People First?: Issues Surrounding the Language of Disability #AtoZChallenge

Posted on by Astrid

Hi everyone and welcome to my letter P post in the #AtoZChallenge. I wasn’t really sure what to write for today’s letter and was still feeling a bit unmotivated, until I decided on a topic and now I’m excited to share. Today, I am going to talk about the language surrounding disabilities, particularly of course intellectual and developmental disabilities. I kind of provocatively titled my post “People First?”, because that, without the question mark, is often used as an argument for so-called destigmatizing language.

Which language, to be honest, isn’t destigmatizing at all. I mean, of course it is good that the term “mental retardation” got removed from the DSM (in 2013!). However, when you refer to someone as an “IB’er” (shorthand for “intensive support user” in Dutch), with “intensive support user” being code for a person with significant challenging behavior, it isn’t destigmatizing at all. And no, in my opinion, changing things around to person-first language (“person with intensive support needs”), doesn’t necessarily remove the stigma unless it is accompanied by an added awareness that someone is more than their support needs. As a side note, the only time I’ve heard the term “IB’er” used in reference to me, was by my staff saying I am not one, by which they mean I don’t need the harsh approach my fellow clients apparently need. I mean, it can’t really mean I don’t have challenging behavior, right?

With respect to people with intellectual disabilities in general, person-first language is commonly preferred by professionals. Whether this is less stigmatizing, I doubt. To be honest though, the abbreviations used in job descriptions and care profiles, usually don’t employ person-first language at all. For example, a treatment facility for people with mild intellectual disability and significant challenging behavior is referred to as a “severely behaviorally disturbed, mildly intellectually disabled” (“SGLVG” in Dutch) facility.

Whether people with intellectual disabilities / intellectually disabled people themselves prefer person-first or identity-first language, I do not know. Most autistic people prefer identity-first language, reasoning autism is an integral part of who they are. I, personally, don’t really have a preference. What matters to me is not the language you use to describe me, but the way you treat me. In this respect, whether you refer to my current care home’s population as having intensive support needs or displaying challenging behavior or as behaviorally disturbed, I do not care. The euphemistic approach here (“intensive support needs”), after all, does not do anything to change the staff’s attitudes towards us.

I Am Autistic #SoCS

Posted on by Astrid

I am autistic. Or I have autism, as politiically correct parents of autistic children would say. I prefer “autistic”. After all, autism is an essential part of my identity. It’s not like labels don’t define me and are just there for insurance coding purposes. Yeah, well, diagnoses do not define me. I am, after all, also multiple even though I don’t have a diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder anymore. Others do not define me. But my characeristics, including being autistic, do.

Saying “I am autistic” rathr than “I have autism” is preferred by the majority of autistic people. We also refer to ourselves as “autistic people” or even “autistics” rather tha “people with autism”. This is called idetity-first language, whereas “people with autism” is called person-first language and is politically correctly preferred by people wanting to erase the impact of autism.

I know, there are some situations in which a person may prefer person-first language regarding their own disability or identity. I don’t think this is wrong at all. However, people without said disability or belonging to said group should not dictate how we identify.

Identity-first language does not mean we can be called whatever the heck someone wants to call us. For example, a person with an intellectual disability should never be called “retarded”. That’s a slur. Even if said person has reclaimed that word – the R-word has not been reclaimed yet that often, but it might get to this point -, you cannot assume as a non-disabled person that you can just go about calling them the R-word. If in doubt, ask what a person wants to be referred to in regards to their disability or identity.

And of course, I want to be referred to by name most of the time. Unless another part or alter has taken over, but then some of them will be rather in your face about their name.

Don’t assume that political correctness is always preferred, but don’t assume anything really. We are all humans, all different and that’s valid. We should be loved and respected for who we are.

Linking up with Stream of Consciousness Saturday (yeah I’m late). The theme for this week is “-ic” or “-ical”.