me that to avoid offending myself I shouldn't refer to myself as an asthmatic, but as a person with asthma... So I need to use clunky, excessive phrasing. It's interesting because I feel "I am an asthmatic" is more empowering, more about me, more personal, than "I have asthma."

"I have autism" still feels incongruous because the "I have" is used to denote possession, grammatically shown as subject plus object. "To have" is also used to mean "to be afflicted with". In this way I can say, "I had pertussis. Now I have myalgic encephalomyelitis," and it makes perfect sense because I was/am afflicted. However, I don't see autism as something I own, carry or am afflicted with. It's not an add-on extra, or an aftermarket product, or the fries with my burger. It's not an infection I picked up at the supermarket that I will eventually recover from. To me, to refer to a lifelong 'condition' with "I have (condition)" sounds victimising. If something is part of my genetic makeup or has been a lifelong part of my life (health), it feels as though I feel sorry for myself to say "I have (condition)". But i haven't explored this completely and am happy to consider other people's ideas about this wording.

This is my personal point of view, about myself. Others will inevitably see themselves or their autistic children in other ways.

 

[Myrtonos]

I didn't even think that you were saying I was pretending to
have Eagle Syndrome or making it up. Never considered those
ideas. Eagle Syndrome came to mind because I was familiar
with it.

I wasn't saying that, you wrote:

I don't know why anybody other than a dentist, orthodontist, or
the person affected by it would have heard of Eagle Syndrome.

It did sound like you were saying you made it up, now I know it is real, but don't know anything about it. It seems to have something to do with teeth.

No, at the moment you asked about 'person with the flu' the
image it made in my head was the memory of myself laying
in bed with the temp, being sick for days. And the image was
from the outside, as if I was standing just behind myself.
I didn't see the scene as I lived through it. So, the syntax of
the phrase "person with....whatever" seems to do that, for me,
in general. Make a picture of person-as-object + whatever the
attribute is. The phrase invoke a personal image for me, but
it's still object + attribute.

Yes, "peson with the flu" suggests that the flu can somehow be separated from the person.

Saying that I was not used to people asking about how I think
doesn't mean I am negative about it. Quite the contrary.

That's good to know.

I've been looking online to see if I can find the law/regulation that says I have to use person first language when I'm teaching, but I can't find it. I sent in a question about that and if I can call myself Aspie while teaching to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act website, so maybe they will respond back soon. This whole thing is confusing me.

If that's not the case, might you want to help call for aspies to be exempt from this when describing their own diganosable syndrome?

It may be that I am the only one to not know what this is, but
I looked it up. I didn't know, this morning, that there was a name
for it. That was silly of me. Of course, every thing has a name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language
http://www.inclusionproject.org/nip_userfiles/file/People First Chart.pdf
The second of these links is particularly illustrative.

I hadn't heard that term either.

This is the way my mind pictures it, as object plus attribute, as well:

Person with a dog.
Person with a black hat.
Person with a walking stick.
Person with autism. (This just looks/feels incongruous. Autism isn't something you can carry.)
Person with the flu. (I also see this as memories, but simultaneously see it as flashes of images of contagion. That is, images of the virus being passed from person to person. In some contexts, this phrase, "person with influenza" could be used. Such as in public health warnings.)

How about "person with orange hair and light skin"?

There is also this wording:

He has a dog.
She has a black hat.
The woman had a walking stick.
I have autism.
We have the flu.
I have myalgic encephalomyelitis. (True)

I have never heard of the latter, but anyway, how about "he or she has blonde hair and blue eyes"?

So this is also "people first language"? Wikipedia tells me that to avoid offending myself I shouldn't refer to myself as an asthmatic, but as a person with asthma... So I need to use clunky, excessive phrasing. It's interesting because I feel "I am an asthmatic" is more empowering, more about me, more personal, than "I have asthma."

Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, written from a neutrual point of view. It's not supposed to tell you how to call yourself.

"I have autism" still feels incongruous because the "I have" is used to denote possession, grammatically shown as subject plus object. "To have" is also used to mean "to be afflicted with". In this way I can say, "I had pertussis. Now I have myalgic encephalomyelitis," and it makes perfect sense because I was/am afflicted. However, I don't see autism as something I own, carry or am afflicted with. It's not an add-on extra, or an aftermarket product, or the fries with my burger. It's not an infection I picked up at the supermarket that I will eventually recover from. To me, to refer to a lifelong 'condition' with "I have (condition)" sounds victimising. If something is part of my genetic makeup or has been a lifelong part of my life (health), it feels as though I feel sorry for myself to say "I have (condition)". But i haven't explored this completely and am happy to consider other people's ideas about this wording.

As mentioned before, many others think that "aspie" is defining someone by their diagnosis, do you think if it like that, and do you have any problem with lumping the person and syndorme together?

This is my personal point of view, about myself. Others will inevitably see themselves or their autistic children in other ways.

So therefore you use the words you choose to use (bear in mind that "aspie" is part of the site name) and others use the words they choose to use.

 

[Cosmophylla]

How about "person with orange hair and light skin"?...
I have never heard of the latter, but anyway, how about "he or she has blonde hair and blue eyes"?

Myalgic encephalomyelitis = chronic fatigue syndrome = post-viral fatigue syndrome = chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome.

Yes, I use "person with blue eyes and fair skin" or "she has blond hair and dark skin" to describe someone's appearance. (Blonde = person with blond hair, as in brunette = person with brown hair ) {edit: I've just finished writing this post and come back to proofread and I suddenly realised I may not get what you are actually asking me! You are asking if I say "redhead" or "white" or something like that????}

Wikipedia is an enyclopedia, written from a neutrual point of view. It's not supposed to tell you how to call yourself.

Of course. I was being tongue-in-cheek. I wasn't meaning that Wikipedia literally told me to do anything. Rather, that by extension of the premise that "person-first language" uses that type of grammar, if I want to be PC and use person-first language and not hurt my own feelings as an asthmatic I should thus say "I have asthma". I was being lighthearted, poking a little bit of fun at the language.

As mentioned before, many others think that "aspie" is defining someone by their diagnosis, do you think if it like that, and do you have any problem with lumping the person and syndorme together?

I can understand that others may feel like this, but I don't feel that way about myself. As I don't see autism as an affliction that can be recovered from, but rather as a lifelong 'condition' (this does not refer to a medical or psychological condition; rather, as a state of being) that has basically defined who I am and how I am in the world, I am an Aspie. Aspie (or Autistic) is my tribe, my neurological kin. It gives me a feeling of belonging when for my whole life I have felt separated and different, like an alien. Saying "I am one of this tribe" means I belong. I like that feeling of solidarity. So within the context of neurology I will define myself by my diagnosis.

So therefore you use the words you choose to use (bear in mind that "aspie" is part of the site name) and others use the words they choose to use.

Yep. Now, if I'm in a situation where I know it's politically incorrect to use a certain term (such as "she is an Aspie", I'm not referring to something disparaging or rude designed to hurt people) I will change the words I use, for the sake of harmony, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

 

[Myrtonos]

Myalgic encephalomyelitis = chronic fatigue syndrome = post-viral fatigue syndrome = chronic fatigue immune dysfunction syndrome.

Oh yes, I've heard of chronic fatigue syndrome before.

Of course. I was being tongue-in-cheek. I wasn't meaning that Wikipedia literally told me to do anything. Rather, that by extension of the premise that "person-first language" uses that type of grammar, if I want to be PC and use person-first language and not hurt my own feelings as an asthmatic I should thus say "I have asthma". I was being lighthearted, poking a little bit of fun at the language.

I'm not sure why they even call it person first language.

I can understand that others may feel like this, but I don't feel that way about myself. As I don't see autism as an affliction that can be recovered from, but rather as a lifelong 'condition' (this does not refer to a medical or psychological condition; rather, as a state of being) that has basically defined who I am and how I am in the world, I am an Aspie. Aspie (or Autistic) is my tribe, my neurological kin. It gives me a feeling of belonging when for my whole life I have felt separated and different, like an alien. Saying "I am one of this tribe" means I belong. I like that feeling of solidarity. So within the context of neurology I will define myself by my diagnosis.

And nor should you feel that way as a member of a site where "aspie" is part of the site name.

Now, if I'm in a situation where I know it's politically incorrect to use a certain term (such as "she is an Aspie", I'm not referring to something disparaging or rude designed to hurt people) I will change the words I use, for the sake of harmony, as I mentioned in an earlier post.

Would it be a good idea if those who could prove that they meet the diagnostic criteria were exempt from the requirement to use person first language when describing their own diagnosis?