I have used the exact same makeup for the last 14 years.
I believe that long-acting birth control should be free and available, even to young teens (perhaps especially to young teens.)
I would clone my dog if I could.
The older I get, the more I think pretty much any weight-loss related anything (diet, exercise plan, pill, potion, or poultice) is a scam. It's all about the genetic lottery.
I don't think it's necessary or useful, and refuse to use it.
Please to explain
I was thinking (obi I am answering for this poster so I am hoping to be wrong): don't want to use 'person with autism" and instead use "autistic person". People using the latter are lazy and ignorant so, again, hope I interpreted it incorrectly.
I was thinking (obi I am answering for this poster so I am hoping to be wrong): don't want to use 'person with autism" and instead use "autistic person". People using the latter are lazy and ignorant so, again, hope I interpreted it incorrectly.
I understand what person first language is. I'm wondering why this poster is so opposed to it as to refuse to use it.
Post by lyssbobiss, Command, B613 on Jun 7, 2015 12:23:54 GMT -5
That actually made me angry, about the refusal to use people first language and I realize this is supposed to be flame free and so I had to bite my tongue not to respond. It doesn't have to come second nature to you, but to literally go out of your way to not use it just because you think it's dumb or unnecessary is actually really lame.
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
The older I get, the more I think pretty much any weight-loss related anything (diet, exercise plan, pill, potion, or poultice) is a scam. It's all about the genetic lottery.
I think this about many things, like disease, aging, etc. I mean, I try to be healthy, but I think so much is pre-determined by genetics.
I was thinking (obi I am answering for this poster so I am hoping to be wrong): don't want to use 'person with autism" and instead use "autistic person". People using the latter are lazy and ignorant so, again, hope I interpreted it incorrectly.
I understand what person first language is. I'm wondering why this poster is so opposed to it as to refuse to use it.
I figured you did and I was responding to her (him?) because it is ignorant as hell.
That actually made me angry, about the refusal to use people first language and I realize this is supposed to be flame free and so I had to bite my tongue not to respond. It doesn't have to come second nature to you, but to literally go out of your way to not use it just because you think it's dumb or unnecessary is actually really lame.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
I don't think it's necessary or useful, and refuse to use it.
Please to explain
I prefer identity first language.
I'm hardly the only disabled person to dislike it. Hell, the National Federation of the Blind passed a resolution not to use it in the early 90s when the U.S. Department of Education told them to use it. This isn't a new debate within the disabled community.
Apparently a lot of people have issues with this, so let me pull together some sources that can explain it better than I can, and I'll try to tag everyone who disagreed.
I'm not going to tell anyone else how to refer to themselves. It's a personal choice.
I also don't think anyone should tell me how to refer to my own disabilities. I'm disabled. While it's not my whole identity, it affects every moment of every day and every choice I make.
I don't think there's anything wrong with being disabled, and to some extent, I think people first language implies that there is.
I think I'm more impaired by society's expectations of me than I am by my disability, and people first language doesn't change that. You're still using my disability as an identifier. You just changed the syntax.
Post by lyssbobiss, Command, B613 on Jun 7, 2015 17:55:49 GMT -5
I appreciate that you came back to respond. I think that, after reading the sources you provided, I can somewhat understand where people may differ in how they want to be addressed, or discussed. However, the flaw for me was that I only refer to people with people first language (or make reference to any disability I suppose) is when we actually are talking about the disability and not just randomly discussing them whenever. Like, I wouldn't just say "my child with autism is on the swings." It would be "my child with autism needs a new IEP" or something. In other words, it may be medicalized but it's in a medical context.
I will say that I made a poor assumption in thinking you were being deliberately provocative with no disability or reason to back up your own statement and I apologize for that.
"This prick is asking for someone here to bring him to task Somebody give me some dirt on this vacuous mass so we can at last unmask him I'll pull the trigger on it, someone load the gun and cock it While we were all watching, he got Washington in his pocket."
I appreciate that you came back to respond. I think that, after reading the sources you provided, I can somewhat understand where people may differ in how they want to be addressed, or discussed. However, the flaw for me was that I only refer to people with people first language (or make reference to any disability I suppose) is when we actually are talking about the disability and not just randomly discussing them whenever. Like, I wouldn't just say "my child with autism is on the swings." It would be "my child with autism needs a new IEP" or something. In other words, it may be medicalized but it's in a medical context.
I will say that I made a poor assumption in thinking you were being deliberately provocative with no disability or reason to back up your own statement and I apologize for that.
I should have been clearer. I should have explained why I disagree with people first language.
I'm still on my phone, so I can't bold. But where you say you only use that language in a medical context?
That's your life. You get to make that choice. Because I'm visibly disabled, I don't. People bring up my disability at the grocery store. The pharmacy. Restaurants. Movie theaters. And on and on. Any public situation.
Then, many of those people who were rude enough to bring up the fact that I'm disabled chastise me for the language I use to describe myself- because they know better. They're teachers, or nurses, or aunts, sometimes even parents- and since I'm disabled, shouldn't I know what language to use to describe myself? They would never use such insulting language to describe a child. I should know better.
What those assholes are missing is that the problem isn't the language I'm using. The problem is a society where the above interaction is acceptable enough for me to have that conversation at least once a week. And that's just the people first language conversation. That's not the what's wrong with you, or you have cp, don't you? (I don't), or should you really be doing that, or why don't you have a coat on, etc. If people first language were going to change any of the above, it would have by now, and I think it takes valuable time away from discussing things that might make a difference.
I understand what person first language is. I'm wondering why this poster is so opposed to it as to refuse to use it.
I figured you did and I was responding to her (him?) because it is ignorant as hell.
Is it?
Or is it ignorant as hell to only allow a marginalized community one way to refer to themselves?
To literally write the regulations on how to refer to a group of people and say this is how you need to refer to yourself (the Department of Education told the National Federation of the Blind to use people first language).
I'll own that my comment was provacative and not in a context where my place in the conversation was obvious, but people first language is not the only option for respectful coversation.
Eta: I really do want to hear your argument for why people first language is the only option and why anyone who uses different language for any reason is either lazy or ignorant.
Post by penguingrrl on Jun 7, 2015 18:33:01 GMT -5
kirra, thank you for coming back and clarifying. I'll admit that you aren't a poster I recognize, so I had no idea you have a disability yourself. So when you put your first post my assumption was that you were coming from a place of ignorance, not from personal experience, in your opinion. Knowing that you have disabilities and are opposed from personal experience changes the intent and tone of your post entirely.
I'll admit that I assumed that you were suggesting referring to an intellectually disabled person as "oh, that retarded girl" was totally fine, which is what I took umbrage at. I apologize for my assumption and will read the links you provided. As someone who is fortunate not to deal with disabilities myself (or for my children) I always want to further my understanding so I ensure I treat all people with the respect and use the language preferred by the community rather than only seeking the advice of outsiders looking in.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
kirra, thank you for coming back and clarifying. I'll admit that you aren't a poster I recognize, so I had no idea you have a disability yourself. So when you put your first post my assumption was that you were coming from a place of ignorance, not from personal experience, in your opinion. Knowing that you have disabilities and are opposed from personal experience changes the intent and tone of your post entirely.
I'll admit that I assumed that you were suggesting referring to an intellectually disabled person as "oh, that retarded girl" was totally fine, which is what I took umbrage at. I apologize for my assumption and will read the links you provided. As someone who is fortunate not to deal with disabilities myself (or for my children) I always want to further my understanding so I ensure I treat all people with the respect and use the language preferred by the community rather than only seeking the advice of outsiders looking in.
People first language is the safe option. It's not offensive and makes it easier to avoid offensive comments.
Many people with disabilities prefer people first language. Their parents almost always do. In the U.S. it's the default.
But so much of conversation is in the subtext or surrounding context, and some people deliberately use people first language so they can say they're being respectful when the tone of their conversation is rude and insulting. I run into that a lot.
I figured you did and I was responding to her (him?) because it is ignorant as hell.
Is it?
Or is it ignorant as hell to only allow a marginalized community one way to refer to themselves?
To literally write the regulations on how to refer to a group of people and say this is how you need to refer to yourself (the Department of Education told the National Federation of the Blind to use people first language).
I'll own that my comment was provacative and not in a context where my place in the conversation was obvious, but people first language is not the only option for respectful coversation.
Eta: I really do want to hear your argument for why people first language is the only option and why anyone who uses different language for any reason is either lazy or ignorant.
Since it is something you are living, I will say you can choose how to address yourself. I, too, figured you were a person who, ike so many just being lazy or ignorant. If you had clarified, it would have been much different rather than just seemingly provocative so, for that I apologize. I also admit I did not think blind as I do know that the NFoB does use blind person, not person who is blind. I was thinking more as pnguingirl was "r person" or "autistic person". For my assumptions of provocation, I do apologize.
Or is it ignorant as hell to only allow a marginalized community one way to refer to themselves?
To literally write the regulations on how to refer to a group of people and say this is how you need to refer to yourself (the Department of Education told the National Federation of the Blind to use people first language).
I'll own that my comment was provacative and not in a context where my place in the conversation was obvious, but people first language is not the only option for respectful coversation.
Eta: I really do want to hear your argument for why people first language is the only option and why anyone who uses different language for any reason is either lazy or ignorant.
Since it is something you are living, I will say you can choose how to address yourself. I, too, figured you were a person who, ike so many just being lazy or ignorant. If you had clarified, it would have been much different rather than just seemingly provocative so, for that I apologize. I also admit I did not think blind as I do know that the NFoB does use blind person, not person who is blind. I was thinking more as pnguingirl was "r person" or "autistic person". For my assumptions of provocation, I do apologize.
Thank you.
People first language isn't just about people with intellectual disabilities or people with autism. It's applied to the whole spectrum of disabilities.
My biggest issue with people first language is personhood. To describe myself, I'm supposed to say that I'm a person first. That's the whole idea, isn't it? To recognize the person first? To acknowledge that they are a person?
I see people first language as a completely separate topic than derogatory terms for disabilities or disabled people, and that includes terms that used to be acceptable but are outdated.
Eta: and you never did explain why people first language is the only option
Since it is something you are living, I will say you can choose how to address yourself. I, too, figured you were a person who, ike so many just being lazy or ignorant. If you had clarified, it would have been much different rather than just seemingly provocative so, for that I apologize. I also admit I did not think blind as I do know that the NFoB does use blind person, not person who is blind. I was thinking more as pnguingirl was "r person" or "autistic person". For my assumptions of provocation, I do apologize.
Thank you.
People first language isn't just about people with intellectual disabilities or people with autism. It's applied to the whole spectrum of disabilities.
My biggest issue with people first language is personhood. To describe myself, I'm supposed to say that I'm a person first. That's the whole idea, isn't it? To recognize the person first? To acknowledge that they are a person?
I see people first language as a completely separate topic than derogatory terms for disabilities or disabled people, and that includes terms that used to be acceptable but are outdated.
Eta: and you never did explain why people first language is the only option
I believe it is because the person wants to be seen beyond just their disability
People first language isn't just about people with intellectual disabilities or people with autism. It's applied to the whole spectrum of disabilities.
My biggest issue with people first language is personhood. To describe myself, I'm supposed to say that I'm a person first. That's the whole idea, isn't it? To recognize the person first? To acknowledge that they are a person?
I see people first language as a completely separate topic than derogatory terms for disabilities or disabled people, and that includes terms that used to be acceptable but are outdated.
Eta: and you never did explain why people first language is the only option
I believe it is because the person wants to be seen beyond just their disability
eta never said it was the only option. You put those words on me.
And outdated is kind for many words once accepted, imo
I believe it is because the person wants to be seen beyond just their disability
eta never said it was the only option. You put those words on me.
And outdated is kind for many words once accepted, imo
Are you teflepi? If not, I'm confused. I was responding to her earlier comment that anyone not using people first language is lazy and ignorant. She didn't add any other options.
eta never said it was the only option. You put those words on me.
And outdated is kind for many words once accepted, imo
Are you teflepi? If not, I'm confused. I was responding to her earlier comment that anyone not using people first language is lazy and ignorant. She didn't add any other options.
I will agree that outdated is putting it kindly.
Lol. Yes. She likes to keep us on our toes by switching screen names mid-conversation. We're on to you, annieblah!
Are you teflepi? If not, I'm confused. I was responding to her earlier comment that anyone not using people first language is lazy and ignorant. She didn't add any other options.
I will agree that outdated is putting it kindly.
Lol. Yes. She likes to keep us on our toes by switching screen names mid-conversation. We're on to you, annieblah!
Thank you
People first language is the default in the U.S. It's the required syntax for most government related organizations. That's probably a good thing.
Identity first isn't as much of a thing. You'll rarely hear a parent of a child with a disability advocating its use. It's more common with blind people, deaf people, and people who were diagnosed with Aspergers.
Unless you know a disabled person or their family prefers identity first language, use people first. Almost no one will get angry for the use of people first. A hell of a lot of people are offended by identity first.
Lol. Yes. She likes to keep us on our toes by switching screen names mid-conversation. We're on to you, annieblah!
Thank you
People first language is the default in the U.S. It's the required syntax for most government related organizations. That's probably a good thing.
Identity first isn't as much of a thing. You'll rarely hear a parent of a child with a disability advocating its use. It's more common with blind people, deaf people, and people who were diagnosed with Aspergers.
Unless you know a disabled person or their family prefers identity first language, use people first. Almost no one will get angry for the use of people first. A hell of a lot of people are offended by identity first.
Just so I'm clear - identify first is "person with..." and person first is "autistic child". If I say "her son is autistic", what is that? Person first? Do I say "her son has autism"?
Honestly, for all of you for whom this is an issue, please forgive those of us who do it wrong. This issue has never crossed my radar.
People first language is the default in the U.S. It's the required syntax for most government related organizations. That's probably a good thing.
Identity first isn't as much of a thing. You'll rarely hear a parent of a child with a disability advocating its use. It's more common with blind people, deaf people, and people who were diagnosed with Aspergers.
Unless you know a disabled person or their family prefers identity first language, use people first. Almost no one will get angry for the use of people first. A hell of a lot of people are offended by identity first.
Just so I'm clear - identify first is "person with..." and person first is "autistic child". If I say "her son is autistic", what is that? Person first? Do I say "her son has autism"?
Honestly, for all of you for whom this is an issue, please forgive those of us who do it wrong. This issue has never crossed my radar.
People first is "person with autism" Identity first is "autistic person"
I'm almost positive "her son has autism" is people first, and "her son is autistic" is identity first, but I'm not positive.
Eta: As long as you're being polite and respectful, most disabled people (which is identity first- people first is "people with disabilities" don't care. They might explain what people first language is, but it's not a huge deal.
Just so I'm clear - identify first is "person with..." and person first is "autistic child". If I say "her son is autistic", what is that? Person first? Do I say "her son has autism"?
Honestly, for all of you for whom this is an issue, please forgive those of us who do it wrong. This issue has never crossed my radar.
People first is "person with autism" Identity first is "autistic person"
I'm almost positive "her son has autism" is people first, and "her son is autistic" is identity first, but I'm not positive.
And now I feel like I should avoid all conversations where this is an issue for fear of inadvertently offending someone. Not helpful!!
Just so I'm clear - identify first is "person with..." and person first is "autistic child". If I say "her son is autistic", what is that? Person first? Do I say "her son has autism"?
Honestly, for all of you for whom this is an issue, please forgive those of us who do it wrong. This issue has never crossed my radar.
People first is "person with autism" Identity first is "autistic person"
I'm almost positive "her son has autism" is people first, and "her son is autistic" is identity first, but I'm not positive.
Eta: As long as you're being polite and respectful, most disabled people (which is identity first- people first is "people with disabilities" don't care. They might explain what people first language is, but it's not a huge deal.
I posted before I saw your ETA. But seriously, I understand the distinction between "he has autism" and "he is autistic", but most people can't use "you're" properly, so I hope those affected cut the rest of us a little slack.
People first is "person with autism" Identity first is "autistic person"
I'm almost positive "her son has autism" is people first, and "her son is autistic" is identity first, but I'm not positive.
And now I feel like I should avoid all conversations where this is an issue for fear of inadvertently offending someone. Not helpful!!
Please don't. In general this really isn't an issue.
I pushed some buttons when I said I refuse to use people first language because that's stating that I know what it is but refuse to use it.
The easy way to remember what people first language is is the person is before the disability. So it's a "person with...."
Identity first is based on the idea that using your disability as an adjective is not an inherently bad thing. It's called identity based because we're arguing that our disability is a part of our identity, so "disabled person" or "blind person" is ok.
Eta: And this is one more prime example of why I dislike people first language. People know they're supposed to phrase things one way, but can't remember how, so they just don't talk about it. It closes down conversations. The people who don't talk about disabled people respectfully don't give a damn, so the syntax never even comes into play.
I think people with mental illness aren't given this same consideration has people with mental disabilities. The "r" word will get you flamed, but crazy, psycho, nuts... are used without bating an eye.
It doesn't personally bother me that the words are used, but I do get kinda butthurt that it gets left out.