What do you wish to be called? Is there a right way or wrong way of calling ourselves the way we want to be called? Hey you! Are you an Autistic Person? Are you a person with Autism? What do I really need to call you? More importantly, who am I and what do I see myself as an individual? Argh! Stop calling me some of these first languages as you should know that really grinds my gears, guys. As we know that words and language are powerful tools by which an individual can express ideas, thoughts and more whether it is abstract, actionable or concrete. I myself as an individual know firsthand and understand full darn well that language and the meanings of words can very much impact someone no matter who and what they are as a person. We as individuals I believe do tend to attach to some of the words very much for impact and influence and even more so developing and changing the attitudes that we have towards the subjects and or matters of discussion. That’s why many people I have spoken to or heard from are easily insulted or upset by the everyday word choices that we have. I am here today to try and explain to you all right now about this topic as this is really controversial for many of us that are autistic. Before, I begin this is just based on what I’ve experienced and known all my time after talking to some people in the autistic community about how they may feel. So, please respect me for what I will share. It has been known for quite some time now for many of us autistics that we meet some people that have some misunderstanding and misconceptions about autistics no matter what it is. So, the question many that we would be asking ourselves right now is how did people’s first language come about? People’s first language is also known or called person-first language which is a linguistic description that will usually put a person before their actual diagnosis of any kind and in this case the many terms that I just used right now for autistics. This linguistic description usually describes what a person “has” than asserting what a person “is.” Rather than using labels to define individuals with a health issue, it’s more appropriate to use terminology, which describes individuals as being diagnosed with an illness or disorder. This was supposed to be intended to avoid any marginalization and/or dehumanization (either consciously or subconsciously) when discussing people with a chronic illness or disability. Again, I shall remove the term disability as I don’t feel this is the right word I am looking for. The term I will use as I have done in the past is people with different conditions. This may have been seen as a type of a disability etiquette but person-first language can also be more generalized to any group otherwise known or can be defined or mentally categorized by a condition or a trait (examples that are sometimes known for doing so are race, age or appearance along with the different sexuality types). Person-first language usually avoids using labels or adjectives to define someone, utilizing terms such as ‘A person with diabetes or a person with alcoholism’ instead of what we hear is “a diabetic’ or ‘an alcoholic’. With this being said, the intention here is that a person is seen first and foremost as a person with some given specific trait or characteristic. Some advocates that I’ve spoken to or even heard from have usually had a person-first language point to the failure to mentally separate the person from the traits or characteristics and the person is either inherently bad or inferior, leading to the point where discrimination takes place. Another example for you all to gain a better understanding is “a person with a substance use disorder” has a fair chance of achieving long-term remission yet for many years it has been changed to calling these types of people “substance abusers” Another question that you are thinking to yourselves as you’re reading and/or watching this today is why we self-advocates are so opposed to some of these terms that have been clearly shared just now. Aren’t we all about emphasizing and correcting inaccurate, misleading and harmful stereotypes and their attitudes towards all of this? For sure, some of us may get offended yet some of us or shall we say the majority of us no matter what we are and who we are wants to be seen as a person that has equal rights, values and worth. One argument I encountered in one of the more cogently-written papers in favour of person-first language expostulates that because cancer patients are referred to as “people with cancer” or “people who have cancer,” as opposed to “cancerous people,” the same principle should be used with autism. There are some fundamental flaws with this analogy, however. This is another example of many that I hear about. Cancer is a disease that ultimately kills if not treated or put into long-term remission. There is absolutely nothing positive, edifying, or meaningful about cancer. Cancer is not a part of a person’s identity or the way in which individual experiences and understands the world around him or her. It is not all-pervasive. We need to remember that Autism isn’t a disease as I’ve clearly shared this so many times what Autism is which I will link in the icard and description box below to gain a better understanding of this if you’ve not seen these. I have clearly shared that it’s a neurological and developmental condition. It has now been classed as a disorder yet this is really disabling in many varied ways. CRITICISM There have been some critics that have objected that people-first language is awkward, repetitive and makes for some tiresome reading and writing. A sociologist by the name of C. Edwin Vaughan as well as a