Fun for all the family

There is always a lot of discussion about PC language and whether it is important and, as someone with a background in linguistics, I think that it is. It is not that the preference for one term over another is always particularly logical or even grammatical. It is simply that, by using the vocabulary of a group and avoiding its taboo words, however arbitrary, you show solidarity for their cause and, most of all, respect for their culture. Would you shove a bacon sandwich into the mouth of an Orthodox Jewish person? No? Then you shouldn't say the h-word to me either.

One reason that people use the "wrong" language is simply that they don't listen, a fact which when repeated endlessly, can make relatively innocuous terms seem offensive. For instance, I have been diagnosed with autism, so I never describe myself as having Asperger Syndrome, but many people talk about me having AS as though it is the same thing. The actual error itself is not offensive to me but I am mildly hurt by the appearance that someone is not paying attention.

Nevertheless, you can turn the tables on such people and have fun at their expense, which has led me to invent what I call the "people with disabilities" game. This is based on the fact that many disabled people, including myself, prefer the term "disabled people", which is more consistent with the social model of disability. However, many non-disabled people prefer the term "people with disabilities", because it seems more euphemistic. From a style guide perspective, no-one is highly offended by either term, at least compared with the h-word, but it is always worth bearing the difference in mind.

The game goes like this. You try to have a conversation with a non-disabled person but always saying "disabled people" and the aim is to get your "opponent" to say "people with disabilities" as many times as possible. It is very easy to get through a half-hour discussion with them without them realising that you are even using different terms. A much harder trick is to get them to parrot back one of your sentences virtually word-for-word, except with their phrase substituted for the one that you have used. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible to do so. I am sure some valuable research about language processing could be done using this game because it seems that people only get the "gist" of what has been said and are perfectly capable of changing several words in a sentence without noticing.

The thought police?

In a previous post, I speculated about the reason why I was stopped and searched a few weeks ago, when I was limping heavily. Did I fit the profile of an embittered disabled villain? However, with the leaked report of the Jean Charles de Menezes case, a more compelling, albeit no less disturbing explanation has emerged. According to one article in the Observer, one of the 'precursor signals' of a possible threat is for a person to look 'detached from his or her surrounding' or to become introspective. I'm in big trouble!

Odd one out again

Today I did something that I haven't done for a couple of years - I attended a social group for autistic adults. I was soon reminded why I have not been to one for such a long time. I felt really out of place and excluded from all the conversations that were going on around me, ironically, in a rather similar way that I am when in a group of non-autistic strangers.

I think there are probably a number of reasons for this. Autistic people often have narrow interests but not necessarily the same ones so it can be difficult when we try to converse with one another. Also, many of the people obviously knew each other from previous meetings and had got more comfortable with the group over time. However, in my previous attempts to take part in such sessions, I attended for a whole year without really bonding with anyone.

I am uncomfortable with stating what I consider to be the biggest problem but I will be honest and put it bluntly - I feel that, in many ways, I am higher-functioning than many of the people who attend. I have more intellectual interests and, while my social skills leave a lot to be desired, I am used to being with people who are more able than me rather than those who are at the same or a lower level.

It seems really horrible to feel that I find these people difficult to be with because they are autistic - after all, don't I expect people to see past this with me? It does help me to understand how I may be perceived by others and to be more tolerant if they find it a bit of a struggle to be in my company. But it also makes me wonder whether it is myself that I have a problem with.

There is another issue here about access to services. At the moment, I have an active social life so I don't particularly think that I need a group like this, but a few years ago, I certainly felt that I did. However, while many people with more obvious needs have services available, there are fewer around for people who can cope with many aspects of life but not others. Part of the problem is that so many people on the autistic spectrum are in denial or have not "come out", so to speak. Often it makes me feel as if I am the only person in this category. On the other hand, it can feel good to be unique.

Common Sense Bypass

There has been some discussion in the right-wing press about the radical cleric, Omar Bakri Mohammed, and the fact that he might have heart surgery on the NHS if he returns to the UK. The tone suggests that the extra cost to the state adds weight to the argument that he should be permanently expelled. While there are indeed many good reasons why he should not be allowed back, I find it ludicrous that the operation is regarded as being one of them.

Consider the following - two patients are in a critical condition and are urgently in need of a new heart, but only one is available. There are two ways (say) to decide who gets it - the one who can most easily be reached or the one who is considered to be the most deserving - and, if the second option is followed to its conclusion, we reach some very worrying scenarios. After all, while terrorist-sympathising clerics are extremely low down on my list of worthy organ receivers, rabble-rousing Telegraph journalists are frankly not much higher. I also have a terrible vision of a reality show, possibly presented by Ant and Dec, in which viewers can vote for their favoured recipient and then watch live action from the operating theatre.

The Hippocratic Oath states that doctors are obliged to treat patients regardless of any moral judgements that they may make about them. There are good reasons for this - otherwise a lot of hacks would have a very low life expectancy indeed.

The joy of blinking

I've now watched Big Brother for so many years that I am starting to experience nostalgia for what seem like the glory days of the show. Compared to the current bunch, Helen from series two came across rather well and, in particular, her romance with Paul (they are still together as far as I know) was refreshingly innocent, without her having to put a bottle up anywhere. What is more, she came up with the wonderful line "I like blinking, me," surely the greatest single piece of dialogue in what must now be well over a year of footage.

I have had cause to ponder Helen's wise words recently, because of an eye infection that has stubbornly refused to go away since it began in April. I am experiencing a number of problems with doctors (the subject of a future post no doubt) so I have been looking around on the internet to find out what I might be doing wrong. I have long since abandoned my contact lenses, so it must be more than that and, yes, I know I spend too much time in front of the computer, but my eyes can't be that sensitive, surely?

Now I think I have discovered the solution - I am not blinking enough. It is not just looking at the computer screen (and the TV) that is the cause, it is the fact that I never break my gaze. Therefore, I have, quite genuinely, been practising this subtle art. Every time I find myself staring, I start blinking and, when I take my screen breaks, I experiment with different ways of doing it. I blink slowly, I blink rapidly to create a strobe effect (not recommended for people with epilepsy) and I relax, exercise my eyelids and try to allow my seemingly non-existent blink reflex to take over.

It remains to be seen whether all this will actually help to diminish the infection. If not, I hope that I will discover many other exciting benefits of blinking. Hopefully, it will help me to relax more, will improve my eye contact when meeting people and just think of all the calories I will shed by exercising my facial muscles! In the meantime, I can't believe that I have just written four paragraphs on the subject of blinking, without much repitition although with some deviation.

Learning the law

I've spent the week attending a Summer School at the BPP Law School in London. I love weeks like this because they always include all the fun parts of academic study, such as lectures, discussions and social activities, and none of the hard parts, like writing essays. Even those areas of law that I expected not to find interesting, such as libel and privacy, were fascinating. I can now tell you everything you want to know, and more, about David Beckham's forthcoming action against the News of the World.

I will be signing up for a part-time graduate diploma and I am now seriously considering law as a career. As regular readers of this blog will know, I am very passionate about issues of equality and human rights and this seems to be an opportunity to express this side of myself, in a way that also taps into my very logical and analytical mindset. Ideally, of course, I would prefer to be working with companies to help them to improve their policies but, unfortunately, in the real world, they spend a lot of time getting advice about how to avoid their responsibilities. Sadly then, the confrontational approach is often necessary. I'm not going to change the world, but if I can shift the balance slightly more in favour of disabled people, and other minorities, then I will be able to make an important difference.

It seems very odd to be making decisions about my career at the age of thirty. This will not be my first conversion degree either, having already done one in psychology. It seems to take longer these days for people to find their niche and, with employers doing less and less to support their employees, the situation is even more difficult for disabled people. Nevertheless, I am old-fashioned enough that the idea of a long-term career does appeal to me and so I hope that I have finally found a sense of direction.

More sex and more death

I'd better stop writing about euthanasia soon, before I go off on one and offend loads of people. However, my last post did make me think of one more example. There is a classic argument in favour of euthanasia that I find immensely annoying, and it goes as follows. Suicide is not illegal and so, because some disabled people cannot kill themselves, it would supposedly be fair to allow assisted suicide, and give them the same "opportunities" as everyone else. In other words, disabled people should be given equal access to death before being given equal access to the London Underground or the jobs market.

What is ludicrous about this particular argument is that it can be applied just as easily to all sorts of illegal acts. Taking heroin is not illegal, but giving it to another person would be, so why not make it legal to inject a disabled person with heroin? Similarly, I've never heard a case of a successful suicide bomber being prosecuted so it would be grossly unfair to prosecute someone who carried a physically-impaired bomber down an escalator into a tube station. (I promised myself that I wouldn't get into my more provocative arguments - I fear that it is too late.)

However, I think the most compelling argument is provided by the case of prostituition. Paying for sex is not itself illegal in the UK, but it would be against the law to procure a sex worker on behalf of someone else. Therefore, if we are to legalise euthanasia based on the above argument, we should also be more lax about giving disabled people access to sexual services. While sleeping with a prostitute may sometimes be regrettable, it is not irreversible in the same way as taking one's life, and so the latter should require a higher degree of certainty and reflection before it is allowed. Hence, I propose the following solution. A person contemplating death should be given access to as much sex as they desire courtesy of the state. If they still want to kill themselves, it is then, and only then, that they should be allowed to do so.

Sex and death

Over the last few days, I've been involved in various discussions about life and death issues, particularly euthanasia. Because I've said a lot about it elsewhere, I won't go over the same ground here at the moment, although no doubt there will be issues that I want to raise in the future. However, I have been struck by the latest anti-smoking advertising campaign and feel the need to comment. It seems to have been decided that men don't care that they might die early of lung cancer but are more concerned about the quality of their erections. As a society, we seem to be getting less and less worried about death and more and more worried about getting laid. How soon before we become like those creatures that procreate solidly for several months and then drop down dead? On the other hand, some people might not even consider that to be a bad thing...