Re: In explanation of social ineptness

[Guest guest]

Newland wrote:

>

>

> /I very much dislike terms like " touch of autism " as it doesn't commit

> and seems minimizing (to me)./

> //

> That would depend on your use of language that you associate meaning

> with these words.That is the beauty and high lights our differences.

> Words have different meaning accross cultures. I respect your term

> and I hope you respect others use of lanuage if they define it

> differently.

>

, for me it's not an issue of respect at all. Just one of trying

to point out possible areas that can cause problems.

Take for example, the popular culture reference, " I'm feeling a little

bit OCD today " . The phrase is commonly used by people who are feeling

uncharacteristically anal retentive about one thing or another.

Many folks with a bonafide OCD diagnosis find such a comment offensive

and minimizing, as the context in which it is typically used

demonstrates that very little is understood about the nature of this

tragic condition and the way in which it impacts lives. The feeling is

that if more people understood what it's really like to live with OCD,

they wouldn't use such comments to describe matters that (even to them)

are largely trivial.

I can easily see the term " a touch of autism " being regarded in a

similar manner by those who identify as autistic.

Best,

~CJ

[Guest guest]

Newland wrote:

>

> Many people associate their identity with many labels but to not meet

> the standard definition for a diagnosis. That does not invalidate

> their feelings or how they perceive their identity.

Your first sentence I get. And I agree with you.

I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding your second sentence though.

How does not meeting the formal diagnostic criteria connect with

invalidation of feelings in this context?

Best,

~CJ (scratching head)

[Guest guest]

I'm looking at another side of this.

While it's important to use a descriptive term the person being described does

not find offensive, most descriptive terms are for the benefit of the audience.

So if I tell my neighbor, " I have a touch of autism " , while I might be fine with

that description, what will she think? What would she think if I used another

term?

This is why I say your community is important. In my community, most people know

enough about Aspergers that they " get it " , but " touch of autism " would be

confusing. Not everyone understands spectrum conditions, and they don't

understand that Asperger's is the term for mildly autistic.

In another community, people may know nothing about Asperger's, but if you say

" I'm basically normal, but have a touch of autism, " they will understand. I

think the " basically normal " , or other words indicating you are functionally

independent, are important.

If I say I have mild Aspergers, my community knows exactly what I mean. And

that's the term I use.

--Liz

> Newland wrote:

>>

>> Many people associate their identity with many labels but to not meet

>> the standard definition for a diagnosis. That does not invalidate

>> their feelings or how they perceive their identity.

>

>

> Your first sentence I get. And I agree with you.

>

> I'm having a bit of difficulty understanding your second sentence though.

>

> How does not meeting the formal diagnostic criteria connect with

> invalidation of feelings in this context?

>

> Best,

> ~CJ (scratching head)

>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> " We each have our own way of living in the world, together we are

like a symphony.

> Some are the melody, some are the rhythm, some are the harmony

> It all blends together, we are like a symphony, and each part is crucial.

> We all contribute to the song of life. "

> ...Sondra

>

> We might not always agree; but TOGETHER we will make a difference.

>

> ASPIRES is a closed, confidential, moderated list.

> Responsibility for posts to ASPIRES lies entirely with the original author.

> Do NOT post mail off-list without the author's permission.

> When in doubt, please refer to our list rules at:

> http://www.aspires-relationships.com/info_rules.htm

> ASPIRES ~ Climbing the mountain TOGETHER

> http://www.aspires-relationships.com

>

[Guest guest]

Great post, Liz. I agree that one's audience is critical here.

The way I see it, the purpose of all communication is to understand and

be understood. By keeping one's audience in mind when choosing words,

one stacks the deck in favor of the message being delivered as intended.

In the Aspie community, I usually say that I have " mild Aspergers " . For

those who understand the term, I might even say " shadow Aspergers " .

With NS folks, I usually just say that I'm quirky and wired up a bit

odd. People can usually relate to that in some way. I only use labels

like " Aspergers " with folks who actually understand what those labels mean.

Best,

~CJ

Liz Cademy wrote:

> I'm looking at another side of this.

>

> While it's important to use a descriptive term the person being described does

not find offensive, most descriptive terms are for the benefit of the audience.

>

> So if I tell my neighbor, " I have a touch of autism " , while I might be fine

with that description, what will she think? What would she think if I used

another term?

>

> This is why I say your community is important. In my community, most people

know enough about Aspergers that they " get it " , but " touch of autism " would be

confusing. Not everyone understands spectrum conditions, and they don't

understand that Asperger's is the term for mildly autistic.

>

> In another community, people may know nothing about Asperger's, but if you say

" I'm basically normal, but have a touch of autism, " they will understand. I

think the " basically normal " , or other words indicating you are functionally

independent, are important.

>

> If I say I have mild Aspergers, my community knows exactly what I mean. And

that's the term I use.

>

> --Liz

>