I hate it when people say “[person] is ADHD”. A person is not a disease. If someone has cancer, do you say “my aunt is cancer”? Weird and insulting.
From the autistic side of things, a lot of us dislike “has autism” or “person with autism” because it implies there’s a hidden, non-autistic person underneath the autism. Not everyone feels this way of course, but for people that do they may transfer that way of speaking onto other things like ADHD as well.
I completely agree. I don't have autism, it's not a disease, it's part of who I am like my ethnicity. I am so fucking tired of having to conform to what neurotypicals think I should be.
"Mrs Jones, I'm afraid your son has Black. Luckily, we caught it early, so with speech therapy, skin-bleaching treatments, and facial reconstruction surgery, he can lead a normal life."
Is it contagious?
"Yes. If any of your son's friends are using slang words or phrases like Rizz, No Cap, Slay, Woke, Hip, Hipster, Ate, Based, Basic, Bet, Extra, Gyatt, or Tea, they could have caught Black."
/uj American culture is literally 80% stolen from black people. If white supremacists want to talk "replacement theory", culturally it already happened. And that's a good thing, because the manufactured "white" racial identity that came out of pretending all Europeans were the same ethnicity sucked. European Americans forgot who they were, deliberately replacing it with bland oppression. And bland oppression could not stick around in the face of black innovations like jazz, hip-hop, and rock. It had no substance. White Americans need to stop suppressing black artists and stop taking credit for their inventions. The future is diverse and it cannot be stopped. The only thing white supremacists can do is hurt people in the here and now.
Thank you! I've always struggled with when to use person first language and when not to. This is the first time I've seen it explained in a way that makes sense to me.
The whole "person with autism is better because it puts the person first" sounds exactly like the kind of BS that autism can lower patience for, anyways.
it's just a linguistic quirk, english just so happens to put adjectives first (i.e. "autistic person" instead of "person autistic")
The choice is more between 'Sally has autism' (some people think this makes it sound more like a disease, more distancing and separate from the person), and 'Sally is autistic' (sounds more like a character/personality trait, a way of being).
I think that there are some groups of people who prefer person-first language. For example, "person with epilepsy" is generally preferred to "epilectic person" (n.b. I do not have epilepsy). I also just looked into the history of person-first language and apparently it first arose in the context of people with AIDS, who were sick of being referred to as "AIDS victims" or similar.
In that light, I can understand why some people prefer person-first language. Myself, I am in accord with the general autistic community in calling myself autistic (as an adjective). Occasionally, amongst friends and kin, I may even call myself "an autistic".
There are others on this wider thread that capture some of my reasons why: I remember, shortly after I was diagnosed, I pondered whether I would take a cure for autism, if one existed. I concluded that I wouldn't — not because being autistic was a strictly positive thing for me (it certainly made my life harder in many respects), but because I didn't think that it would be possible to extricate the autism from what is intrinsically me — in short, any "cure" might as well be death.
although this hits kinda different when you're also depressed enough you wouldn't mind disappearing
Since ADHD is also a neurodevelopmental condition, it’s less ‘transfer’ and more just the same notion for a different condition.
Otherwise, yeah, this. I’m ADHD because it is a part of me. I can take medicines to help it, but it is the way I am.
Interesting, thanks for sharing a different view on this. I can understand that. For ADHD it’s the same of course, you can’t separate your personality from it. A question like “Would you like to have not had ADHD/autism?” makes no sense, because then we would have been entirely different people.
I’ve never heard someone say “I am autism” or “[person] is autism” though, like people seem to do with ADHD. In the case of autism, what would you use instead of people-first language?
For autism you'd just say someone is autistic/I'm autistic, I think people just say he's ADHD/I'm ADHD because I'm not sure there's a comparable way to adjective-ify ADHD like there is with autism/autistic.
In Dutch, we do: we call someone an ADHDer. I’m not opposed to that, I call myself that occasionally. It’s just the “watersnipje is ADHD” phrasing that really rubs me the wrong way, it’s like sand in my teeth every time I read that.
That's super interesting, thanks for sharing. Sometimes my friends use the phrase "AuDHDer" (autistic person who also has ADHD) or "ADHDer".
I agree with you about the phrasing in the post being weird. Do you find that it feels different if it's said by someone who has ADHD, potentially towards other neurodivergent folk? I ask because whilst I don't think I really use phrasing "I am ADHD"/"She is ADHD", I do know that the way I speak about neurodivergence is different when I am amongst other people who are neurodivergent.
Hm, I’m not sure. Lots of people have ADHD, so it’s not that often. I’m not “out” as having ADHD at work, and I think there, I’m more inclined to say “person with ADHD” than “ADHDer”.
I mean, depends on how advanced the cancer is, I suppose…
ADHD isn't a disease...
You made an even worse error with that, IMO. I agree with what you're trying to say, but you failed horribly at doing so.
Kill her kid, all ADHD gone.
"I'm so OCD". You ARE obsessive compulsive disorder?
Yeah, you don't say "I am diabetes/cancer/leprosy".
I’ve personally only seen that used by dumbasses who just liked to keep their stuff organized and who had no idea what a devastating condition real OCD can be.
No but you do say "I'm diabetic" which uses diabetes as sort of identity within the sentence structure.
Similarly "I'm a cancer survivor" and "I'm a cancer patient" are ways someone with cancer could structure a sentence to give weight to the way cancer and the experiences of cancer fundamentally change this person's personality and identity.
While "I am ADHD" isn't perfect, it's a very new use of language to try and create an identity form, and it will continue to evolve and sound more natural.
Personally I still find myself saying "I'm autistic and I have ADHD" in most situations, but if I know I won't have to explain the term too much, I do prefer "I'm AuDHD", because it's an identity first phrase, and it feels as natural as "I'm autistic" or "I'm diabetic".
But the difference grammatically between "I'm autistic" and "I'm ADHD" is minimal, yet I agree one sounds fine and the other just sounds stupid. And other than exposure, I can't place my finger on why.
I hate it when people say “[person] is ADHD”. A person is not a disease. If someone has cancer, do you say “my aunt is cancer”? Weird and insulting.
From the autistic side of things, a lot of us dislike “has autism” or “person with autism” because it implies there’s a hidden, non-autistic person underneath the autism. Not everyone feels this way of course, but for people that do they may transfer that way of speaking onto other things like ADHD as well.
I completely agree. I don't have autism, it's not a disease, it's part of who I am like my ethnicity. I am so fucking tired of having to conform to what neurotypicals think I should be.
"Mrs Jones, I'm afraid your son has Black. Luckily, we caught it early, so with speech therapy, skin-bleaching treatments, and facial reconstruction surgery, he can lead a normal life."
Is it contagious?
"Yes. If any of your son's friends are using slang words or phrases like Rizz, No Cap, Slay, Woke, Hip, Hipster, Ate, Based, Basic, Bet, Extra, Gyatt, or Tea, they could have caught Black."
/uj American culture is literally 80% stolen from black people. If white supremacists want to talk "replacement theory", culturally it already happened. And that's a good thing, because the manufactured "white" racial identity that came out of pretending all Europeans were the same ethnicity sucked. European Americans forgot who they were, deliberately replacing it with bland oppression. And bland oppression could not stick around in the face of black innovations like jazz, hip-hop, and rock. It had no substance. White Americans need to stop suppressing black artists and stop taking credit for their inventions. The future is diverse and it cannot be stopped. The only thing white supremacists can do is hurt people in the here and now.
Thank you! I've always struggled with when to use person first language and when not to. This is the first time I've seen it explained in a way that makes sense to me.
The whole "person with autism is better because it puts the person first" sounds exactly like the kind of BS that autism can lower patience for, anyways.
it's just a linguistic quirk, english just so happens to put adjectives first (i.e. "autistic person" instead of "person autistic")
The choice is more between 'Sally has autism' (some people think this makes it sound more like a disease, more distancing and separate from the person), and 'Sally is autistic' (sounds more like a character/personality trait, a way of being).
I think that there are some groups of people who prefer person-first language. For example, "person with epilepsy" is generally preferred to "epilectic person" (n.b. I do not have epilepsy). I also just looked into the history of person-first language and apparently it first arose in the context of people with AIDS, who were sick of being referred to as "AIDS victims" or similar.
In that light, I can understand why some people prefer person-first language. Myself, I am in accord with the general autistic community in calling myself autistic (as an adjective). Occasionally, amongst friends and kin, I may even call myself "an autistic".
There are others on this wider thread that capture some of my reasons why: I remember, shortly after I was diagnosed, I pondered whether I would take a cure for autism, if one existed. I concluded that I wouldn't — not because being autistic was a strictly positive thing for me (it certainly made my life harder in many respects), but because I didn't think that it would be possible to extricate the autism from what is intrinsically me — in short, any "cure" might as well be death.
although this hits kinda different when you're also depressed enough you wouldn't mind disappearing
Since ADHD is also a neurodevelopmental condition, it’s less ‘transfer’ and more just the same notion for a different condition.
Otherwise, yeah, this. I’m ADHD because it is a part of me. I can take medicines to help it, but it is the way I am.
Interesting, thanks for sharing a different view on this. I can understand that. For ADHD it’s the same of course, you can’t separate your personality from it. A question like “Would you like to have not had ADHD/autism?” makes no sense, because then we would have been entirely different people.
I’ve never heard someone say “I am autism” or “[person] is autism” though, like people seem to do with ADHD. In the case of autism, what would you use instead of people-first language?
For autism you'd just say someone is autistic/I'm autistic, I think people just say he's ADHD/I'm ADHD because I'm not sure there's a comparable way to adjective-ify ADHD like there is with autism/autistic.
In Dutch, we do: we call someone an ADHDer. I’m not opposed to that, I call myself that occasionally. It’s just the “watersnipje is ADHD” phrasing that really rubs me the wrong way, it’s like sand in my teeth every time I read that.
That's super interesting, thanks for sharing. Sometimes my friends use the phrase "AuDHDer" (autistic person who also has ADHD) or "ADHDer".
I agree with you about the phrasing in the post being weird. Do you find that it feels different if it's said by someone who has ADHD, potentially towards other neurodivergent folk? I ask because whilst I don't think I really use phrasing "I am ADHD"/"She is ADHD", I do know that the way I speak about neurodivergence is different when I am amongst other people who are neurodivergent.
Hm, I’m not sure. Lots of people have ADHD, so it’s not that often. I’m not “out” as having ADHD at work, and I think there, I’m more inclined to say “person with ADHD” than “ADHDer”.
I mean, depends on how advanced the cancer is, I suppose…
ADHD isn't a disease...
You made an even worse error with that, IMO. I agree with what you're trying to say, but you failed horribly at doing so.
Kill her kid, all ADHD gone.
"I'm so OCD". You ARE obsessive compulsive disorder?
Yeah, you don't say "I am diabetes/cancer/leprosy".
I’ve personally only seen that used by dumbasses who just liked to keep their stuff organized and who had no idea what a devastating condition real OCD can be.
No but you do say "I'm diabetic" which uses diabetes as sort of identity within the sentence structure.
Similarly "I'm a cancer survivor" and "I'm a cancer patient" are ways someone with cancer could structure a sentence to give weight to the way cancer and the experiences of cancer fundamentally change this person's personality and identity.
While "I am ADHD" isn't perfect, it's a very new use of language to try and create an identity form, and it will continue to evolve and sound more natural.
Personally I still find myself saying "I'm autistic and I have ADHD" in most situations, but if I know I won't have to explain the term too much, I do prefer "I'm AuDHD", because it's an identity first phrase, and it feels as natural as "I'm autistic" or "I'm diabetic".
But the difference grammatically between "I'm autistic" and "I'm ADHD" is minimal, yet I agree one sounds fine and the other just sounds stupid. And other than exposure, I can't place my finger on why.