Published on 12, July, 2020
Does anyone feel like they are defective with their diagnosis? It’s a term I use to describe myself a lot and I’m always berated for it by others - mostly professionals - but I am very literal in what I say so my choice of word I believe is correct. I grant a lack of self worth is a factor in how I evaluate myself but I don’t think calling myself defective (or weird is the other label I give myself) is in any way unfair.
Evidentially: I can’t make friends for trying, my outlooks on the world and others are abstract, I can’t cope with some basic things many can - defective right?
Yes. People play word games with this stuff. The word games started as a defence against people who use the words like 'defective' in a negative judgement sort of way rather than just in an observational 'what goes against the norm' sort of way. Also, people have mixed up meanings of words. They see saying something is 'normal' and 'abnormal' as negative judgements too. 'normal' and 'abnormal' become a word that also means 'natural' to people. So if someone says, 'they aren't normal' someone might get offended and say, 'So you're saying I'm unnatural?' But the word 'unnatural' is absolute bollocks. Because there is no such thing as 'unnatural.' 'Unnatural' really means something people perceive as 'bad.' Or to confuse things further, to mean 'man made' as if humans are not nature themselves, and therefore anything they create is therefore 'unnatural' and 'manmade' But that's all a word game humans seem to play. If we don't function in the 'normal' way for the vast majority of humans, then 'defective' certainly seems like a legit word to use. The problem is some people see the word 'defective' as meaning, 'so we can do what we want to these people and these people have no rights,' and then as already mentioned in defence, good-natured peopled say, 'We need to stop using the word defective because it makes them seem abnormal.' Even though they are, statistically, in the vast majority of the human species, 'abnormal.' Yes, it can be argued that if we lived in a different society, and the human species was a bit different, we wouldn't be considered 'defective' we might well be considered the norm and the roles would be reversed. But if that was the case, we would be the majority and we wouldn't have a diagnosis. And I don't see much point in this what if ism because.... we are here, we are human and we don't live in that alternate reality! We only do this word game stuff for mental illness and neurological developmental disorders like autism that can't be seen physically. For example, no doctor is going to deny that my heart functions and is different from the 'normal' non-defective heart. Because they can see the parts I have missing, and the parts that beat differently, and the fact my blood goes around my body in a different way to normal people. Yet, if I sit in front of a psychologist they'll say all these bull 'positive' life-affirming things like, 'You're just different' while simultaneously admitting you have a diagnosis. It makes no sense when you really break the language down for what it is. Because if it really is all about simply being different, then why the need for a diagnosis? Because it's helpful, because of the potential support that may be in place because of the diagnosis. Yes, we could have debates as to whether society does give enough support, but the fact is the diagnosis is really there to say, 'yes this person requires at least a little bit of support,' despite governments failures to give that support.
i agree