Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

M1mikyu wrote:

Some people prefer to be called a “person with autism” rather than an “autistic person”, and that preference should be respected! Both sides are valid, so a fair compromise is using both terms alternatively.

And… how exactly are you supposed to know what they prefer?

A survey?

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

M1mikyu wrote:

Some people prefer to be called a “person with autism” rather than an “autistic person”, and that preference should be respected! Both sides are valid, so a fair compromise is using both terms alternatively.

And… how exactly are you supposed to know what they prefer?

Solution: make a toggle and add it to settings

ajskateboarder wrote:

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

M1mikyu wrote:

Some people prefer to be called a “person with autism” rather than an “autistic person”, and that preference should be respected! Both sides are valid, so a fair compromise is using both terms alternatively.

And… how exactly are you supposed to know what they prefer?

Solution: make a toggle and add it to settings

I support this idea.

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

ajskateboarder wrote:

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

M1mikyu wrote:

Some people prefer to be called a “person with autism” rather than an “autistic person”, and that preference should be respected! Both sides are valid, so a fair compromise is using both terms alternatively.

And… how exactly are you supposed to know what they prefer?

Solution: make a toggle and add it to settings

I support this idea.

how will they code it so that the text in the forum post is different based off of a toggle?

starlightsparker wrote:

how will they code it so that the text in the forum post is different based off of a toggle?

This was clearly a joke.

DangerPuppy10 wrote:

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

M1mikyu wrote:

Some people prefer to be called a “person with autism” rather than an “autistic person”, and that preference should be respected! Both sides are valid, so a fair compromise is using both terms alternatively.

And… how exactly are you supposed to know what they prefer?

A survey?

Some people prefer one way and some people prefer the other. A survey would maybe give you a sense for how much of the disabled population (albeit only on Scratch, and only who replied to that survey!) prefer one way over the other, but you would still end up confirming what we know: some people prefer one way and some prefer the other.

When you (or the Scratch Team) talk about an individual person, the best way to find out their preferences is to ask them, or see if they've already said so in a profile bio, for example. You can tell we (us writing, @_nix) probably prefer “disabled people” for ourselves because our signature and profile say “…autistic… enbydoggirls”, and the “person” word (enbydoggirls ) comes after the disability (“autistic”). But directly asking the person you're talking about if they have a preference is always the most for-sure way to know.

However, that's only relevant when you're talking about a specific individual — someone you can ask for their own preference! It definitely can't work with a gigantic group like “all disabled people who use Scratch”. And that's OK: it's impossible to use everyone's preferred terminology at once, and that's just part of communication. Alternating like M1mikyu suggests is a pretty good solution.

It certainly differs depending on the person and the way they view their disability.

I am autistic. It is a fundamental part of who I am. Had I not been autistic, I would be a completely different person with different mannerisms, interests, habits, and so on.
It is for this reason that I, personally speaking, prefer the language “autistic person” over “person with autism.” Autism is a condition that fundamentally changes how my brain works. It is inseparable from me.

Of course, this only speaks to me and my autism. Other autistic people, and indeed other people with different conditions, may prefer other language.

I'm autistic and I can definitely confirm that I feel like “autistic person” sounds less harsh than “person with autism”. Then again, like multiple people have said on this thread, different people have different preferences. Some disabled people may prefer the term “person with a disability” over “disabled person”. However, I feel like the Scratch Team should at least try to alternate between terms to accommodate.

when green flag clicked
forever
if <evil kumquat spotted ?> then
bonk x1000
end
end\

((((((((((((((((<^v^>))))))))))))))))

That's not what I've heard in the past. I don't know because I don't have any disabilities, but my mom works with children that have disabilities and I've always been taught that you should not call them “disabled” but instead “has a disability”, as it bothers people to be put into a “category”. It's like saying “I know people who are autistic” vs. “I know people who have autism”.

I've always been taught to never use the word “autistic”. But my experience is usually with young children.

I don't know if this is what people want, in my experience.

han614698 wrote:

That's not what I've heard in the past. I don't know because I don't have any disabilities, but my mom works with children that have disabilities and I've always been taught that you should not call them “disabled” but instead “has a disability”, as it bothers people to be put into a “category”. It's like saying “I know people who are autistic” vs. “I know people who have autism”.

I've always been taught to never use the word “autistic”. But my experience is usually with young children.

I don't know if this is what people want, in my experience.

It's very difficult to put a lot of stock into what educators or caretakers of young children express, because these children tend not to be mature enough to have or communicate an opinion about the terminology used for them (especially a relatively subtle linguistic difference). When it comes to language in specific, the most important opinion for the caretakers isn't the children's opinions, but their parents or guardians' opinions.

Unfortunately, even if a child does successfully communicate their preferences to their caretaker, it's the parents/guardians whose opinions hold the most sway, since they're the ones with power over their children. If a child would rather be called autistic (and does in fact understand why!), then the caretaker will still get in serious trouble if the child's parents/guardians find out and do not want their children to be called “autistic”.

I know this is no universal experience, but I do feel it's very common for adults (especially parents) to be misinformed about the meaning and significance of language. As you said, you were taught never to use the word “autistic” — this is almost certainly not something which came from people with autism, but, IMO, from parents who were taught that autism is fundamentally a bad and shameful thing, a condition to hide from and struggle through. rather than a fundamental experience of life to learn and adapt to.

It's an understandable narrative for parents (and educators, and general caretakers…) to latch onto, because raising autistic children can be extremely challenging (we know!!). But it's still very disconnected from the experience and perspective that, at least some, autistic people take for themselves. Autistic adults and autistic children alike!

Za-Chary wrote:

A quick Google search shows a website which says this:

People with disabilities are, first and foremost, people. Labeling a person equates the person with a condition and can be disrespectful and dehumanizing. A person isn’t a disability, condition or diagnosis; a person has a disability, condition or diagnosis.

I have no idea who wrote this, or whether or not they are disabled. Full disclosure, I am not disabled. But at a first glance I'm willing to believe this quote is true, at least for some people. I could guess or assume that saying “disabled person” is assigning some “label” to a person, but perhaps those who actually have a disability could hear “disabled person” as an empowering phrase. (Am I getting that right? I'm curious why folks prefer one phrase over the other.)

This is probably directly related what @_nix is referring to above when they say:

_nix wrote:

We're sure there are people with disabilities who prefer to use language so, but it gives us the sense of a shallow interpretation that mostly exists to appease people who aren't disabled

I'm trying to think of examples of descriptions that apply to myself, but since I'm not disabled, any examples I think of probably would not apply. I've been dealing with a bit of anxiety over the past several years, but personally I would prefer to say that “I have anxiety” rather than “I am anxious.” The first one addresses anxiety as some “condition” that I am dealing with, whereas the second seems to associate me with a certain label; I don't really want to be known as an “anxious person.”

I'm probably missing the mark here. A key difference with this example is that my anxiety could probably be overcome, in the sense that through some work, perhaps I will eventually no longer have anxiety. Disabilities are clearly different in this regard: many (most? all?) disabilities are permanent.

Another silly example that I just thought of which — although it probably again misses the mark — helps a little bit with what I think OP is saying. I generally refer to a person as a “man” or a “woman” as opposed to someone who “identifies as male” or “has two X chromosomes.”

yeah, websites like that do tend to stress person-first language.
apparently all professionals in the medical field are taught and required to use it.
from experience, I've nearly always directly been referred to with person-first language and other more ableist/outdated terms even after repeatedly asking that they use my preferred identity-first language to refer to me. it's honestly kinda sad.
I don't know about other disabilities, but fyi, several studies I've found have shown a large majority of autistic people prefer identity-first language (“is autistic”) over person-first language (“has autism”), so this information provided on the website is quite contradictory and shows (as one of many examples) how much catching up the medical system has yet to do… - and even organisations that are intended to support us, too.
some websites like the NHS website have (somewhat) improved on this though, which is good.

ok :D so let's clear things up

as a baseline definition for anyone who is unsure, disabled means to be at a disadvantage in the world you live in because of who you are and how your body works. disabled isn't a bad or offensive word.

in my case, part of my disabled identity is that I am autistic. autism is a neurodevelopmental disability (mostly social model). it's a disability because autistic people are a neuro-minority and are more likely to encounter challenges, misunderstandings and discrimination than non-autistic people (which has been proven in many ways, numerous times, with research).

I and many other autistic advocates are aware that it's more productive, progressive and in our own best interest when autism (who we inherently are, the way we are wired) is not presented as the cause of difficulty for autistic people, but rather the world that we live in and the number of challenges we encounter as the people we naturally are.

to suggest that who we are is the cause of our difficulty can be interpreted as ableist (the same way that in some contexts saying "you're struggling because you're female" could be interpreted as sexist).
and to solely focus on that* instead of focusing on trying to confront the barriers disabled people face is definitely ableist (the same way an article about how more women are discriminated against in comparison to men that concludes with “women need to stop struggling” without highlighting any outside factors contributing to this issue could definitely be sexist).
*to be clear this isn't referring to ST's use of language, I'm just referring to misconceptions regarding disabilities as a whole, and why the language in (ranging from some to all) cases is important.

being disabled is part of who I am because I have always been this way, and it's not something that can be separated from me or my history; being disabled has made me who I am.
there are lots of things I am unable to currently do because of being disabled, but it's not something that takes away from who I am or from my strengths, because these two realities coexist, not contradict eachother.
who I am as a person is because I am disabled. if I was not disabled, I'd be a different person. I wouldn't be a better person than I am right now, just different… and imagining who I'd be without my disability is not affirming of who I am, whereas recognising and validating/affirming my disability IS. this is why identity-first language is important.

…like, if I wasn't disabled, I probably wouldn't be so interested in disability advocacy, and I probably wouldn't care so much about helping people with my same experiences (which is a quality about me that I take pride in). but if I wasn't disabled, I also would have struggled a lot less, I would probably have succeeded in school and would be more successful in a career than I am right now. it's not better or worse than my disabled self, just different. and it wouldn't be me, and I value myself, so as funny as it sounds, I don't want to not be disabled.
also, even if I wasn't disabled I'd still be discriminated against in other ways, so I'd still be at a disadvantage, so it's very difficult to separate my disability from me even hypothetically (disabled rights are women's rights are human's rights etc. etc.).
and I can't imagine myself having been fine in the same schools and environments that I struggled in because this has never happened, I am not that person, and it's not possible unless something about that environment was to change (not something about me, because I can't change myself, I can't just be replaced or reinvented, that wouldn't be right).

if the world was to change to be more accommodating of my needs, maybe I would not be disabled - but as the world has not yet changed, I am disabled and that is a valid identity and also simply a fact about me.
it's not something to overcome, it's not my responsibility to work to overcome, all of the advocacy that I do is my own choice and passion, not because I am supposed to do it to help myself. I shouldn't have to do anything extra to help change or “improve” myself to be a different person, and that is why I'm disabled.

so disabilities aren't a problem, they are a fact.

this is where the language choices come in:

if you read “I am at a disadvantage” in comparison to “I have a disadvantage” - see the first one directs the negativity outwards like it's from an outside source, and the second one directs the negativity inwards to be at the center of the person. and “I am at a disadvantage” describes the fact of what you're facing as yourself, while “I have a disadvantage” describes a problem as being an addition to you like you'd be a better person without it.
this is the same for how we look at disabilities. “I am at a disadvantage” is like the social model of disability, while “I have a disadvantage” is like the medical model of disability. feel free to look them up to understand them more clearly, it's pretty interesting to know about.
we've established that I wouldn't be a better person without my disability, and the difficulties I face stem from the world around me, so guess which disability model is my preference haha. the social model of disability is the one we're focusing on here as it's what the neurodiversity paradigm and the disability rights movement is based on. it's an explanation that fits my (and many disabled people's) experiences best, and gives the most constructive options for areas for change, because it emphasises that we can work to include people better rather than see them as inherently faulty.
so I believe this also fits Scratch's values and visions for the future very well.

using identity-first language and saying “I am disabled” is affirming for me (and many others) in the same way that I would say “I am female”, “I am British”, “I am left handed” etc.
even if you change up the wording and say “my country is Britain” or “I identify as female” etc. it relates to who I am, rather than presenting it as something I have acquired.
there are instances where it is person-first, eg. “I have light skin” is a “have”. but the “have” is relative to the part of my identity that I'm talking about, and I'm talking about my skin.
saying “I have autism” is different from saying “I have an autistic brain” because the first presents it as a difference added to me, and the second defines the brain that I obviously have as being autistic. (the second one is better.)
we all are humans with human characteristics, we all have skin, we all have nationalities, we all have brains, but we don't all have autism (or we don't all have disabilities) so it's unnatural to talk about it as something you can “have” because the fact we don't all have it inherently suggests it's something you acquire. like the default is without it. (but of course the reality is, that's not the default, because there's not one default sort of person, we are all different and we're all MEANT to be different. that's the importance of diversity!!)

backtracking, mental health conditions like anxiety tend to fit the medical model of disability easier. that is, therapy and treatment can often be helpful in the way that “treating” autism (or any other part of identity, like being LGBTQ+) isn't.
when it comes to mental health conditions, it could** make more sense to say you “have something” or “struggle with something”, because it's an aspect of yourself that has affected other parts of yourself as a result of your life being the way it is, and it's possible to change yourself to be happier by “removing” it from your life.
(kinda like addressing a bad habit or changing it for a healthier one. and maybe you're less likely to have had to be a specific person in a specific situation in order to develop one, maybe it's just something that could happen to anyone. since you can change the behaviour in yourself, you could say you don't have it anymore and it could make sense.)

mental health conditions like anxiety can in fact count as disabilities, though, so I believe maybe this needs some more careful thought about the language surrounding it, too. and disabled people are also more likely to struggle with mental health so this is connected.
so…
** if you wanted to, you could even argue that this also applies to mental health conditions. (eg. for anxiety, I could argue that I have always experienced anxiety tendencies, that it is a difference in my brain structure, and therefore is part of my identity, and that my anxiety is affected by outside negativity as well as or even rather than my anxiety being the only cause of negativity for me.)

also, to make it clear, needing support and accommodations doesn't mean we have a problem, it is simply needing help because our lives are different.
for example, many autistic people also struggle with mental & physical health difficulties. this can be caused by bullying, exclusion (both socially and systematically), and many more things. this has been proven proven to often happen because we are autistic and because people struggle to understand us or know how to help us correctly. we live in a system where it is treated as normal (even good) to punish people who do not conform, and to fear and hate people that you can't relate to.
struggling as a result of this is not our fault, and getting support to help work and live around it is reasonable and justified, not “extra”.
recognising the things you struggle with does not take away from the things you're good at, it makes up who you are as a person.

hope this helps explain a bit, sorry it's so long, I struggle wording my thoughts concisely for complex topics like this.
I don't know if I'm contributing much to the actual discussion either, but I wanted to talk about this because it might be helpful for some people to understand
if you have any questions feel free to ask

medians wrote:

I do not get this..
What is the difference between the 2??
What is identity first and person first?? Like is that an actual thing?
Please explain XD

yes, it's an actual thing. I explained it a bit in my above post, feel free to also look up about it on the internet (preferably find information from disabled people themselves, not from people or organisations trying to advocate for disabled people).

identity-first language is “I am disabled”, “they are a disabled person”, “disabled people” “able-bodied people” etc.
person-first language is “I have a disability”, “they have a disability”, “people with disabilities” “people without disabilities” etc.

different people have individual preferences on it, and some people don't mind either way. but a lot of disabled people (myself included) prefer identity-first language to person-first language, even though a lot of non-disabled professionals are told to use person-first language, so it feels important to bring up.
personally, I prefer to say “I'm autistic” rather than “I have autism” for the same reasons you'd say “I'm left handed” rather than “I have left-handed-ness” - it seems weird to talk about it like it's a separate part of me, and it suggests it's an illness or something when it isn't, it's just part of who I am.

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

M1mikyu wrote:

Some people prefer to be called a “person with autism” rather than an “autistic person”, and that preference should be respected! Both sides are valid, so a fair compromise is using both terms alternatively.

And… how exactly are you supposed to know what they prefer?

what the majority prefers? identity first -
https://autisticnotweird.com/autismsurvey/#language
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/13623613221130845
https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3517428.3544813
https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/953519622/
the majority of autistic and disabled people seem to prefer identity-first language over person-first language.
this is why I believe it would be best to use identity-first language (or at least vary your language) when referring to autistic/disabled people in general.

individually? you could ask someone and use what they prefer to refer to them.
it's good to use what an individual person prefers when referring to that person, because it isn't hurting anyone to refer to them how they feel comfortable with.

-Squiggle wrote:

individually? you could ask someone and use what they prefer to refer to them.
it's good to use what an individual person prefers when referring to that person, because it isn't hurting anyone to refer to them how they feel comfortable with.

User1 wrote:

hi

User2 wrote:

hi how are you

User1 wrote:

would you rather be referred to as a “person with autism” or a “autistic person”?

Not only is this question coming completely out of the blue and would be odd to say the least, it could be quite rude to someone if you just make the topic of the conversation about a thing they have that they might not even want in the first place. If everyone asked what they preferred, this could get annoying and stressful to the user that all of the conversations they have are being shifted to the disability they have. Having people ask is easier said than done.

-Squiggle wrote:

snip

ChatGPT coming in clutch again for anybody who ain’t readin allat

Websites often emphasize using “person-first” language, especially in the medical field. However, I've repeatedly asked to be referred to using “identity-first” language, which is preferred by many autistic people. This shows how the medical system and supporting organizations still have progress to make.

Being disabled means facing disadvantages due to how your body works, not something inherently bad. For example, I'm autistic, which means I face unique challenges because I'm a neuro-minority. These challenges come from the world around me, not from being autistic itself.

Using “identity-first” language like “I am disabled” is affirming for many of us, acknowledging it as part of who we are. It's like saying “I am female” or “I am left-handed.” It's important to recognize that disabilities are not problems but facts about ourselves.

On the other hand, mental health conditions like anxiety might fit the medical model of disability better, where treatment can be helpful. However, needing support and accommodations doesn't mean we have a problem; it's about living our unique lives.

-Squiggle wrote:

SNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIP

…….can i have a tldr?
edit: nvm someone gave one i didnt see lol i just realized i forgot to switch personalities for forums cause i was on aes comm earlier today

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

-Squiggle wrote:

individually? you could ask someone and use what they prefer to refer to them.
it's good to use what an individual person prefers when referring to that person, because it isn't hurting anyone to refer to them how they feel comfortable with.

User1 wrote:

hi

User2 wrote:

hi how are you

User1 wrote:

would you rather be referred to as a “person with autism” or a “autistic person”?

Not only is this question coming completely out of the blue and would be odd to say the least, it could be quite rude to someone if you just make the topic of the conversation about a thing they have that they might not even want in the first place. If everyone asked what they preferred, this could get annoying and stressful to the user that all of the conversations they have are being shifted to the disability they have. Having people ask is easier said than done.

alternatively, you could refer to them how you think they'd prefer (you could notice how they refer to themselves and mirror that or just guess), and if they correct you, use that, otherwise carry on. if you were asking you'd probably already have a reason to refer to them with that language (so you or they probably would have brought up the disability beforehand so you'd both be fine talking about it), otherwise you probably wouldn't be interested in knowing.
or you could just not ask anyone, if that's something you find hard.

User1 wrote:

would you rather be referred to as a “person with autism” or a “autistic person”?

^ personally I wouldn't have a problem with this kind of question (I've been asked stranger things), but maybe other people would find it different. I personally like being asked my preferences because it shows people care about my identity. even if they word the question a bit wrong or randomly, it gives me an opportunity to open up about it. if I'm not in the mood, I could either just ghost them, redirect the conversation or I could say I'm not comfortable answering. whatever happens, no significant harm is done? I don't think? what do you think?

Gamer_Logan819 wrote:

-Squiggle wrote:

snip

ChatGPT coming in clutch again for anybody who ain’t readin allat

Websites often emphasize using “person-first” language, especially in the medical field. However, I've repeatedly asked to be referred to using “identity-first” language, which is preferred by many autistic people. This shows how the medical system and supporting organizations still have progress to make.

Being disabled means facing disadvantages due to how your body works, not something inherently bad. For example, I'm autistic, which means I face unique challenges because I'm a neuro-minority. These challenges come from the world around me, not from being autistic itself.

Using “identity-first” language like “I am disabled” is affirming for many of us, acknowledging it as part of who we are. It's like saying “I am female” or “I am left-handed.” It's important to recognize that disabilities are not problems but facts about ourselves.

On the other hand, mental health conditions like anxiety might fit the medical model of disability better, where treatment can be helpful. However, needing support and accommodations doesn't mean we have a problem; it's about living our unique lives.

I think this misses out some important details, but it's up to you if you want to read it or not.