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 anarchist 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.
I think you got the eugenics relationship reversed: reducing a person to one of its characteristics, is the eugenic way, which aims to eliminate all the unwanted “characteristics == people” in search of some “ideal human”.
When you say “I am an autist”, you’re dismissing all other characteristics about yourself, including that of being a person with human rights attached to it… along with a skin of some color, hopefully two legs, a couple eyes, some ability to read, use some tools, some knowledge, etc.
In non-eugenic spaces, personhood is the recognition of a minimum common ground, not some ideal to be compared against. If any of the “anarchist spaces” you mention, does it the other way… an “eugenic anarchist space” would be news for me, but strictly speaking they are orthogonal classifications.
I’ve always said “I have autism” rather than “I am autistic”, as it makes it a characteristic rather than my whole person.
Although it could be argued that since autism isn’t really an ailment like diabetes, is it fair to state it as such? We need adaptations to function in society, but it’s not a disease nor does it needs curing.
Yeah, I can see where they’re coming from, but someone being called a “person with autism” is being explicitly recognized as a person, while calling someone an “autist” is not necessarily recognizing such.
That dehumanization is much closer to how eugenicists would refer to supposed “sub-human” groups (e.g. “blacks”, “gays”, etc).