Olmsted on Autism: "Retards" and "Autistics"

By Dan Olmsted

You've probably heard the controversy over the nation's Number One movie this past weekend that uses the R word in an ATTEMPT to send up actors who take roles playing disabled persons because they are "Oscar bait." Timothy Shriver of Special Olympics was on Good Morning America Monday decrying the movie and saying it's time to stop having fun with mental retardation, whatever the larger purpose may be.

No one wants to be accused of not "getting" the joke, but I have to say I agree with Shriver on this one. The N word is no longer fair game for white people, no matter their motive for using it, and people like Bill Cosby have tried to stamp out its use as a hip self-reference among young blacks as well. If for no other reason than that we want to model tolerance and inclusiveness for our kids without leaving any shades of gray, I'm with Bill and Timothy. There are lots of funny things in this world; let's leave other people's stereotyped differences out of it.

Which reminds me about the discussion over the use of the word autism. When I first started writing my column for United Press International, I got mail from readers who were trying to educate me on this point. You don't want to confuse the disability -- or different ability, or however one may choose to describe it -- with the person. That makes perfect sense to me, and (I hope) it's been a long time since I said someone was "autistic" (I sense someone googling "Olmsted and autistic" right this very minute). It's even easier to fall into its use as a preceding adjective -- an "autistic person" -- instead of keeping the order and priority straight -- a PERSON "with autism" or "who has autism."

I've also seen the point made that given the depth of the autism crisis -- you know, the epidemic that the CDC says it's not sure about, the full-court press to exonerate vaccines and mercury once and for all as the rate keeps skyrocketing -- it's more important to encourage awareness and investigation than to make too much over how it is used in a sentence. There's one way to employ the word that I really can't stand, however -- when people with autism are referred to as "autistics." How is that not a corollary of "retards"?
An example from Art Allen's book Vaccine: on page 283 he notes that "Leo Kanner wrote that the parents of autistics were generally 'mechanistic. …'" It's p-Art and parcel of Art's contempt for anyone concerned about vaccines and autism; you know you're in unfriendly territory when the book describes Bernie Rimland as "the original bitter parent" and titles one chapter "People Who Prefer Whooping Cough."

But the issue gets complicated. I see there is a site called autistics.org -- The Real Voice of Autism, which describes itself as "a  project by volunteers, most of them autistic, to create a global database of information and services for persons with autism." I'm not going to get into an argument if people with autism choose to call themselves autistics, but I can't help but say I wish they would rethink the matter.

Overall, I'm not in favor of turning a condition or a description of a human being into a noun. And here's the best argument of all: In my Webster's, at least, there is no such use of the word. "Autistics" simply do not exist. So if for no other reason that it's not good English, let's say good-bye to the A word.
--
Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.

Comments

[Ettina]

"You don't want to confuse the disability -- or different ability, or however one may choose to describe it -- with the person. That makes perfect sense to me, and (I hope) it's been a long time since I said someone was "autistic" (I sense someone googling "Olmsted and autistic" right this very minute). It's even easier to fall into its use as a preceding adjective -- an "autistic person" -- instead of keeping the order and priority straight -- a PERSON "with autism" or "who has autism.""

I call myself a blond, or a white person, or a Canadian. Does that mean I'm saying that defines me as a person?
Why should there be different rules for disability labels? I think it just makes them stand out and increase the stigma. Why not treat disability labels like any other descriptor of a person?

"There's one way to employ the word that I really can't stand, however -- when people with autism are referred to as "autistics." How is that not a corollary of "retards"?"

Because very few, if any, developmentally disabled people call themselves 'retards' and are not offended by it? Because 'retard' has a long history of being used as a school-child insult?

[T@SendChocolate]

[...]Dan Olmsted, over at Age of Autism has been ruffling feathers because he believes we need to abolish the use of the word, "autistic." He is on the right track.

I have two children, as you know. They have autism. They are not autistic.[...]

http://tinyurl.com/4pyuzw

[Stagmom]

Dear Alex, you might say, "hello" when you come in to correct us and call us "YOU guys." Really, where are your manners? And to compare autism to being gay? I fail to see the connection and I have no intention of letting that conversation continue here.

I wrote a piece for HuffPo on the Retard word here:

http://tinyurl.com/5jz3t4

[Alex Plank]

Rethink the use of the word 'autistics'? Have you even talked to an autistic who describes himself as autistic? I refer to myself autistic and it's not a derogatory term. Self advocates have used the term autistic to describe ourselves and we have quite a few reasons to do so.

Since autism is a neurological difference (and no one would deny this, even you guys), the word "autistic" makes the most sense. Another group of people with neurological differences is the gay community. I've never heard an accepting person describe a gay person as "a person with gayness."

[Cathy R.]

This reminds me of another 'war of the words' we were introduced to 7 years ago when my son was born. My son also has achondroplasia - which is the most common form of dwarfism. It occurs typically in average heights parents, through a spontaneous genetic mutation, does not effect mental capabilities, and has a range of it's own physical limitations depending on the individual. Shortly (no pun intended) after his arrival, we became aware of how important wording is in the LP (Little People/Persons) community. "He has dwarfism - he is affected by dwarfism - he is a dwarf - he is a little person...." every family struggles with their way to describe their family member's 'disability' or 'difference'. Some people feel very strongly - some people couldn't care less. Autism has it's own problems - not one known cause, no predictable course of treatment, toxic secrets, etc. but I find the debates circle around the same issue...using one word to describe a wonderful, complex being.

[kim]

I tell people my son has vaccine-induced autism.

[wowzer]

I don't have children with autism and always agreed that all of us should say "child with autism" etc...but after reading AutisticLiving.com's strong response I would tend to agree with her. Let's not take issue with the families that are affected by autism. Let them describe it the way they feel is best.

[Michlyn]

I was recently in my health food store here in Florida, where we live 3 months out of a year, and I have a relationship with the owner of the store. I was there with my completely perfect 6 year old who was diagonsed PDD-NOS at age 4 1/2 after returning from living 3 years in Europe (didn't receive MMR at target age... instead age 4 to start preschool- she tanked)...and I was loaning out my DVDs from the Autism One conference (which I attended) and a lady standing in line saw the DVDs as the HFS lady and I were talking and she said... "Oh,... do you have an autistic child??" I cringed and replied..."No, I am blessed to have 3 very healthy, perfect children". Liv, my oldest and recovered beyond belief child responded..."and you can take that to the bank." I about lost it. I have no idea where she got that phrase from. But I think that she could see in my eyes that I wasn't happy about what someone had said about someone and somehow she just backed me up. I think that if the lady had said... "Oh dear Lord, did you have a child that was toxic and loaded with viruses and was Dx with autism?" Or even... "is your family effected by autism?" I would have been okay... but I know I froze when I heard "autistic"...

[AutisticLiving.com]

I've never understood the hub-bub about wording. I actually get a little insulted when folks "correct" me. He's my child. If I want to say he has autism, is autistic, vaccine injured, has a vaccine injury, that is my prerogative. I find it very insulting that anyone should be so bold as to decide what terms one can and cannot use to describe their own children.

Depending on the conversation, the point in the conversation, etc, I will use any one of those things.

Autistic is a word that basically means "having autism". This is why I chose it for the site AutisticLiving.com. Our lives, like it or not, are autistic. We have autism in our lives. It's nothing more than a noun vs. an adjective.

I have never heard of the word "autistic" being used in a disparaging way. I've heard "retard" used, but never autistic. I've also heard of Asperger's being used negatively, pronounced "ass-burgers" by kids, taunting kids on the spectrum. Never the word "autistic".

My son is autistic. Why? Because he has autism. That's what the word means. Folks have told me to say "I have a child with autism." Au contraire, my child is not with autism. As he opens his mouth, unable to utter a word, with his jaw locked open, trying to speak, I say he is very much against autism. So should I say "I have a child against autism"? Of course not.

Dan, I agree with 99.9% of everything you've ever written. This is a first. I'm sorry, but the "person first" language just turns my stomach. No, not because there is anything really wrong with the words themselves. Because it's an attempt to soften an issue with language. You know, remember layoffs? Now they're "resource actions". Remember "rebels" or "guerillas"? Now we call them "insurgents". How about children with autism? Now they call them "special needs".

My son doesn't have special needs. I go to a hotel and order a 6am wake-up call. That's a special need. My son is autistic, has autism, was injured by the combination of MMR and Varivax, and people want to say he has "special needs". Where I come from we call that dire need. He is in dire need of therapy. He is in dire need of supplements and treatments that our clusterf*** of a government says don't work in order to hide the misdeeds of pharmaceutical companies. He is in dire need of a special education beyond what they just throw at everyone who doesn't fit the mold. He is in dire need of the love and understanding that society OWES him for their uninformed voting choices, and intense apathy when it comes to our government and the dangerous choices they have been allowed to make for us.

My son is also in dire need of justice. No, not some monetary settlement of a few hundred thousand dollars, or a few million dollars, but justice. We have a pharmaceutical company named MERCK that is out there killing, maiming, and otherwise destroying people's lives in the name of corporate profits, and our government allows it to continue. We have rallies on the steps of Capitol Hill when we should be rallying 20 miles from my home on the front lawn of MERCK shouting "shut the **ckers down!", literally carrying torches and pitchforks. These people should be in jail, period.

Yet, my son doesn't get his justice. Instead, we not only have MERCK, but we have Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Autism Speaks, two organizations that have PARTNERED WITH MERCK on SEVERAL occasions, either directly or indirectly, and nobody seems to care. Nobody seems to notice. CHOP even has one of their little dirt bags, Paul Offit, running around playing marketing rep for these bastards.....and still, nobody cares, at least nobody who can do anything about it. Tomorrow morning there will be at least 3 families in the waiting room at CHOP awaiting an autism evaluation. It makes me want to puke.

So you say that using the word "autistic" is somehow a problem? I don't give a rat's ass what my son is called, if the choices are "autistic" and "autism". In the grand scheme of things, this has to be one of, if not THE most unimportant issue imaginable in our community. A moment of energy on this topic, is a moment of energy wasted that could have been spent on dealing with the REAL issues at hand.

I'm sorry Dan, I am just not in the mood to read about this nonsense again.

Not now, not ever.

Dan, you're great. This is just one non-issue that I cannot stand to see more time wasted on.

[Anne]

"'Autistics' simply do not exist."

Dan, wouldn't that be, "Autistics" simply does not exist? Not to be pedantic or anything. But autistics do exist, even if the word "autistics" doesn't.

We use descriptions of people as nouns all the time - I might be referred to as a woman, a mother, or a lawyer, though that doesn't mean I'm not also a human being. Well, except maybe for the lawyer part.

To me, the issue isn't using descriptions of people as nouns, it's using pejorative descriptions, like "retard." The description "autistic" isn't pejorative. Or is it?

I agree with Ms. Hines that there is a possibility that some people, not being familiar with autism, may think of autistic folks in a dehumanizing way. However, I don't think person-first language goes very far to remedy that. To me, it would go further for a non-autistic journalist to get some opinions from people with autism diagnoses about what they want to be called.

Although you had some fun ridiculing Dr. Chew, the issue she raised wasn't irrelevant. If you had corresponded with the people at autistics.org to get their opinion about the use of the word "autistics," you would have been treating them as people first rather than just giving lip service to the idea. Those people are worth talking to. Their opinions matter. They really are people first.