I don’t like being referred to as a “person with autism”. I can’t just set it down, it’s not something I can remove. It is fundamental to the way I interact with the world, right down to how stim enters my brain. If my brain has types of inputs no allistic person can even approach, and methods of processing inherently different, it is an existence no allistic person can reach. There is no version of me that is not autistic.
A “cure” is the same as shooting me and replacing me with someone else.
The type of person I am is autistic. I am autistic.
I know it is a big trend in leftist spaces to use person first language, but in many situations that just sounds like eugenics to me. Personhood is not some distinct universal experience. There is no “ideal human mind” floating out there in the aether for them to recognize in me.
I get that person first language helps some people recognize that thoughts happen behind my eyes, but if the only way they can do that is by imagining I’m them, I don’t care.
Ask them if they’d call a black person a “person with blackness”
Is that not what “person of color” is trying to do?
“Person with colonialism”
I prefer non-White because that’s what the category is really about, defining people in opposition to the political racial ideology of Whiteness
Not really, it’s a more accurate and meaningful term to replace “minority”, especially since white minorities in non-white regions can still have white privilege
I have seen people in the comments on some platforms argue for that when I mention stuff like this, its a time
I think “black person” is more or less equivalent to “autistic person/person with autism”.
CW racist language
What OP is asking would be closer to calling someone “a black”, which sounds offensive for obvious reasons - it reduces personhood and emphasizes their difference, one that historically was used to discriminate
Only because in that case the word was used to persecute. Same how both “A latino(a)” and “a latino person” are fine, but “a hispanic” is really bad
specifically “a hispanic” is bad because it’s wrong linguistically? Was it used historically (or now) to be racist? I looked up historical use real quick and only found stuff about adding “Hispanic” as a choice in the 70s. What did i miss?
I too am interested to know this. I don’t want people to think I’m assuming all people from Latin America as being Mexican, so when I’m unsure where exactly they are from I have used ‘is Hispanic’ in the past.
I’m aware of the S word slur that likely derives from this. Is this why Hispanic is bad? What word to describe the Latin American or Spanish cultures would be better advised?
Only because “blackness” isn’t really a typical (or technically appropriate) word? I’ve heard “people with darker skin” or equivalent and it seems to have been fine, in appropriate contexts.
People with darker skin sounds weird as fuck and is kinda meaningless phrase
“Dark skinned people” is better
As a cracker, I’m in no position to assert what is or isn’t better. But as I say, I’ve heard the phrase/equivalent used many times by many a person and it’s been fine.