The cognitive dissonance of “person-first” references to #autistic people

What you call us matters. Please choose your words mindfully.

There seems to be a persistent tendency for people to use “person-first” references to autistic people.

That’s unfortunate. I’m sure the intention is to affirm the humanity of the person (separate from the disorder/condition), which I suppose is noble in its own way.

But what it really does is make us autistic folks out to be “suffering” from something that — if only it were eradicated and removed from us — would restore us to wholeness. Make us just like everyone else.

I’ll spare you my rant about that. Let me use another means to illustrate how person-first autism language makes me feel, as someone who considers autism my default mode, and who would be made less-whole, not more, if “it” were removed from my self.

Identity is a tricky business. We all have our perceptions of ourselves, our understandings of what makes us US. That goes for everyone.

Now, how’s about we do a little experiment with person-first language for neurotypical identities…

A man is not a “man” — he’s a person with maleness.

A white man is not a “white man” — he’s a person with the “co-morbid” conditions of maleness and whiteness.

A woman is not a “woman” — she’s a person with femininity (well, supposedly, anyway – depends how you define “femininity”).

An American is a person with Americanism — actually, that apparently only applies to half of us, since the other half seem determined to trash our core values and plunge us into despotic, xenophobic fascism.

A Canadian is a person with Canadianism. I believe that’s more reliable than the “with Americanism” assignation.

See what I’m getting at?

When you excise a core defining feature of a person’s identity from their living, breathing self, you sort of objectify them a bit. And you make that core defining feature optional. Because it can be safely removed, and they’re still a person. Right? Well, a person, yes — but not the sort of person they know themselves to be. And not the sort of person you can truly get to know. Because you’ve denied one of the main characteristics of their nature, out of an intention to be … compassionate? Dunno. Or maybe sensitive?

Whatever the original intention, the effect is just a bit dehumanizing. And a lot of us don’t like it.

So, if you’re into PFL – person-first language – please reconsider before you use it regarding autism. Cancer is one thing. Plaque psoriasis is another. Autism… well, that’s in a league all its own. And I wouldn’t leave that domain for all the money (or well-intended compassion) in the world.

Advertisement