EKS Posted February 14, 2022 Posted February 14, 2022 What does it mean when someone makes the "I love you" sign, but with their hand facing backwards?
Rosie_0801 Posted February 14, 2022 Posted February 14, 2022 In my world it would be "rock on" as a leave taking gesture.
lulalu Posted February 14, 2022 Posted February 14, 2022 Depends on how it is done. Spiderman move Rock on I love you but the person doesn't know to turn the palm side towards you
lulalu Posted February 14, 2022 Posted February 14, 2022 Also depending on the sentence in ASL you can sign directionally. So I could say the sentence like "you said I love you to me" and point the I love you hand towards myself.
katilac Posted February 14, 2022 Posted February 14, 2022 Sometimes it just means they're bad at ASL.
SHP Posted February 14, 2022 Posted February 14, 2022 5 hours ago, lulalu said: Depends on how it is done. Spiderman move Rock on I love you but the person doesn't know to turn the palm side towards you Depending on the context they could be messing up the sign for "bullsh*t"
SHP Posted February 14, 2022 Posted February 14, 2022 1 hour ago, katilac said: Sometimes it just means they're bad at ASL. I am bothered by this. No one is "bad" at language, they may be in the process of learning or they may have a language based disability and are trying really hard, but due to reasons they cannot control are struggling. I have been trying to teach a family member who has a rather significant language based disability some basic ASL so they can communicate with Deaf family friends. It has been almost 4 years and they still struggle with "nice to meet you". They put up two fingers on each hand and struggle with hand orientation, it frequently ends up "nice to have intercourse with you." When they try to sign "intercourse" they have the pointer and pinky up on both hands. They are trying, but the reality is that their language disability is such a huge barrier that they will always struggle. They are not "bad at ASL" they have a disability that prevents them from being proficient.
EKS Posted February 14, 2022 Author Posted February 14, 2022 13 hours ago, lulalu said: I love you but the person doesn't know to turn the palm side towards you 9 hours ago, katilac said: Sometimes it just means they're bad at ASL. For whatever reason, I didn't think of the possibility that they were just doing it wrong! With young people today (this person is in their thirties but acts like they are in their teens), I always think that I'm the one who's clueless with stuff like this, but perhaps that's not the case here. Thanks all!
katilac Posted February 16, 2022 Posted February 16, 2022 On 2/14/2022 at 2:11 AM, SHP said: I am bothered by this. No one is "bad" at language, they may be in the process of learning or they may have a language based disability and are trying really hard, but due to reasons they cannot control are struggling. I have been trying to teach a family member who has a rather significant language based disability some basic ASL so they can communicate with Deaf family friends. It has been almost 4 years and they still struggle with "nice to meet you". They put up two fingers on each hand and struggle with hand orientation, it frequently ends up "nice to have intercourse with you." When they try to sign "intercourse" they have the pointer and pinky up on both hands. They are trying, but the reality is that their language disability is such a huge barrier that they will always struggle. They are not "bad at ASL" they have a disability that prevents them from being proficient. The end result isn't really affected by why you cannot do something well, and I don't see a practical difference between being bad at something and not being proficient at something. I mean, if you can't say "nice to meet you" after four years, that goes rather farther than "not proficient;" it's kind of the definition of being bad at languages. We're all bad at something, often many things, often for a specific reason. I have no coordination, so I am bad at sports. People with poor depth perception are often bad at driving. People with language disabilities are often bad at languages. I don't have a language disability, so that can't be my reason for being bad at ASL, but I am. I think it's my lack of visual-spatial skills. Sometime we're bad at certain things, and that is fine and acceptable and the world keeps turning even though I can't tee a golf ball to save my life. 8
SHP Posted February 16, 2022 Posted February 16, 2022 7 hours ago, katilac said: The end result isn't really affected by why you cannot do something well, and I don't see a practical difference between being bad at something and not being proficient at something. I mean, if you can't say "nice to meet you" after four years, that goes rather farther than "not proficient;" it's kind of the definition of being bad at languages. We're all bad at something, often many things, often for a specific reason. I have no coordination, so I am bad at sports. People with poor depth perception are often bad at driving. People with language disabilities are often bad at languages. I don't have a language disability, so that can't be my reason for being bad at ASL, but I am. I think it's my lack of visual-spatial skills. Sometime we're bad at certain things, and that is fine and acceptable and the world keeps turning even though I can't tee a golf ball to save my life. I hope you will read this with an open mind and follow some links that I will include. Re the bolded part of your post. Language proficiency isn't an all or nothing thing and many people are not aware of the different levels or why it is important. Here are the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines heads up, it is dry reading. Language is vital to human connection and those who struggle have a language disability. My issue was with your language and usage of the word "bad" re someone's language ability. The word "bad" carries negative connotations and is considered offensive when used in to describe disabilities. I will use your comparison of your golf skill to language disability in context of other disabilities, hopefully these examples help clarify for you Would you say the following to a person with these disabilities? -Your being bad at sports is the same as a quadriplegic being bad at walking. -Your being bad at sports is the same as a blind person being bad at seeing. -Your being bad at sports is the same as a Deaf person being bad at hearing. I sincerely hope you wouldn't tell a quadriplegic that your being bad at sports is just like their being bad at walking. Words are very important when it comes to talking about disabilities. This is a good starting point. This is from page 3, I put a green dot next to the most relevant row.
EKS Posted February 16, 2022 Author Posted February 16, 2022 1 hour ago, SHP said: I sincerely hope you wouldn't tell a quadriplegic that your being bad at sports is just like their being bad at walking. Um, just because you wouldn't tell a person with a disability that they were "bad" at the thing doesn't mean that they aren't bad at it. I think you're taking a comment that was meant to be lighthearted a little too seriously. 8 1
katilac Posted February 16, 2022 Posted February 16, 2022 1 hour ago, EKS said: Um, just because you wouldn't tell a person with a disability that they were "bad" at the thing doesn't mean that they aren't bad at it. I think you're taking a comment that was meant to be lighthearted a little too seriously. Yep, lol. 2
SHP Posted February 16, 2022 Posted February 16, 2022 2 hours ago, EKS said: Um, just because you wouldn't tell a person with a disability that they were "bad" at the thing doesn't mean that they aren't bad at it. I think you're taking a comment that was meant to be lighthearted a little too seriously. That is ableism. I take ableism very seriously. 1
katilac Posted February 16, 2022 Posted February 16, 2022 12 minutes ago, SHP said: That is ableism. I take ableism very seriously. I'm glad you take it seriously, but I disagree that saying a person with disabilities is bad at something is ableism. It's counter-ableism; I don't think having a language disability is either inspiring or tragic, and I think a person with such a disability is just as capable of realizing that they are bad at ASL as anyone else. And, of course, there's the tiny little fact that I didn't tell anyone they are bad at anything. OP asked what doing the reversal of a sign might mean, and I simply said it might mean they are bad at ASL. I also think your story is silly and perhaps a bit overwrought in a potentially ableist way. He is having trouble with a common phrase, but it's hardly the only pleasantry that exists. Be sensible and learn a new phrase, my man. One that won't result in this level of error, one where a mistake perhaps means "pass the ham" instead of "I enjoyed having sex with you." It's not a tragedy that he can't master this particular phrase; there are plenty of others to choose from. Here are the examples of 'everyday ableism' given by accessliving.org: Choosing an inaccessible venue for a meeting or event, therefore excluding some participants Using someone else’s mobility device as a hand or foot rest Framing disability as either tragic or inspirational in news stories, movies, and other popular forms of media Casting a non-disabled actor to play a disabled character in a play, movie, TV show, or commercial Making a movie that doesn’t have audio description or closed captioning Using the accessible bathroom stall when you are able to use the non-accessible stall without pain or risk of injury Wearing scented products in a scent-free environment Talking to a person with a disability like they are a child, talking about them instead of directly to them, or speaking for them Asking invasive questions about the medical history or personal life of someone with a disability Assuming people have to have a visible disability to actually be disabled Questioning if someone is ‘actually’ disabled, or ‘how much’ they are disabled Asking, “How did you become disabled?” 3
EKS Posted February 16, 2022 Author Posted February 16, 2022 1 hour ago, SHP said: That is ableism. I take ableism very seriously. It is not ableism. It's merely speaking the (not overly nuanced) truth about the reality of a person's abilities. Though I realize that reality isn't in vogue these days. 2
EKS Posted February 16, 2022 Author Posted February 16, 2022 Also, I should point out that the person in question is not disabled in any way. 1
SHP Posted February 16, 2022 Posted February 16, 2022 25 minutes ago, katilac said: 1. I'm glad you take it seriously, but I disagree that saying a person with disabilities is bad at something is ableism. It's counter-ableism; I don't think having a language disability is either inspiring or tragic, and I think a person with such a disability is just as capable of realizing that they are bad at ASL as anyone else. 2. And, of course, there's the tiny little fact that I didn't tell anyone they are bad at anything. OP asked what doing the reversal of a sign might mean, and I simply said it might mean they are bad at ASL. 3. I also think your story is silly and perhaps a bit overwrought in a potentially ableist way. 4. He 5. is having trouble with a common phrase, but it's hardly the only pleasantry that exists. Be sensible and learn a new phrase, my man. One that won't result in this level of error, one where a mistake perhaps means "pass the ham" instead of "I enjoyed having sex with you." It's not a tragedy that he can't master this particular phrase; there are plenty of others to choose from. 6. Here are the examples of 'everyday ableism' given by accessliving.org: Choosing an inaccessible venue for a meeting or event, therefore excluding some participants Using someone else’s mobility device as a hand or foot rest Framing disability as either tragic or inspirational in news stories, movies, and other popular forms of media Casting a non-disabled actor to play a disabled character in a play, movie, TV show, or commercial Making a movie that doesn’t have audio description or closed captioning Using the accessible bathroom stall when you are able to use the non-accessible stall without pain or risk of injury Wearing scented products in a scent-free environment Talking to a person with a disability like they are a child, talking about them instead of directly to them, or speaking for them Asking invasive questions about the medical history or personal life of someone with a disability Assuming people have to have a visible disability to actually be disabled Questioning if someone is ‘actually’ disabled, or ‘how much’ they are disabled Asking, “How did you become disabled?” 1. Are you a person with a disability? I am, as is my family member. You do not get to define ableism. You chose a word that has a negative connotation to describe a person struggling with a language and that is form of Linguicism and ableism. 2. You said the following, "Sometimes it just means they're bad at ASL". The word bad is my issue. You could have phrased it differently. "Sometimes it means that someone hasn't mastered a sign" 3. My story was honest with a real example, calling a person's struggle "silly" is ableist. 4. Do not assume gender. 5. You are assuming that the person with the language disability is not struggling with other phrases. Guess what, they do. I used the example that is used to explain the five parameters in sign language, handshape, movement, location, palm orientation, and non-manual markers at the college where I work. 6. Look at you, quoting a website that lists a very small number of overt forms of ableism that you clearly do not understand, while ignoring the social prejudices and covert micro aggression that you engaged in. "They struggle with X, therefore they are 'bad' at it, and yes it is OK to say that." That is quite literally a social prejudice and a form of ablism. 1
SHP Posted February 16, 2022 Posted February 16, 2022 (edited) 16 minutes ago, EKS said: It is not ableism. It's merely speaking the (not overly nuanced) truth about the reality of a person's abilities. Though I realize that reality isn't in vogue these days. Comparing a person's disability to your own "weakness" is ablism. That is what Katilac did. They quiet literally compared their lack of talent with sports to disabilities. Their lack of sports talent will never interfere with their daily living and interacting with the world around them. Their Inability to hit a golf ball is absolutely nothing like not be able to access the world around them or independently perform routine daily living tasks. If you really would walk up to a person in a wheel chair and announce to them that they are "bad at walking" and think that it is merely speaking the truth, then that speaks volumes about you. My 4 year old has more tact and compassion. Edited February 16, 2022 by SHP
EKS Posted February 17, 2022 Author Posted February 17, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, SHP said: If you really would walk up to a person in a wheel chair and announce to them that they are "bad at walking" and think that it is merely speaking the truth, then that speaks volumes about you. You are literally the only one here who is suggesting such a thing. Edited February 17, 2022 by EKS 2
KSera Posted February 17, 2022 Posted February 17, 2022 6 hours ago, SHP said: My issue was with your language and usage of the word "bad" re someone's language ability. The word "bad" carries negative connotations and is considered offensive when used in to describe disabilities. I am a parent of an adult child with multiple disabilities. I think your specific experiences may be coloring how you are interpreting the "bad at ASL" comment and generalizing it to a context it didn't apply to. My kid with disabilities is one who happens to use the "bad at" something wording to talk about the things they particularly struggle with. They identify and claim that as part of their identity as someone with that disability. They might say something like, "I'm bad at understanding tone" or "I'm bad at reading facial expressions" or "I'm bad at alphabetizing" all of which are things they struggle with due to various disabilities. For them, these aren't personal flaws they feel badly about, but things they feel are natural outcomes of their particular disabilities, which they don't feel the least bit bad about having (and are in fact quite proud to identify with their disability). I know there are other people who may feel differently and find that a negative word. I wouldn't personally use it to describe someone else's weak skills. For the statement in question, it wasn't directed toward an explanation for why a person with a disability might have trouble making a particular ASL sign. People were throwing out all manner of possible explanations, and one of those possible explanations could potentially be that a (non-disabled) person was bad at sign language. I'm bad at French. If my pronunciation is ridiculous, it's because I'm bad at French. That doesn't mean I'm calling someone with a language based disability who speaks French indistinctly bad at French. I have a younger child who actually does have a language disability. I would never use the same words to talk about his word pronunciation that I might use for mine. That doesn't make it insulting to those with disabilities if I use those words about my own poor word pronunciation. 8
katilac Posted February 17, 2022 Posted February 17, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, SHP said: 1. Are you a person with a disability? I am, as is my family member. You do not get to define ableism. I sure don't get to define ableism. Then again, neither do you. There are lots of definitions, feel free to cite some of them. And you also don't get to ask whether I have a disability. I mean, obviously do do get do so, but I also get to tell you it's none of your business. Do you also ask people using the handicap spot if they have a disability? In what situations do you feel it's okay to question people about their disabilities? Yes, I could have phrased it differently. I chose not to do so, and, after reflection, I am still okay with saying "Sometimes it just means they're bad at ASL." If it's a real example, I'm not giving them a free pass for not switching to a different pleasantry. Their struggle to learn ASL is not silly, but insisting on using that particular sign over and over again, for years, knowing they are going to make that specific mistake a good deal of the time? Silly. I didn't assume gender. I thought you had said 'he' - I guess I have a bad memory. No, I clearly stated that I did assume they were struggling with other phrases, but that they could choose a different phrase to struggle with, one where the repeated mistake would be related to say, a ham sandwich, rather than sexual relations. Your insistence that their language disability means they are doomed to accidentally thank people for sex every time they attempt ASL is ridiculous. The idea that someone would insist on continuing to do this after almost four years is ridiculous. There are numerous pleasantries, they should retire this one. Look at you, winning people over to your side with charm and flair! Yep, I sure did post a list of types of ableism. It's similar to many other lists, but, if you don't like, you can certainly post your own. Edited February 17, 2022 by katilac 1
katilac Posted February 17, 2022 Posted February 17, 2022 3 hours ago, SHP said: Comparing a person's disability to your own "weakness" is ablism. That is what Katilac did. That is not what I did. 1
SHP Posted February 17, 2022 Posted February 17, 2022 53 minutes ago, katilac said: 1. I sure don't get to define ableism. Then again, neither do you. There are lots of definitions, feel free to cite some of them. 2. And you also don't get to ask whether I have a disability. I mean, obviously do do get do so, but I also get to tell you it's none of your business. Do you also ask people using the handicap spot if they have a disability? In what situations do you feel it's okay to question people about their disabilities? 3. Yes, I could have phrased it differently. I chose not to do so, and, after reflection, I am still okay with saying "Sometimes it just means they're bad at ASL." 4. If it's a real example, I'm not giving them a free pass for not switching to a different pleasantry. Their struggle to learn ASL is not silly, but insisting on using that particular sign over and over again, for years, knowing they are going to make that specific mistake a good deal of the time? Silly. 5. I didn't assume gender. I thought you had said 'he' - I guess I have a bad memory. 6. No, I clearly stated that I did assume they were struggling with other phrases, but that they could choose a different phrase to struggle with, one where the repeated mistake would be related to say, a ham sandwich, rather than sexual relations. Your insistence that their language disability means they are doomed to accidentally thank people for sex every time they attempt ASL is ridiculous. The idea that someone would insist on continuing to do this after almost four years is ridiculous. There are numerous pleasantries, they should retire this one. 7. Look at you, winning people over to your side with charm and flair! 8. Yep, I sure did post a list of types of ableism. It's similar to many other lists, but, if you don't like, you can certainly post your own. 1. Actually, yes people with disabilities DO get to define ableism. Again, you stated you are bad as sports as a comparison to a person with a language disabilities struggles. Being bad at sports is NOT a disability, making the comparison is ableism. ADA definition is "A substantial, as opposed to a minor, impairment. substantial impairment is one that significantly limits or restricts a major life activity such as hearing, seeing, speaking, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for oneself, learning or working."under the ADA, you must have, have a record of, or be regarded as having a substantial, as opposed to a minor, impairment. A substantial impairment is one that significantly limits or restricts a major life activity such as hearing, seeing, speaking, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for oneself, learning or working." 2. Of course I asked, if you are not disabled, as in really and truly disabled, not just having a minor impairment or "being bad at sports" then you have absolutely no say. 3. You have been told that your phrasing is offensive and you are sticking with it and then making comparisons of being bad at sports to being disabled. Ableism. 4. You do NOT have the right to police a person with a disability about how they choose to focus their energy, ever. You're judging a person with a disability for their disability. You are assuming, and almost demanding, that they learn a different phrase. That is ableism. 5. I have only used gender neutral language. You then used a binary gender term, that is an assumption of gender. Are you capable of taking ownership of your actions? 6. Again, you do not get to police people with disabilities. It sounds like you are uncomfortable with a mention of intercourse and would rather they talk of ham. It is NOT the job of the person with a disability to make YOU comfortable. That is another example of you being ableist. 7. Look at you! Attacking a autistic person, who is at times non verbal, who went out of their way to try to gently educate you and instead of LISTENING and LEARNING you dug in and attacked. Ableist. 8. You seemed to have missed that I did, "social prejudices and covert micro aggression". 1
SHP Posted February 17, 2022 Posted February 17, 2022 46 minutes ago, katilac said: That is not what I did. Sure. Whatever. Rewrite yourself so you think you are not ablist and didn't make a comparison about being bad at sports to being bad at language due to a language disability. 18 hours ago, katilac said: The end result isn't really affected by why you cannot do something well, and I don't see a practical difference between being bad at something and not being proficient at something. I mean, if you can't say "nice to meet you" after four years, that goes rather farther than "not proficient;" it's kind of the definition of being bad at languages. We're all bad at something, often many things, often for a specific reason. I have no coordination, so I am bad at sports. People with poor depth perception are often bad at driving. People with language disabilities are often bad at languages. I don't have a language disability, so that can't be my reason for being bad at ASL, but I am. I think it's my lack of visual-spatial skills. Sometime we're bad at certain things, and that is fine and acceptable and the world keeps turning even though I can't tee a golf ball to save my life.
EKS Posted February 17, 2022 Author Posted February 17, 2022 Who knew that an innocent question about an immature thirtysomething adult making goofy hand gestures in every photo ever taken of them would take such a turn? 4 2
SHP Posted February 17, 2022 Posted February 17, 2022 2 hours ago, KSera said: I wouldn't personally use it to describe someone else's weak skills I would never use the same words to talk about his word pronunciation that I might use for mine. That doesn't make it insulting to those with disabilities if I use those words about my own poor word pronunciation. I really appreciate that you wouldn't use the term to describe another's skill set. Your child can (and should!) self identify however they want and it should be respected, which it sounds like you do. This is a testimony to you as a person and a parent. I wish more parents would respect their child's way of identifying. And yes, no one else has a right to describe them and their abilities/disabilities in such a way, which is what I am trying to say. It is the person with a disability who gets to say how they refer to themselves and their disability. It is their choice to make, not a choice others get to make for them. Tell your adult child: Alphabetizing is over rated! And tell them that is from someone who is middle aged and still sings the alphabet song at every letter or just says screw it and puts the list into a program to sort it for them. Here is what was said about taking about people with disabilities where my biggest issues lay: 4 hours ago, EKS said: It's merely speaking the (not overly nuanced) truth about the reality of a person's abilities. Though I realize that reality isn't in vogue these days. 5 hours ago, katilac said: I'm glad you take it seriously, but I disagree that saying a person with disabilities is bad at something is ableism. 7 hours ago, EKS said: Um, just because you wouldn't tell a person with a disability that they were "bad" at the thing doesn't mean that they aren't bad at it.
EKS Posted February 17, 2022 Author Posted February 17, 2022 11 hours ago, SHP said: Here is what was said about taking about people with disabilities where my biggest issues lay... You do understand that YOU were the one who brought up people with disabilities in the first place, right? The question was not about about someone with disabilities, and I didn't even know that the gesture was from ASL until someone mentioned it here. That said, all of the comments about being "bad" at whatever were in response to the the IDEA of a person with a disability being bad at something effected by their disability. It was a question of language and facts. And the fact remains that TECHNICALLY a person with a disability is "bad" at whatever it is, if they can do it at all. Of course, no one would ever say such a thing. I think that when you first read the thread, you assumed that the person in question was disabled and using ASL for that reason. I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. 3
SHP Posted February 17, 2022 Posted February 17, 2022 29 minutes ago, EKS said: You do understand that YOU were the one who brought up people with disabilities in the first place, right? The question was not about about someone with disabilities, and I didn't even know that the gesture was from ASL until someone mentioned it here. That said, all of the comments about being "bad" at whatever were in response to the the IDEA of a person with a disability being bad at something effected by their disability. It was a question of language and facts. And the fact remains that TECHNICALLY a person with a disability is "bad" at whatever it is, if they can do it at all. Of course, no one would ever say such a thing. I think that when you first read the thread, you assumed that the person in question was disabled and using ASL for that reason. I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. Yes, I did bring it up and made it clear that I was bothered by the usage and explained why. Since then you both have piled on defending the word choice and refusing to acknowledge that it's usage could be harmful to those with actual disabilities. I hope you don't say this stuff to people with disabilities IRL and I hope you don't interact with other minority groups like this. to summarize: 1. As a whole the disability community does not approve of having their deficits referred to as "bad at" either to their faces or behind their backs, that usage reflects the underlying attitudes behind the social prejudice aspect of ableism. 2. A disabled person stated that the usage was not okay. 3. You and Katilac have both dug in to defend the word usage and ignored what the disabled person has repeatedly said. Another aspect of ableism. 4. Katilac assumed gender and even with the actual words in previous posts didn't own up to their mistake and apologize, they instead made an excuse. That shows a level of disregard for what I have written and that they were not actually reading my replies. 5. Katilac even went so far as to insist that the disabled person use a different phrase. It is inappropriate for anyone to demand a disabled person do something different because their disability makes them uncomfortable. The underlying "your disability makes me uncomfortable I demand you do something else" is a dangerous slope towards excluding people with disabilities, then locking them back in institutions. The entire point is: A person with a disability told you that you using a word is not OK. The only response is for you to listen and show some respect and not use that word to describe deficits.
EKS Posted February 17, 2022 Author Posted February 17, 2022 5 minutes ago, SHP said: I hope you don't say this stuff to people with disabilities IRL and I hope you don't interact with other minority groups like this. I give up.
KSera Posted February 17, 2022 Posted February 17, 2022 1 hour ago, SHP said: A person with a disability told you that you using a word is not OK. This whole off shoot conversation is kind of interesting to me in light of some conversations I have with my adult kid on the spectrum. The autistic community has a strong presence and voice online and especially in social media, which my kid enjoys being a part of. There are some views about autism strongly espoused in many of these groups and they are put forth as the one and only right way and autistic people who don't agree with those views are considered wrong. Interestingly, there is an element of ableism in that as the majority of those speaking for people with autism fall on the part of the spectrum that means they have the ability to get online and freely express their thoughts. They want to be considered the same as those who don't have that ability, yet they are speaking for them without permission. For my own kid, I think their black and white thinking tends to make it so that whatever they read online as being "the way" that people on the spectrum are supposed to think and believe becomes gospel. Take the use of the aspergers or aspie label. That is obviously very out of vogue, and no longer is part of the diagnostic schema. My kid is very offended that anyone still uses the term because of the association with Hans Asperger and the fact he was a Nazi sympathizer. This is talked about a lot online and many (mostly more recently diagnosed) people on the spectrum find the term offensive for that reason. I have tried to explain that there are many people diagnosed with asperger's syndrome in the past who are proud of their "aspie" identification and that the label has become part of their identity and they should be able to continue using that label if they prefer to. My kid finds that unacceptable and thinks nobody should use that label, but it's just as wrong for someone else who shares a disability with someone to tell them they can no longer use the label they have identified with all their life. It would be ridiculous to say that my kid saying that word is not okay makes it not okay for people to identify as aspies. I would never use the term for her, because I know how she feels about it. Same as someone else on the spectrum shouldn't tell my kid they can't say they are "bad at" something due to their autism. I don't think the hard lines on telling people what they can and can't say and how they must think are helpful in fostering understanding and inclusivity, honestly. 5
SHP Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 4 hours ago, KSera said: This whole off shoot conversation is kind of interesting to me in light of some conversations I have with my adult kid on the spectrum. The autistic community has a strong presence and voice online and especially in social media, which my kid enjoys being a part of. There are some views about autism strongly espoused in many of these groups and they are put forth as the one and only right way and autistic people who don't agree with those views are considered wrong. Interestingly, there is an element of ableism in that as the majority of those speaking for people with autism fall on the part of the spectrum that means they have the ability to get online and freely express their thoughts. They want to be considered the same as those who don't have that ability, yet they are speaking for them without permission. For my own kid, I think their black and white thinking tends to make it so that whatever they read online as being "the way" that people on the spectrum are supposed to think and believe becomes gospel. Take the use of the aspergers or aspie label. That is obviously very out of vogue, and no longer is part of the diagnostic schema. My kid is very offended that anyone still uses the term because of the association with Hans Asperger and the fact he was a Nazi sympathizer. This is talked about a lot online and many (mostly more recently diagnosed) people on the spectrum find the term offensive for that reason. I have tried to explain that there are many people diagnosed with asperger's syndrome in the past who are proud of their "aspie" identification and that the label has become part of their identity and they should be able to continue using that label if they prefer to. My kid finds that unacceptable and thinks nobody should use that label, but it's just as wrong for someone else who shares a disability with someone to tell them they can no longer use the label they have identified with all their life. It would be ridiculous to say that my kid saying that word is not okay makes it not okay for people to identify as aspies. I would never use the term for her, because I know how she feels about it. Same as someone else on the spectrum shouldn't tell my kid they can't say they are "bad at" something due to their autism. I don't think the hard lines on telling people what they can and can't say and how they must think are helpful in fostering understanding and inclusivity, honestly. Re the bolded, I am completely baffled. I NEVER said a person with a disability cannot self identify. My reply to you about your child self identifying vs other telling them how to self identify. 20 hours ago, SHP said: Your child can (and should!) self identify however they want and it should be respected And yes, no one else has a right to describe them and their abilities/disabilities in such a way, which is what I am trying to say. It is the person with a disability who gets to say how they refer to themselves and their disability. It is their choice to make, not a choice others get to make for them. Re the italics: I have said that the non disabled posters clinging to calling disabled people "bad at X" needs to stop. Non disabled people have no right using that label to describe disabled people is ableist. There absolutely are lines on language usage about the disabled by the non disabled. Words that have a negative connotation need to be avoided by the non disabled when discussing a person with a disability or a disability. It is not appropriate to refer to a person with an intellectual disability as the r-word, even if technically that word is accurate. Here is a partial list Re the online autism community: I find the infighting over the asperger's label to be incredibly odd since asperger's is no longer a dx in the DSM. I don't have any skin in that game since that wasn't the diagnosis I was given as a child. I am very aware of how toxic of an environment the online community has become and that it is dominated by the "higher functioning" at the exclusion of those who struggle more. I rarely am able to relate to people in those groups. I mentioned above that I am at times non verbal. It should be obvious from this thread alone that even when I try to communicate and explain that for whatever reason I am not able to present in a way that people will actually listen and not assume the worst and engage me in calm discourse to ensure they are understanding what I am trying to say. It will happen again and people will form an opinion about me based on my communication struggles and instead of working with me to communicate will just assume the worst and support those who attack. It happens in person as well. Over and over and over. I don't hold myself correctly, I cannot modulate my volume, I cannot adjust my tone of voice, my facial expressions don't match etc. Instead of compassion and people putting in even a fraction of the effort I am, they dismiss me and anything I have to say. I have found long lasting friendship with those who are able to look past these quirks and get to know me and how I communicate and are willing to meet me part way. The biggest irony of being non verbal at times and having trouble expressing myself is that I pick up other languages incredibly fast. Not savant level, but much faster than others I am learning alongside, no matter if it is a college class, a foreign language club, or an informal setting. If I wasn't non verbal at times (with all languages, not just English) I would work as a translator.
Rosie_0801 Posted February 18, 2022 Posted February 18, 2022 24 minutes ago, SHP said: It should be obvious from this thread alone that even when I try to communicate and explain that for whatever reason I am not able to present in a way that people will actually listen and not assume the worst and engage me in calm discourse to ensure they are understanding what I am trying to say. It will happen again and people will form an opinion about me based on my communication struggles and instead of working with me to communicate will just assume the worst and support those who attack. You have been listened to and understood, just disagreed with. The irony I'm seeing is you using an ableist term like "high functioning" with regards to autism, while your quotation marks indicate your awareness that the term is considered offensive, so soon after berating other people for ableist speech. It also makes your claim to victimhood here rather poor form. This thread isn't going anywhere, so I'm locking it.
Recommended Posts