What did you call me?

1235711

Comments

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited January 2
    fineline wrote: »
    I find that terms like cisgender (and heterosexual, and neurotypical) are uncomfortable for some people because it draws attention to the fact that they are not simply the default, and that there are other valid ways of being. It 'others' them in the way that they 'other' others.

    I think some people don’t like the term cisgender because it begins by sounding superficially like sissy - and they feel this is deliberate. It’s academic / Latin origin will not be known to most people who hear it.

    If they’d gone with something like ‘gender matched’ I think there would have been less resistance. There probably needs to be the development of a less technical term, analogous to gay/queer and straight - trans and ?matched? / ?trad? / ?bid? (Birth identity)
    I think also people don't like to question their identity. And it probably feels imposed and that often draws resistance.


  • The prefixes cis and trans are used in organic chemistry and biology to distinguish between geometric isomers. They are the Latin opposites.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    IME, it is far more widespread than a few. Or even just unpleasant people. ...
    In my experience, it is not. Clearly, our experiences have differed.
    It is quite possible that this is also a matter of awareness.
    I object because - in my experience - it is used as a means to shut down any discussion. The individual who makes accusations regarding "privilege" claims the moral high ground; the other either has to withdraw or be perceived as defending the indefensible.
    And I could answer that the word makes those who have it uncomfortable because they would rather not deal with it. But, really, it is a variable thing. But, really, it goes back to the problems with the OP's insistence on politeness. It puts one more burden on the people already being marginalised. You want polite terms, we want polite treatment.

    And, no, I haven't personally been accused of that. But I've seen others unjustly accused.
    I'm not all that old (perhaps I am compared to you), and it hasn't been an issue for me. I dislike and avoid any insults based on traits that can't be modified, in any case.

    However, your "...can you begin to see?" seems a little insulting to me in this context.
    No. People are more acutely aware of what affects them than what affects other groups. So I am trying to find something that helps you understand.
    Do you ever genuinely consider other, differing opinions in these discussions?
    So, what opinions are we talking about? That people use words describing categories of other people as insults is not an opinion. It is a fact. How many do is more about experience and awareness than opinion. Without research, it is difficult to quantify, and perceptions might be off. But that really isn't opinion either.
  • I know this, but I think that many people don’t - especially if they haven’t read around the subject.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    @Huia - would you say I’m ‘blind’splaining’?.


    No.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I could easily understand what cisgender means. Why I drew on this was not to discuss whether people liked/disliked the description, or felt worried by it. It was to try to tease out lilBuddha's opinion that a term such as deaf/hearing impaired van be used without the consent of the community involved. I can't recall any consultation in the use of cisgender. Is it different? If so, why? So far, no comments on this.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    edited January 3
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is quite possible that this is also a matter of awareness.
    And it might not be, for those of us who conscientiously try to be aware of other people's realities.

    But, of course, I'm writing to The Infallible One here.
    ...But, really, it is a variable thing. But, really, it goes back to the problems with the OP's insistence on politeness. It puts one more burden on the people already being marginalised. You want polite terms, we want polite treatment.
    "We"? Which is your issue? And I - again - work hard to treat everyone equally, which (to me) includes treating them politely. Of course, as a woman with Opinions, I haven't always been accorded polite treatment.
    ...I am trying to find something that helps you understand.
    I don't think so. I think you're continuing what seems to be a long-term effort to get those who disagree with you to shut up. And all this talk about "find(ing) something that helps (me) understand" seems condescending and patronizing at best. "You poor old fool. Let me try to simplify it so that even you can comprehend."
    So, what opinions are we talking about?...
    You have many opinions, and you seem equally sure of the absolute rightness of all of them, and of the absolute wrongness of those who disagree.

    One of the reasons I read (and, sometimes, post on) serious discussion boards is to be exposed to other points of view; when I'm persuaded, I say as much.

    My sense is that you come not to learn or consider such things, but to impose your views on people who have had differing experiences and, thus, opinions. I could be wrong - and, certainly, I don't follow you around the boards, so I could have missed something - but I don't recall you ever saying that you might have been incorrect about anything. Although I'm merely fallible myself, I do wonder about that.


  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    I could easily understand what cisgender means. Why I drew on this was not to discuss whether people liked/disliked the description, or felt worried by it. It was to try to tease out lilBuddha's opinion that a term such as deaf/hearing impaired van be used without the consent of the community involved. I can't recall any consultation in the use of cisgender. Is it different?
    Of course it is.
    If so, why?
    When are you referred to by other people by that appellation? On what government documents have you dealt with it and with which agencies must you navigate such labels?
    So far, no comments on this.
    It should be obvious, you are in a category that can eschew labels if it so wishes. Not everyone else is.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is quite possible that this is also a matter of awareness.
    And it might not be, for those of us who conscientiously try to be aware of other people's realities.
    Strawman. I never said no one tried. I said there were people who don't. Trying and being aware are two different things and being aware is not an on/off position.
    Of course, as a woman with Opinions, I haven't always been accorded polite treatment.
    Women with Opinions who were polite won nothing from men. Women with Opinions who very much were not, did. Polite earns no right, it engenders ignoring.
    I don't think so. I think you're continuing what seems to be a long-term effort to get those who disagree with you to shut up.
    No.
    And all this talk about "find(ing) something that helps (me) understand" seems condescending and patronizing at best. "You poor old fool. Let me try to simplify it so that even you can comprehend."
    The age comment was to try to find an example you can relate to, it had nothing to do with being patronising or implying age made you incapable of grasping the concept.
    You have many opinions, and you seem equally sure of the absolute rightness of all of them, and of the absolute wrongness of those who disagree.
    I hold strong opinions, yes. Those that I am less confident in, I will argue less forcefully so they might pass with less notice. But until injustices are far more rare than they are, I see no reason to back off on the causes for which I have concern.
    My sense is that you come not to learn or consider such things, but to impose your views on people who have had differing experiences and, thus, opinions. I could be wrong - and, certainly, I don't follow you around the boards, so I could have missed something - but I don't recall you ever saying that you might have been incorrect about anything. Although I'm merely fallible myself, I do wonder about that.
    You sense incorrectly. I have apologised for being incorrect in my assumptions many times on these boards. Either you've missed it or it doesn't fit your preconceptions of me.
    In this very thread, I've mentioned that I am re-examining how I perceive and represent disabled people. I'll undoubtedly still screw that up as I am working through it, but work through it I intend to.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    I could easily understand what cisgender means. Why I drew on this was not to discuss whether people liked/disliked the description, or felt worried by it. It was to try to tease out lilBuddha's opinion that a term such as deaf/hearing impaired van be used without the consent of the community involved. I can't recall any consultation in the use of cisgender. Is it different?
    Of course it is.
    If so, why?
    When are you referred to by other people by that appellation? On what government documents have you dealt with it and with which agencies must you navigate such labels?
    So far, no comments on this.
    It should be obvious, you are in a category that can eschew labels if it so wishes. Not everyone else is.

    It is a term frequently used by you, less frequently by others, on these boards.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    It is a term frequently used by you, less frequently by others, on these boards.

    This probably says far more about the other people on the boards than about lilBuddha. It's a term I hear and use frequently, and use to describe myself. Because there needs to be a word, and this one has stepped into the gap, and there isn't another. Actually I more frequently refer to myself as cishet.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    That's interesting and I assume related to your work. I've never heard it used in work or elsewhere, nd don't recall seeing it in a newspaper either..
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    That's interesting and I assume related to your work. I've never heard it used in work or elsewhere, nd don't recall seeing it in a newspaper either..

    Same here, the only place I’ve ever seen it is here on the Ship.

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited January 3
    mousethief wrote: »
    Actually I more frequently refer to myself as cishet.
    Which I see and always think it should be spelled with a hyphen—“cis-het”—so that my brain doesn’t try to read it as “ci-shet.”

  • I knew and used cis- and transgender before it came up on the Ship, not just from work, but from the young people I know where that nomenclature is commonly used.
  • I just noticed, on a podcast, Vicky Beeching objecting to the term "homosexuality", as for her it smacks of US evangelicals, preaching about the demons of homosexuality. And I don't remember gay clients ever using it, I suppose it also sounds medical, and possibly pathologizing.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Gee D wrote: »
    That's interesting and I assume related to your work. I've never heard it used in work or elsewhere, nd don't recall seeing it in a newspaper either..

    Same here, the only place I’ve ever seen it is here on the Ship.
    I hear it in communities that are concerned by gender representation. Hence, not often when the group is primarily cisgender and extremely rarely when they are cisgender and heterosexual.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I have plenty of gay friends and family and a trans friend @lilbuddha, but I’d still never heard the term.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    I have plenty of gay friends and family and a trans friend @lilbuddha, but I’d still never heard the term.
    I'd wager most of your gay friends are cisgender. The L,G and B part of the alphabet, especially the G, have not been completely friendly to, or understanding of, the T. And a single trans-person mightn't feel comfortable and it isn't like every person in a group is exactly the same.
    In other words, who calls who what and where and when is a mixed bag.
    As was mentioned up thread, there is no clear, shorthand alternative. At least not one that is not also dismissive of the non-binary.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited January 3
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    I have plenty of gay friends and family and a trans friend @lilbuddha, but I’d still never heard the term.
    I'd wager most of your gay friends are cisgender. The L,G and B part of the alphabet, especially the G, have not been completely friendly to, or understanding of, the T. And a single trans-person mightn't feel comfortable and it isn't like every person in a group is exactly the same.
    In other words, who calls who what and where and when is a mixed bag.
    As was mentioned up thread, there is no clear, shorthand alternative. At least not one that is not also dismissive of the non-binary.

    I agree.

    Do you think the term will become more widespread with time?


  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Actually I more frequently refer to myself as cishet.
    Which I see and always think it should be spelled with a hyphen—“cis-het”—so that my brain doesn’t try to read it as “ci-shet.”
    That would make it easier to pronounce for people not familiar with it. But it looks like the unhyphenated version has taken root, for better or worse.
    Gee D wrote: »
    That's interesting and I assume related to your work. I've never heard it used in work or elsewhere, nd don't recall seeing it in a newspaper either..

    How many articles about alternate sexualities does one normally find in the newspaper? But no, it's not related to my work. It's related to people I know outside of work, and in my extended family.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Do you think the term will become more widespread with time?
    That is a tough one. Whilst the progressives strive ever more to progress, a vocal minority is regressing. And the middle majority don't have to change and many don't see a reason to.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Actually I more frequently refer to myself as cishet.
    Which I see and always think it should be spelled with a hyphen—“cis-het”—so that my brain doesn’t try to read it as “ci-shet.”
    That would make it easier to pronounce for people not familiar with it. But it looks like the unhyphenated version has taken root, for better or worse.
    Indeed. I'm sure my brain will get used to reading it, sooner or later.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Thanks mousethief. I jumped to a conclusion. I'd first heard of transgender years and years ago (and the difference between transgender and transvestite also) but first of cisgender on the ship.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    edited January 3
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Strawman. I never said no one tried. I said there were people who don't. Trying and being aware are two different things and being aware is not an on/off position.
    I said "try" because, as much as we may work to be aware, and think we've arrived, we can't know completely what it's like to be the Other if we're not. I can't completely understand the black experience, the gay experience, the disabled experience, the elderly experience, because my life has been different. (I'm catching up on the disabled experience, though.)
    ...Polite earns no right, it engenders ignoring.
    You're wrong. Being polite does help one get listened to. Negotiating helps get results. One has to be persistent, but screaming at others is a recipe for being ignored.
    The age comment was to try to find an example you can relate to, it had nothing to do with being patronising or implying age made you incapable of grasping the concept.
    Oh, that's such a relief. Eventually, I expect I will be able to relate to it, if I live long enough.

    You remind me myself when young, 'way back in the last century: intelligent, educated, well-informed, verbally facile, and absolutely sure of myself to the extent of seeking out others with whom to argue. I learned, however, that being bright but callow doesn't generally serve thoughtful discussion. Good luck to you.



  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    I was very familiar with the term cisgender long before I saw people using it on the Ship. I see it a lot online - maybe from a younger set of people, on average, and more predominantly American, than on the Ship. It comes up in autism groups quite a bit, and also on blogging/diary communities, where people write regularly about their lives. There tend to be some trans people in such communities, who write about their experiences. Maybe because the issues involved can be harder to talk about in 'real life.' Maybe the same sort of reason people blog about mental health issues that they don't talk much about in 'real life.' When there are societal taboos, it can be easier to write about something, so blogging can attract people who for some reason are different from the norm and experience marginalisation.

    People here on the Ship in general don't seem so aware of trans issues and terminology, maybe in the way that I am not so aware of C of E issues and terminology. It's about what you're exposed to, I think, and also what you then deliberately expose yourself to. As I don't experience gender identity, I have found myself quite interested to learn about it, and when I came across trans people on sites, I read what they wrote, and I would talk to them and ask questions.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...Polite earns no right, it engenders ignoring.
    You're wrong. Being polite does help one get listened to. Negotiating helps get results. One has to be persistent, but screaming at others is a recipe for being ignored.
    On a personal level, in a way to create understanding, I would agree with you much of the time. But the movements for equal rights movements for minorities, women and the LGBT+ have not worked this way. In situations of power imbalance, it takes a fight. Screaming? Perhaps not. But neither a polite voice.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...Polite earns no right, it engenders ignoring.
    You're wrong. Being polite does help one get listened to. Negotiating helps get results. One has to be persistent, but screaming at others is a recipe for being ignored.
    On a personal level, in a way to create understanding, I would agree with you much of the time. But the movements for equal rights movements for minorities, women and the LGBT+ have not worked this way. In situations of power imbalance, it takes a fight. Screaming? Perhaps not. But neither a polite voice.

    From the Epistle of Martin to the Birminghamians:
    You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

    One of the basic points in your statement is that the action that I and my associates have taken in Birmingham is untimely. Some have asked: "Why didn't you give the new city administration time to act?" The only answer that I can give to this query is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one, before it will act. We are sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Albert Boutwell as mayor will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is a much more gentle person than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to maintenance of the status quo. I have hope that Mr. Boutwell will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.

    We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.
    Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    On a personal level, in a way to create understanding, I would agree with you much of the time.
    But I thought that’s what this thread is about—personal communications to create understanding, specifically, how to correct someone one encounters who uses terms that are offensive, as illustrated in the OP. Personal interaction, not social movements, is the context that those of us who’ve indicated that polite corrections are generally preferable have been assuming. At least I have.

    I’m guessing most of us would agree that social movements can and often should require different approaches.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited January 4
    Deaf simpliciter means with no hearing at all; hearing impaired leaves open a full range.

    Otherwise what Rossweisse said.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited January 4
    Gee D wrote: »
    Deaf simpliciter means with no hearing at all; hearing impaired leaves open a full range.

    Otherwise what Rossweisse said.

    In the US there is a distinction between Deaf and deaf. Deaf with a capital letter means a member of the Deaf community, whereas deaf with a lower-case letter means someone who has no hearing, but is not Deaf. Big-D Deaf people take this distinction very seriously.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Right. But that does not get to the point I was making especially in the context of the MW report.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Right. But that does not get to the point I was making especially in the context of the MW report.

    I don't see you making any point about MW on this page. What was your point?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    This arises from a MW report by AMR on a church in Peoria. She referred to the signing of the entire service and in so doing originally used the term "hearing impaired". A shipmate called Oldjay wrote objecting very abruptly to the use of this term and said that it should have been "deaf". In the old days, when the term was "deaf'" I'd only have used that for someone who had no hearing. For many a qualifier, such as "partly", would have been needed. OTOH, "hearing impaired" covers a whole range. At least that's how I'd approach it and YMMV.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    This arises from a MW report by AMR on a church in Peoria. She referred to the signing of the entire service and in so doing originally used the term "hearing impaired". A shipmate called Oldjay wrote objecting very abruptly to the use of this term and said that it should have been "deaf".
    Actually, @Oldjay said it should be “Deaf” or “hard-of-hearing,” the latter being the “cover the whole range” term you’re looking for. “Hearing impaired” is not considered an appropriate umbrella term, at least among the Deaf community in the U.S., because it has negative connotations in that it focuses on how people deviate from the “norm” of hearing. That seems to be precisely what Oldjay was referring to when he or she said “we are not impaired.”

    At least as I understand it, the generally preferred terms here (the U.S.) are:

    “deaf”—the audiological condition of not hearing
    “Deaf”—people who do not hear and who share a language (American Sign Language) and a culture, often though not necessarily from life-long deafness.
    “hard of hearing”—can refer to a person with some hearing loss or to a person who does not hear and does not identify as Deaf.

    So, rather than hearing impaired, the preferred way to speak of these people would be the Deaf and hard of hearing, which is what Oldjay said—“We are Deaf or hard-of-hearing folks, but we are not ‘impaired,’ thank you.”


  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited January 4
    BTW, this seems to lay out the preferences in Australia. Similar to the U.S., but note the different feelings regarding “hearing impaired,” including feelings of the “culturally Deaf.”

    I note this from the linked site, too:
    The two main international peak organisations—the World Federation of the Deaf and the International Federation of the Hard of Hearing—have recommended that the terms "Deaf" and "Hard of Hearing" be adopted (1995), and Deaf Australia follows this recommendation.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    So, rather than hearing impaired, the preferred way to speak of these people would be the Deaf and hard of hearing, which is what Oldjay said—“We are Deaf or hard-of-hearing folks, but we are not ‘impaired,’ thank you.”
    Sorry to triple post, but I see that I messed it up even as I tried to explain it. In trying to say what is preferred, I shouldn’t have said “the preferred way to speak of these people would be the Deaf and hard of hearing.” The preferred way would be “Deaf and hard of hearing people”—no “the.”

    Sorry.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    On a personal level, in a way to create understanding, I would agree with you much of the time.
    But I thought that’s what this thread is about—personal communications to create understanding, specifically, how to correct someone one encounters who uses terms that are offensive, as illustrated in the OP. Personal interaction, not social movements, is the context that those of us who’ve indicated that polite corrections are generally preferable have been assuming. At least I have.
    It is the context of the OP at least. However, there is a lot of bleed between personal interactions and general movements. Also, though polite interaction might sometimes be helpful, it still puts the onus on the aggrieved instead of those that should know better. Obviously, it is situational. This is not a black and white issue on an individual level.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    That was an interesting link thank you Nick Tamen. It obviously represents the opinion of Deaf Australia. I don't think it represents usage though. Most would think that a term such as hearing impaired is what is needed and that deaf is objectionable.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    I believe that in the UK, hearing impairment (HI) is an umbrella term that includes the various levels. And that very few deaf people hear nothing at all - it's about functional hearing, and levels of severity. Mild, moderate, severe, profound, At least, that was the system ten years ago, when I studied about it. Of course, this is in terms of the hearing world, when the HI person wants support in the hearing world, where they are at a disadvantage, as the majority communicate in a way they can't access. Within the Deaf community, it is different - not a disability/disadvantage when everyone is the same.

    Also, visual impairment (VI) seems to be used here as an umbrella term. At the optician, when they ask about family history, and I say my gran was blind for the last few years of her life, they always write that she was VI. When I look on the RNIB site, though, they are using sight impaired/partially sighted v serverely sight impaired/blind. But that seems to be in terms of a certification, for getting DLA/PIP and a disabled card and such. Maybe opticians use different terminology. I think practically, terminology varies in general, for various disabilities, according to the situation, and what you are using it for.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    That was an interesting link thank you Nick Tamen. It obviously represents the opinion of Deaf Australia. I don't think it represents usage though. Most would think that a term such as hearing impaired is what is needed and that deaf is objectionable.
    Yes, that was how I read it. But that raises the question that has come up several times—if “most” people think deaf is objectionable or offensive and that hearing impaired is preferable, yet the people being talked about say it’s hearing impaired that’s offensive and deaf that is preferred, whose opinion wins?

    I’d say the opinion of the people being talked about wins, no question. Otherwise, you basically have “most” people telling Deaf and hard of hearing people what they should and shouldn’t be offended by.

    Seems pretty basic to me—ask people how they like to be addressed or described, and then use what they say they prefer.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    that raises the question that has come up several times—if “most” people think deaf is objectionable or offensive and that hearing impaired is preferable, yet the people being talked about say it’s hearing impaired that’s offensive and deaf that is preferred, whose opinion wins?

    Why does it have to be a win/lose issue ? Why not negotiate a term that both parties to the conversation are comfortable with ?

    Which is not a correction, because that term refers to situations where there are right and wrong answers, but is a responding to the other person's personal preference.

    If you're happy enough to go along with the other person's preferences for terminology that describes their situation, then yes it seems polite to do so. If you have issues with that term, then why not agree with them a neutral alternative ?

  • tessaBtessaB Shipmate
    This is all very interesting. Recently there has been a debate around the use of the phrase 'Autistic People' as opposed to 'People with Autism' in the UK. The phrase preferred by social workers etc has always been PWA but a number of very vocal people have pointed out that it is not an add-on but a part of their nature and would prefer to be called Autistic.

    I have always referred to my younger son as autistic rather than as a person with autism because I felt that there was very little that wasn't informed by his autism. I am following the debate with interest to see what happens.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 4
    Russ wrote: »
    If you're happy enough to go along with the other person's preferences for terminology that describes their situation, then yes it seems polite to do so. If you have issues with that term, then why not agree with them a neutral alternative?

    What if there's no mutually agreeable neutral alternative because neutrality is undesirable to one of the parties? For example, under Jim Crow whites did not use courtesy titles of respect when referring to blacks, for example, Mr., Mrs., Miss., Sir, or Ma'am. Instead, blacks were called by their first names. Blacks had to use courtesy titles when referring to whites, and were not allowed to call them by their first names.* Where's the "neutral ground" where one party is using a term of address to establish a hierarchical relationship?


    *Obligatory quote from In the Heat of the Night:
    Gillespie: "Virgil"? That's a funny name for a n***er boy to come from Philadelphia. What do they call you up there?

    Virgil Tibbs: They call me MISTER TIBBS!
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    tessaB wrote: »
    This is all very interesting. Recently there has been a debate around the use of the phrase 'Autistic People' as opposed to 'People with Autism' in the UK. The phrase preferred by social workers etc has always been PWA but a number of very vocal people have pointed out that it is not an add-on but a part of their nature and would prefer to be called Autistic.

    I have always referred to my younger son as autistic rather than as a person with autism because I felt that there was very little that wasn't informed by his autism. I am following the debate with interest to see what happens.

    I see a lot of this too, because of being in various autism groups, both online and in 'real life'. Parents often (but not always) prefer 'person with autism' for their kids, because often they see it as a negative thing and separate from their child, sometimes even that their child is 'battling' autism. Or sometimes they don't see it as negative per se, but they don't want their child to be defined by autism.

    Whereas a lot of autistic people see it as part of their identity, not something to be ashamed of, but part of who they are. I think part of the divide came because of Autism Speaks having a very negative video about autism being like a cancer killing your child and your family. And the fact they want to find a cure - whereas often autistic people see it that 'curing' them would be be effectually killing them, turning them into a different person.

    But equally, there are some autistic people who do see their autism as a very negative thing, and some who do like to call themselves a person with autism. It gives rise to some interesting discussions, as in theory people believe people should choose whatever term they like for themselves, but also they don't like people, even fellow autistic people, talking negatively about autism. Another term that has become controversial is Aspergers. And of course disorder. I generally sidestep it all by saying I'm on the autism spectrum, which also has the advantage of reminding people that it is a spectrum, and makes it easier for them to process the fact that I don't present like Rainman or their three-year-old nephew. But sometimes I just say 'autistic,' when it's people I know, because it's quicker.
  • Russ wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    that raises the question that has come up several times—if “most” people think deaf is objectionable or offensive and that hearing impaired is preferable, yet the people being talked about say it’s hearing impaired that’s offensive and deaf that is preferred, whose opinion wins?

    Why does it have to be a win/lose issue ? Why not negotiate a term that both parties to the conversation are comfortable with ?
    Why should this be framed as a win/lose situation to start with? What do I "lose" if I say "Deaf" or "hard of hearing" rather than "hearing impaired"?

    If we're working from a premise here that I, like "most people," use "hearing impaired" because I understand "Deaf" to be an objectionable and offensive term, then we're working from a premise that I want to be considerate of, not offensive to, others. If I am told by the very people I'm trying to be considerate of that they actually do not like to be called "hearing impaired" and that in fact they find that term offensive, but I still use "hearing impaired" because I think "Deaf" is objectionable and offensive, then one or more—or all—of three things seem to be going on:
    1. I'm really not concerned about being considerate;
    2. I really just want to be able to talk the way I want to talk; and/or
    3. I think I have the prerogative to tell others when they should and should not be offended about things I don't have a stake in.
    The idea that I somehow "lose" by using a term that others prefer to have used regarding them seems, frankly, twisted. If when referring to you I use the words that would like used about you, that sounds like a win/win to me. You feel respected and I'm being considerate, which I hope is what others presume I want to be.

  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    So much of this, like on the Transgender issue, seems to be an inability some people have to accept people's own experience of themselves.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    Russ, I'm also feeling bewildered as to the negotiation thing. Can you give a solid, practical example? If I were to describe someone with a term they didn't like, and they told me they preferred another term, I'm also not really sure why I should feel the need to negotiate. Say I refer to someone as 'wheelchair bound' (a term I don't use, but some do) and they tell me they don't like that term as it sounds patronising, suggesting they are bound, when in reality their wheelchair gives them a freedom and mobility they wouldn't otherwise have. And then they tell me they use the term 'wheelchair user.' I can't really envisage any situation or reason where I would say 'No, I don't want to call you a wheelchair user - let's compromise. Why don't I call you a wheelchair? Or wheelie?'
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    KarlLB wrote: »
    So much of this, like on the Transgender issue, seems to be an inability some people have to accept people's own experience of themselves.

    Yes. This. And an assumption that people's experience of themselves somehow impacts on you personally, and threatens your own identity. Which it really doesn't.
  • Yes, the idea of negotiation sounds bizarre to me, as it is really saying that I don't agree with your preferred nomenclature. Tough.
Sign In or Register to comment.