Political Correctness

[TexRex]

"Haven't you noticed that it is never the ****** who campaigns for them being called African-American?"

I know this isn't a primary point you're making, but since it's been brought up, I'm compelled to note that "African-American" doesn't make a great deal of sense to me apart from those who are themselves of the two continents, and so I tend to refer to black Americans as exactly that unless individuals explicitly ask that I refer to them as the former, in which case I do make a genuine effort to comply because it's silly to not. The same would apply to "Mexican-American" or "Canadian-American," though those two are more likely to be fitting.

 

[UKMikey]

I know this isn't a primary point you're making, but since it's been brought up, I'm compelled to note that "African-American" doesn't make a great deal of sense to me apart from those who are themselves of the two continents, and so I tend to refer to black Americans as exactly that unless individuals explicitly ask that I refer to them as the former, in which case I do make a genuine effort to comply because it's silly to not. The same would apply to "Mexican-American" or "Canadian-American," though those two are more likely to be fitting.

So long as it's not ******. I'd agree it probably varies according to the person being addressed's preference. I'm black (mixed race) and British and my dad wasn't fond of the term. As a Gambian he wished they'd adopt just African as an ethnicity like Kennedy and Reagan were Irish and that people would hopefully infer their Americanness as with other communities.

 

[McLaren]

Anyway...

lol. lmao.

Trying to take shots at the people Twitter needs money from?

 

[TexRex]

So long as it's not ******.

Yeah, no...I've never been tempted to use that word. Or what I assume that word is supposed to be, anyway.

I'd agree it probably varies according to the person being addressed's preference.

Yep.

It's interesting, though, because I'm not likely to have a Ron Burgundy moment where I'm so fixated on one's "blackness" that I just say "black" over and over until I'm yelled at to stop. I can't actually imagine a scenario in which I'm asked to refer to someone as African-American rather than black.

 

[HenrySwanson]

There was a segment on The Late Show in which Jon Stewart spoke about the Kanye/Kyrie/Chappelle controversy and his views on censorship.



There's some excerpts from Hollywood Reporter

He referenced Brooklyn Nets star Kyrie Irving’s suspension due to promoting an anti-Jewish film on Twitter. “Penalizing somebody for having a thought, I don’t think is the way to change their minds or gain understanding,” he said. “This is a grown-ass man and to say, ‘We’re going to put you in a time out, you’re going to sit in a corner and stare at the wall until you no longer believe the Jews control the international banking system.’ We have to get past this in the country. People think Jews control Hollywood. People think Jews control the banks. And to pretend that they don’t and to not deal with it in a straightforward manner, we’ll never gain any kind of understanding with each other.”



Colbert pushed back a bit, suggesting that while people may have a right to say what they want, such as comics, viewers also have a right to react and view their material however they see fit.


“Reflexively naming things antisemitism is as reductive as some of the things they might be saying,” Stewart replied. “It immediately shuts down a conversation … comedy is reductive. We play with tropes because everybody has prejudice. Comics rely on those prejudices as a shorthand for our material. Even the woke-est of comics plays with tropes to a certain extent.”





Stewart explained wounds such as racial divides and antisemitism need to be exposed, yet the “general tenor of conversation in this country is to cover it up. Look at it from a Black perspective. It’s a culture that feels its wealth has been extracted by different groups — whites, Jews. Whether it’s true or not isn’t the issue, that’s the feeling in that community. And if you don’t understand that’s where it’s coming from, then you can’t sit down and explain that being in an industry isn’t the same as having a nefarious and controlling interest in that industry.


“Dave said something in the SNL monologue that I thought was constructive as well, which is: ‘It shouldn’t be this hard to talk about things,'” he added. “And that is what we’re talking about. I can’t believe there aren’t a **** ton of people who believe that the Jews have an unreasonable amount of control over the systems and they wield them as puppet masters. I’m called antisemitic because I’m against Israel’s treatment of Palestinians … those [terms] shut down debate. They’re used as a cudgel. And whether it’s comedy or discussion or anything else, if we don’t have the wherewithal to meet each other with reality, then how do we move forward?”


At this, Colbert stared at Stewart silently and then his guest continued. “We have our own tropes,” he said. “Like: ‘A white person’s success is because of privilege. A minority’s success is empowerment. A Jew’s success — that’s a conspiracy.’ You feel that. I feel that. But I have to be able to express that to people. If I can’t say that’s ******** and explain why, then where do we go? If we all just shut it down, then we retreat to our little corners of misinformation and it metastasis.”

And a different view from the same article

Presenting another view on the matter, Hacks star and comedian Hannah Einbinder posted on her Instagram stories earlier this week: “Yeah, the Chappelle monologue was littered with antisemitism. He did it masterfully … He had some solid jokes in that set… The laughter allowed for people to miss the reemphasis of conspiracy he sprinkled in … No one who laughs at the solid jokes would be willing to admit that there was antisemitism in that monologue, because that admission would then qualify them as complicit. ‘No one wants to feel like a bad person.’ The fact is: non-Jews aren’t as keenly aware of antisemitic ideas, tropes, verbiage, etc. Most people just missed these ideas altogether, and only remember that they laughed … The danger here is that Dave Chappelle, and every other male comedian who believes that their amplification of bigotry is just freedom of speech, are seen as tellers of hard truths, and thus anyone who criticizes them are seen as snowflakes. I invite you to reframe this narrative. These men who pick on marginalized groups are establishment bullies reinforcing the status quo — not at all the job of a comedian. It is the people who speak out ‘against’ them who are the truth tellers.”

It could be that the world has moved on from Stewart's views (or, at least, that his approach has become weaker), as suggested by an Atlantic piece on him from April

Stewart’s specific genius on The Daily Show was layering facts and complexity into jokes, and stitching punch lines together into George Carlin–esque political riffs. When Stewart was at the peak of his powers, no one could pack more ideas into 22 minutes of comedy. But something has turned. Now he’s the one who seems overwhelmed by complexity and prone to oversimplification. He’s the one who gets called out for fumbling facts, for missing the point, for being out of touch. It’s not just that Tucker Carlson has struck back with a Stewart-proof breed of sophistry. It’s not just that topical comedy doesn’t work as well as it used to. The problem with The Problem With Jon Stewart is Jon Stewart himself.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm black (mixed race) and British

I've always been fascinated by this. Do "we" (as mixed race people) say we are "'x' mixed race" depending on what we look like? For example, should I say black (mixed race) because I look more like my fathers side and should my nephew say white (mixed race) because he appears fair skinned ("should" is doing a lot of work in these examples but I can't think of a better term).

It's interesting because the closest famous person in terms of mix I'd identify with is Tiger Woods since he has many ethnicities blended into him....yet he will be seen by many as a black golfer.

 

[UKMikey]

I've always been fascinated by this. Do "we" (as mixed race people) say we are "'x' mixed race" depending on what we look like? For example, should I say black (mixed race) because I look more like my fathers side and should my nephew say white (mixed race) because he appears fair skinned ("should" is doing a lot of work in these examples but I can't think of a better term).

It's interesting because the closest famous person in terms of mix I'd identify with is Tiger Woods since he has many ethnicities blended into him....yet he will be seen by many as a black golfer.

Since I'm not ofay au fait with the conventions I long since gave up and started going by their one-drop rule. At least that way I get to identify with someone. Maybe in the future we can build a nation with our fellow mudbloods, mongrels and mutts but we might lose out on the cultural heritage thing. At least we get Hendrix and, er, Tiger.

Photo for ref:

 

[TheCracker]

I've always been fascinated by this. Do "we" (as mixed race people) say we are "'x' mixed race" depending on what we look like? For example, should I say black (mixed race) because I look more like my fathers side and should my nephew say white (mixed race) because he appears fair skinned ("should" is doing a lot of work in these examples but I can't think of a better term).

It's interesting because the closest famous person in terms of mix I'd identify with is Tiger Woods since he has many ethnicities blended into him....yet he will be seen by many as a black golfer.

I'm white so i don't really have a horse in this race, but Lewis Hamilton, mixed race - black dad, white mum has long since identified as black. I don't think its so much that he looks more black than white, its more that when growing up he was pigeonholed as being black so had little choice in how he was to self-identify.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I wonder if it's more controversial, or debatable when it's groups other than white and black, like Kamala Harris and Naomi Osaka.

Maybe we need a racial draft....

Spoiler: Language warning

 

[UKMikey]

 

[McLaren]

This has all the energy of, "Stop erasing US history... no, wait, you can't teach that history!"

 

[UKMikey]

Sounds like this could become the left (or rather woke ) equivalent of "what is a woman?". You can see the gears whirring in her head as she internally debates whether looking like a moron on live TV or looking like a monster is preferable and opting for the former by saying "it's complicated".

For context here's one of Mandel's earlier articles. I guess Popper's paradox isn't her thing. Link definitely not provided.

This isn't the first time the question has been asked, btw:

In Andrew Warren suspension trial, Gov. DeSantis officials answer: What does ‘woke’ mean?

'It's a slang term for activism, progressive activism.'

floridapolitics.com

Jean-Jacques Cabou, Warren’s attorney, noted DeSantis referred to Warren in his announcement of the suspension as a “woke ideologue” who “masqueraded” as a prosecutor. Then he asked some DeSantis officials what “woke” means to them.

Taryn Fenske, DeSantis’ Communications Director said “woke” was a “slang term for activism … progressive activism” and a general belief in systemic injustices in the country.

Ryan Newman, DeSantis’ General Counsel, echoed the part about systemic injustices, specifically regarding the criminal justice system.

“To me it means someone who believes that there are systemic injustices in the criminal justice system and on that basis they can decline to fully enforce and uphold the law,” Newman said.

Asked what “woke” means more generally, Newman said “it would be the belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.”

Newman added that DeSantis doesn’t believe there are systemic injustices in the U.S. He also emphasized he believed Warren’s “wokeism” led him to sign the pledge not to prosecute abortion crimes, the primary factor that led to his suspension.

Using “prosecutorial discretion” to not prosecute an entire class of crimes is a “fundamental misunderstanding” of how a prosecutor’s discretion can be used, Newman said. And that pledge meant that DeSantis had to suspend Warren because DeSantis must ensure the law is enforced.

It reminds me of the shifting and amorphous definition of "political correctness" as presented by its opponents on this thread. I imagine the anti-woke's only recourse from this point is to accuse the woke of not being sincere in their belief in equality, empathy and human rights for all people. A perhaps typical bad faith argument, in other words.

 

[Danoff]

"Neurotypical"

Definition from oxford languages supplying google definitions: not displaying or characterized by autistic or other neurologically atypical patterns of thought or behavior.

The first use of this in the definition is "not autistic". The second definition is "not atypical in some other fashion". I've only ever seen this term used to mean "not autistic", as the other definition renders the term almost useless and quite difficult to apply. It requires understanding that the person or people, or thought process that you're characterizing somehow as neurotypical is/are in fact not atypical in every other sense, and that is a large hurdle. I've never really seen someone try and would be surprised to see someone attempt that outside of a clinical setting.

I know someone with a personality disorder. It's undiagnosed, because this particular disorder prevents the afflicted person from seeking, accepting, or otherwise submitting to any form of psychological diagnosis. So far, attempts by clinicians to evaluate this person have resulted in the clinician being immediately fired by the patient. Regardless, myself and a large group of others have all reached the conclusion, with a lifetime of evidence, that the person does indeed suffer from this disorder.

Referring to this person as neurotypical because they are not autistic is absurd. Referring to them as neurotypical because they lack a diagnosis is equally absurd. They are extremely atypical, and their condition appears to be less prevalent in the population than autism at least based on my own anecdotal sampling. It is not a safe assumption, nor is it respectful or appropriate to assume that because someone is not autistic that they are "typical". Defining everyone outside a particular condition (autism in this case) as being "typical" is reductive and lacks empathy and consideration that there are other conditions and afflictions that affect people's lives.

To compound the problem, suppose that people with a certain personality disorder adopt the same term, "neurotypical". Now autistic people are neurotypical in the respect that they do not have this personality disorder. Suppose people with yet another personality disorder adopt the same term. Now autistic people and people with the first personality disorder are each "neurotypical". It's inappropriate for people with each of these sets of thought patterns to refer to people with different thought patterns as "typical". I'm not sure what a typical thought pattern looks like, and I'm not sure it exists.

So how about we use "not autistic" instead of neurotypical? The answer is because, at least in my experience, reducing everyone who is not autistic to "typical" appears to give autistic individuals some level of comfort or even pride. "Typical" can be used as a pejorative, and can even give people a sense of superiority, perhaps even just in certain respects. I suspect that this is why this particular meme is self-replicating within the autism community. To the extent that this offers aid to autistic people, it does not come without a price. It is a barrier in many respects to interacting with and getting consideration from people who are not autistic.

"Not autistic" should apparently suffice.

 

[TheCracker]

I think the term 'neurotypical' is a pretty redundant term altogether, to be frank. I would imagine that a majority of individuals are actually on some level of neurodivergent spectrum to one extent to another, which makes the 'typical' part of 'neurotypical' incorrect.

If 20%* of the population, 1 in 5, is actually diagnosed with some form of neurodivergent personality. There must be a huge amount more that pass for being neurotypical even though they are actually on the spectrum to some extent which has little impact on how they are perceived by others in general and whose behavior has never raised enough red flags for it to be looked into.

There's more understanding towards neurological issues these days, but looking back to when i was at school age, the amount of kids around that had 'learning issues' or behaviour issues' that didn't get diagnosed with anything other than what those terms described was considerable. I'm sure now they'd be diagnosed with, or at least suspected of having, autism or ADHD or BPD or NPD or OCD etc etc. But back then they were just a 'bit difficult' or 'odd'.

I know many adults now who in their 30s or 40s have been surprised by a diagnosis of, usually on the low end of the scale, some form of neurodisorder but who easily pass for high functioning 'normal' members of society, to most people.

*UK figures, but no doubt pretty universal.

 

[Scaff]

"Neurotypical"

Definition from oxford languages supplying google definitions: not displaying or characterized by autistic or other neurologically atypical patterns of thought or behavior.

The first use of this in the definition is "not autistic". The second definition is "not atypical in some other fashion". I've only ever seen this term used to mean "not autistic", as the other definition renders the term almost useless and quite difficult to apply. It requires understanding that the person or people, or thought process that you're characterizing somehow as neurotypical is/are in fact not atypical in every other sense, and that is a large hurdle. I've never really seen someone try and would be surprised to see someone attempt that outside of a clinical setting.

I know someone with a personality disorder. It's undiagnosed, because this particular disorder prevents the afflicted person from seeking, accepting, or otherwise submitting to any form of psychological diagnosis. So far, attempts by clinicians to evaluate this person have resulted in the clinician being immediately fired by the patient. Regardless, myself and a large group of others have all reached the conclusion, with a lifetime of evidence, that the person does indeed suffer from this disorder.

Referring to this person as neurotypical because they are not autistic is absurd. Referring to them as neurotypical because they lack a diagnosis is equally absurd. They are extremely atypical, and their condition appears to be less prevalent in the population than autism at least based on my own anecdotal sampling. It is not a safe assumption, nor is it respectful or appropriate to assume that because someone is not autistic that they are "typical". Defining everyone outside a particular condition (autism in this case) as being "typical" is reductive and lacks empathy and consideration that there are other conditions and afflictions that affect people's lives.

To compound the problem, suppose that people with a certain personality disorder adopt the same term, "neurotypical". Now autistic people are neurotypical in the respect that they do not have this personality disorder. Suppose people with yet another personality disorder adopt the same term. Now autistic people and people with the first personality disorder are each "neurotypical". It's inappropriate for people with each of these sets of thought patterns to refer to people with different thought patterns as "typical". I'm not sure what a typical thought pattern looks like, and I'm not sure it exists.

So how about we use "not autistic" instead of neurotypical? The answer is because, at least in my experience, reducing everyone who is not autistic to "typical" appears to give autistic individuals some level of comfort or even pride. "Typical" can be used as a pejorative, and can even give people a sense of superiority, perhaps even just in certain respects. I suspect that this is why this particular meme is self-replicating within the autism community. To the extent that this offers aid to autistic people, it does not come without a price. It is a barrier in many respects to interacting with and getting consideration from people who are not autistic.

"Not autistic" should apparently suffice.

Neurotypical isn't simply 'not autistic' and the dictionary definition is poor in that regard.

DSM-5 contains a definition of both neurodivergent and neurotypical that are both more accurate and more helpful, as it covers not only autism but also Dyslexia, ADHD, etc.

"Neurodivergence defines cognitive functioning which is not considered 'typical' (such as Autistic, Dyslexic, and ADHD people). Neurodivergent describes people with neurodivergence. The term Neurotypical describes those people with the most common cognitive functioning, noting it's not neuro-normal, just most common."

It also clarifies that neurotypical isn't neuro-normal, but the most common typical behavior. The wider definition of neurodiverse also includes personality disorders, and as such the individual you know does meet the definition of neurodiverse.

Neurodivergence Resources

NHS Lothian Medical Education website

www.med.scot.nhs.uk

I think the term 'neurotypical' is a pretty redundant term altogether, to be frank. I would imagine that a majority of individuals are actually on some level of neurodivergent spectrum to one extent to another, which makes the 'typical' part of 'neurotypical' incorrect.

If 20%* of the population, 1 in 5, is actually diagnosed with some form of neurodivergent personality. There must be a huge amount more that pass for being neurotypical even though they are actually on the spectrum to some extent which has little impact on how they are perceived by others in general and whose behavior has never raised enough red flags for it to be looked into.

There's more understanding towards neurological issues these days, but looking back to when i was at school age, the amount of kids around that had 'learning issues' or behaviour issues' that didn't get diagnosed with anything other than what those terms described was considerable. I'm sure now they'd be diagnosed with, or at least suspected of having, autism or ADHD or BPD or NPD or OCD etc etc. But back then they were just a 'bit difficult' or 'odd'.

I know many adults now who in their 30s or 40s have been surprised by a diagnosis of, usually on the low end of the scale, some form of neurodisorder but who easily pass for high functioning 'normal' members of society, to most people.

*UK figures, but no doubt pretty universal.

How to wind up someone whos autistic in two easy steps.

1. Suggest everyone/the majority are 'on the spectrum'. It's not accurate or true, and the 20% is pretty much the hard cap for diagnosis, and that's for all ND diagnosis, not just ASD.

Autism spectrum disorder

One in 100 children in the UK have a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. We have raised concerns about the time it takes for diagnosis, as well as the support offered in England.

www.bma.org.uk

2. Describe it as something we 'have'. I don't 'have' autism, I am autistic, in the same way, people don't 'have' blindness, they are blind.

 

[Danoff]

Neurotypical isn't simply 'not autistic' and the dictionary definition is poor in that regard.

DSM-5 contains a definition of both neurodivergent and neurotypical that are both more accurate and more helpful, as it covers not only autism but also Dyslexia, ADHD, etc.

"Neurodivergence defines cognitive functioning which is not considered 'typical' (such as Autistic, Dyslexic, and ADHD people). Neurodivergent describes people with neurodivergence. The term Neurotypical describes those people with the most common cognitive functioning, noting it's not neuro-normal, just most common."

It also clarifies that neurotypical isn't neuro-normal, but the most common typical behavior. The wider definition of neurodiverse also includes personality disorders, and as such the individual you know does meet the definition of neurodiverse.

Neurodivergence Resources

NHS Lothian Medical Education website

www.med.scot.nhs.uk

Sounds great in a clinical setting. I had a brain MRI at one point that a doctor referred to clinically as "unremarkable". My brain is "unremarkable". I thought it was funny because used in a social setting, that would be insulting. In a clinical setting it does make sense. Such is the case with neurotypical.

Neurotypical isn't only used by clinicians in a technical sense, it is used widely especially within the autism community, and it is used as a surrogate for "not autistic". I think the dictionary captures that more social and wide use of the term. I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be used within the medical community in a clinical sense. I'm suggesting that social use of the term is quite different, and is often used by people who honestly do not know what they're talking about.

If you're autistic and you wave your hands and refer to people around you as neurotypical (which I have personally witnessed at least one autistic person do), you are not acting in a clinical sense. You are not a physician who has evaluated the people you're characterizing as neurotypical. You're using the term differently, as a surrogate for "not autistic" and that use carries with it a number of problems.

 

[HenrySwanson]

2. Describe it as something we 'have'. I don't 'have' autism, I am autistic, in the same way, people don't 'have' blindness, they are blind.

Much appreciated. Speaking in defence of @TheCracker I do get confused as with Down's syndrome it's the opposite.

 

[Scaff]

Neurotypical isn't only used by clinicians in a technical sense, it is used widely especially within the autism community, and it is used as a surrogate for "not autistic".

It's really not, and I speak from a great deal of experience in that regard. Autistics are acutely aware that ND covers more than just ASD, and are also more likely to have more than one ND diagnosis, as such they are far more likely to use the term accurately.

I think the dictionary captures that more social and wide use of the term. I'm not suggesting that it shouldn't be used within the medical community in a clinical sense. I'm suggesting that social use of the term is quite different, and is often used by people who honestly do not know what they're talking about.

And who are those 'who honestly do not know what they're talking about'? As you seem to be targeting that comment at the group outside of a clinical setting who are most likely to be using it correctly.

If you're autistic and you wave your hands and refer to people around you as neurotypical (which I have personally witnessed at least one autistic person do), you are not acting in a clinical sense. You are not a physician who has evaluated the people you're characterizing as neurotypical. You're using the term differently, as a surrogate for "not autistic" and that use carries with it a number of problems.

A sample size of one, impressive.

Much appreciated. Speaking in defence of @TheCracker I do get confused as with Down's syndrome it's the opposite.

Indeed.

It does wind us up, doesn't mean it was meant in a malicious way, and I certainly don;t think it was in this case.

 

[Danoff]

It's really not, and I speak from a great deal of experience in that regard. Autistics are acutely aware that ND covers more than just ASD, and are also more likely to have more than one ND diagnosis, as such they are far more likely to use the term accurately.

Not all of them.

And who are those 'who honestly do not know what they're talking about'?

People who refer to someone that they have not clincially evaluated as "neurotypical". Specifically, what they do not know, is whether the person is neurotypical. And yet they do talk about it when they refer to this person, who they have not evaluated (probably lack the credentials to evaluate), as neurotypical.

A sample size of one, impressive.

In this case, it is sufficient.

 

[Scaff]

Not all of them.

The majority of those I've interacted with and met, a number that I'm quite sure is significantly more than the single example you cite.

People who refer to someone that they have not clincially evaluated as "neurotypical". Specifically, what they do not know, is whether the person is neurotypical. And yet they do talk about it when they refer to this person, who they have not evaluated (probably lack the credentials to evaluate), as neurotypical.

You appear to be proposing that the term shouldn't be used at all without a clinical diagnosis, what alternative would you suggest is used for what is circa 80% of the population?

In this case, it is sufficient.

To do what? As you seem to be extrapolating meaning to a wider group (that you are not experienced with) based on the actions of one person. I assume you sat the individual down and spoke to them to be 100% that was the context it was used in, and not a broader one?

 

[Danoff]

The majority of those I've interacted with and met, a number that I'm quite sure is significantly more than the single example you cite.

That's great.

You appear to be proposing that the term shouldn't be used at all without a clinical diagnosis, what alternative would you suggest is used for what is circa 8-% of the population?

"Not autistic" if that person is aware that the person they're talking to is, or self-describes as, "not autistic".

To do what? As you seem to be extrapolating meaning to a wider group (that you are not experienced with) based on the actions of one person. I assume you sat the individual down and spoke to them to be 100% that was the context it was used in, and not a broader one?

I gave one example. I didn't say it was the only time this has happened to me. In the example I gave, I was "sitting" with them and had a lengthy discussion in which the term was applied to myself and quite a few other people. The person I was discussing it with was not my doctor. I hope that's sufficient for that anecdote.

Hey, I'm glad you and I are on the same page. It's inappropriate for someone to describe others as "neurotypical" unless they're the person's doctor making a clinical diagnosis. In your perspective, it seems that people are already doing this. Which is great, I have no concerns then. I also will expect to never hear anyone call me that (unless it's my doctor following an evaluation) ever again. I also basically expect to almost never even hear them term applied by one person to another ever again, since the setting where it is appropriate should basically not come up.

Sounds awesome.

 

[Scaff]

That's great.

It's neither 'great' nor 'not great', it's simply my experience within the community involved.

"Not autistic" if that person is aware that the person they're talking to is, or self-describes as, "not autistic".

And what if I'm talking about wider conditions, do I now have to list all of them specifically, seems rather odd to need to do so. It's going to make the training I deliver on the subject bloody difficult to manage.

I gave one example. I didn't say it was the only time this has happened to me. In the example I gave, I was "sitting" with them and had a lengthy discussion in which the term was applied to myself and quite a few other people. The person I was discussing it with was not my doctor. I hope that's sufficient for that anecdote.

It's sufficient for me to assign the right level of importance to it.

Hey, I'm glad you and I are on the same page. It's inappropriate for someone to describe others as "neurotypical" unless they're the person's doctor making a clinical diagnosis. In your perspective, it seems that people are already doing this. Which is great, I have no concerns then. I also will expect to never hear anyone call me that (unless it's my doctor following an evaluation) ever again. I also basically expect to almost never even hear them term applied by one person to another ever again, since the setting where it is appropriate should basically not come up.

Sounds awesome.

I've no idea how you manged to get that from anything I've said at all, and I will certainly continue to use the term (despite my lack of clinical qualifications). Do I extrapolate from this that you use no professional or specific terms in everyday conversation without holding the correct qualification and having carried out the required checks? As I find that rather hard to believe.

Anyway, I'm off out to interact with people, approx 80% of whom will be neurotypical, and at least three I know absolutely will not.

 

[HenrySwanson]

DSM-5 contains a definition of both neurodivergent and neurotypical that are both more accurate and more helpful, as it covers not only autism but also Dyslexia, ADHD, etc.

Do you happen to have the exact section for this and the wording used? I no longer have access, but could double check with someone I know if you're not sure/able to if that helps.

 

[Danoff]

And what if I'm talking about wider conditions, do I now have to list all of them specifically, seems rather odd to need to do so. It's going to make the training I deliver on the subject bloody difficult to manage.

Are you counseling people to refer to others as "neurotypical" despite not knowing whether they are?

Do I extrapolate from this that you use no professional or specific terms in everyday conversation without holding the correct qualification and having carried out the required checks? As I find that rather hard to believe.

I don't know. If I do, it's something I should consider carefully. "Neurotypical" has many problems with being used socially. So whatever terms I might or might not be using seems to have no bearing on the use of "neurotypical" in a social sense.

Anyway, I'm off out to interact with people, approx 80% of whom will be neurotypical, and at least three I know absolutely will not.

And approx. none of the individuals will be identifiable as neurotypical, unless one of them was recently evaluated and is carrying a lanyard with a sign or something.

 

[Famine]

"Neurotypical" should be used as sparingly as "cisgender", and for the same reason. It's a neologism created as a reflection of "neurodiverse" - to indicate the standard state rather than the exceptional one - rather than an identity/diagnosis/etc as most people are not neurodiverse, just as "cisgender" is a reflection of "transgender" as most people are not transgender rather than its own thing.


It definitely shouldn't be used to mean "not-autistic", as neurodiversity covers a whoooooooooooooooooole range of things - even if ASD is the most common use (as the most common example of neurodiversity).

 

[Danoff]

"Neurotypical" should be used as sparingly as "cisgender", and for the same reason. It's a neologism created as a reflection of "neurodiverse" - to indicate the standard state rather than the exceptional one - rather than an identity/diagnosis/etc as most people are not neurodiverse, just as "cisgender" is a reflection of "transgender" as most people are not transgender rather than its own thing.

You prompted me to investigate where the term comes from. I had assumed it originated clinically (like my "unremarkable" example) and was borrowed by the autism community for its usefulness. I think you're closer to the mark:

The ISNT was a fictional institute whose spoof website (archived here) that was essentially used by autistic people to satirically reverse the psychiatric gaze back on to people considered ‘normal’. On this website, as Tisoncik recalls, a range of autistic writers “picked apart characteristics of neurotypical individuals in the same patronizing, pathologizing, voice in which traits commonly held by autistic people are described, with feigned obliviousness to how such traits might also be useful.

This part playful, part political term, quickly caught on, even being discussed in the Atlantic that same year. In time, it came to be used by an ever-increasing number of cognitively or psycho-socially disabled people, to refer to those who were enabled to, and willing to conform to, the dominant forms of cognition and sociality of a given society. I’ll come back to this below.

I hadn't dreamed that the term was invented precisely for the purpose of representing "not autism" as a condition equivalent to autism. I was getting that impression by the way I was seeing the term generally used, but I'm surprised to see its origins rooted specifically in that purpose. The term "neurotypical", if this web article is to be believed (the links seem to work for what that's worth), it was created to mock non-autism. Don't get me wrong, I don't take the original use to be particularly malevolent, it seems it was supposed to be funny. I just think that the term has caught on precisely for what it was intended.

If that article is to be believed, I honestly gave the term too much credit, I should have been more critical.

I think you put your finger on the equivalence with cisgender. The idea is to level the playing field. Autism is a potentially debilitating disorder which, in its more extreme expressions, can leave individuals incapable of independence. It is not "a different normal", at least not in its most severe form. I do understand the idea behind viewing it as equivalent to normal, and to the extent that it causes individuals to take pride in their abilities or differences, and find their way through the world independently, that's probably a great thing. But given what Autism can do, I also think it's somewhat harmful to try to equate it with non-Autism.

"Cisgender" is the same kind of leveling. The idea is that transgender people should feel no different about themselves than non-trans people. Creating a label for that group nullifies the sting of having a label for transgender itself. I don't really know about gender dysphoria to understand whether it is a disorder of a kind. I guess (to my untrained eyes related) body dysmorphia is a kind of disorder. And gender dysphoria can apparently be deadly if left without medical treatment. So I suppose it has to be. If that were the case, it might be just as harmful to equate transgender with non-transgender. Although that seems to be far less clear to me, and like it might be a result of social environment more than something inherent about the effect of gender dysphoria.

Hmmm... this was going to be a short post. TL;DR - today I learned "neurotypical" may have a worse origin story than I imagined.


Edit:

"Hence, as autistic sociologist Damian Milton asserts, 'there is no neuro-typical to deviate from other than an idealised fantastical construction of Galtonian inspired psychological measurement.' "

I think I like this guy.

 

[HenrySwanson]

You prompted me to investigate where the term comes from. I had assumed it originated clinically (like my "unremarkable" example) and was borrowed by the autism community for its usefulness. I think you're closer to the mark:




I hadn't dreamed that the term was invented precisely for the purpose of representing "not autism" as a condition equivalent to autism. I was getting that impression by the way I was seeing the term generally used, but I'm surprised to see its origins rooted specifically in that purpose. The term "neurotypical", if this web article is to be believed (the links seem to work for what that's worth), it was created to mock non-autism. Don't get me wrong, I don't take the original use to be particularly malevolent, it seems it was supposed to be funny. I just think that the term has caught on precisely for what it was intended.

If that article is to be believed, I honestly gave the term too much credit, I should have been more critical.

I think you put your finger on the equivalence with cisgender. The idea is to level the playing field. Autism is a potentially debilitating disorder which, in its more extreme expressions, can leave individuals incapable of independence. It is not "a different normal", at least not in its most severe form. I do understand the idea behind viewing it as equivalent to normal, and to the extent that it causes individuals to take pride in their abilities or differences, and find their way through the world independently, that's probably a great thing. But given what Autism can do, I also think it's somewhat harmful to try to equate it with non-Autism.

"Cisgender" is the same kind of leveling. The idea is that transgender people should feel no different about themselves than non-trans people. Creating a label for that group nullifies the sting of having a label for transgender itself. I don't really know about gender dysphoria to understand whether it is a disorder of a kind. I guess (to my untrained eyes related) body dysmorphia is a kind of disorder. And gender dysphoria can apparently be deadly if left without medical treatment. So I suppose it has to be. If that were the case, it might be just as harmful to equate transgender with non-transgender. Although that seems to be far less clear to me, and like it might be a result of social environment more than something inherent about the effect of gender dysphoria.

Hmmm... this was going to be a short post. TL;DR - today I learned "neurotypical" may have a worse origin story than I imagined.


Edit:

"Hence, as autistic sociologist Damian Milton asserts, 'there is no neuro-typical to deviate from other than an idealised fantastical construction of Galtonian inspired psychological measurement.' "

I think I like this guy.

Ah.

I must say I haven't come across its use clinically (which isn't to say it's never been used) and so wanted to know where specifically it's referred to in the DSM-5, if at all.

 

[Joey D]

What's 'digital blackface?' And why is it wrong when White people use it? | CNN

If you're White and you've posted a GIF or meme of a Black person to express a strong emotion, you may be guilty of wearing 'digital blackface' -- a modern-day term for an insidious form of racism.

www.cnn.com

So apparently, using GIFs of black people saying things is the equivalent of minstrel shows. I agree, there's probably a line, but I don't think a GIF of RuPaul saying GURRRLLL is that line or anywhere near it. Plus, many of these memes were created from media blacks created for entertainment purposes of their own free will. RuPaul isn't being exploited, he's entertaining and being rather successful at it to boot. If people want to share the entertainment he's produced, I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

[UKMikey]

Black people in memes is colonizer behaviour now? I consider myself pretty woke, but

 

[Danoff]

What's 'digital blackface?' And why is it wrong when White people use it? | CNN

If you're White and you've posted a GIF or meme of a Black person to express a strong emotion, you may be guilty of wearing 'digital blackface' -- a modern-day term for an insidious form of racism.

www.cnn.com

So apparently, using GIFs of black people saying things is the equivalent of minstrel shows. I agree, there's probably a line, but I don't think a GIF of RuPaul saying GURRRLLL is that line or anywhere near it. Plus, many of these memes were created from media blacks created for entertainment purposes of their own free will. RuPaul isn't being exploited, he's entertaining and being rather successful at it to boot. If people want to share the entertainment he's produced, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Telling white people not to use images of black entertainers is basically begging them to be racist.