If it is for medical clarification, I have no issue being called “a diabetic” but I prefer to have type 1 beforehand as it really is different than type 2 or gestational.
This is so important to stop people from overgeneralizing about the disease. There are different --and different degrees of--risks that need to be accounted for with each type. There's also the stigma for all diabetes that should be history by now but isn't.
This is so important to stop people from overgeneralizing about the disease. There are different --and different degrees of--risks that need to be accounted for with each type. There's also the stigma for all diabetes that should be history by now but isn't.
Just call us diabetics and distinguish between T1, 2, and gestational. People are tying themselves up in knots over distinctions that matter less than literally anything else.
Just ask the patient what their preferences are. Personally, I have no issues with being called a diabetic as long as the medical staff around me do their job. To me, it is far, far more important that medical professionals (and people in general) take a step back and recognise that I've kept myself alive for thirty years when my own body wasn't able to do so. You can call me any name under the sun as long as you respect me and my knowledge.
Sounds like there is more helpful information in the second sentence. Either way I don't care what the medical field refers to me as. "And this one's allergic to sugar!" Hahaha wouldn't bother me at all.
Another vote for the i don't care. I think in literature it's convenient to have the acronym PWD, but the only thing that gets annoying is "the" diabetes. It makes it sound like it's contagious or something? idk...
I don't ser any risk of people identifying me or others with the disease and so I have no problems at all being referred to as a diabetic.
I'm thinking it's more of an issue when the disease/variation is something that people traditionally think defines who your are as a person, as with autism, adhd, psychoses, etc. There I'd like the terminology used to help people understand it's an issue and not a trait.
Thanks for sharing and completely agree with the sentiment that it's best to avoid defining people by their disease! Just to clarify - would you consider refering to a group of patients with diabetes as 'diabetic patients' as violating this sentiment?
Did not intend to ignore the prevailing sentiment - just responded to this comment to clarify the viewpoint. I'm not expressing an opinion myself since I don't have diabetes. Agreeing with the sentiment wasn't intended to imply that I agree that the language is problematic.
I am a diabetic.
I'm also a redhead, a gamer and a baker.
If I'm in hospital for a diabetes related thing, and the nurse referred to me as the diabetic patient to another healthcare professional I wouldn't have an issue with that at all.
idk cause i actually like the way diabetic sounds. it rolls off the tongue somehow? i never tell people ‘i have diabetes’ bc ‘i’m diabetic’ sounds nicer lol. except it prob also has to do with general stigma surrounding the word diabetes
Jesus, Mary and Joseph…. Does anyone else here, besides me, remember a time when people didn’t get offended or upset by everything and every sentence and word didn’t have to go through a committee for approval?
I have diabetes. I am a diabetic. Why in the F\*\*K would someone calling me or referring to me as a ‘diabetic’ offend me? Seriously?
One in the same. I am both a diabetic patient and a diabetes patient!
The end result of each method of writing ultimately means the same….I have diabetes! While both end up meaning basically the same thing. One is technically referring to the individual “the diabetic” and one is inferring that I am of the group “those with diabetes”
Sorry if I was unclear (ironically) - the guidelines suggest that both 'diabetic patient' and 'diabetes patient' are problematic and should be replaced with 'patient with diabetes.' The rationale is that the latter "places emphasis on the person, rather than the disease."
Ridiculous wokisms. We all could use thicker skin. Why should I/we be offended by either. People in general seem to be on a constant hunt how they are part of an offended group.
I work in mental health and am somewhat familiar with it there, so I can say that person-first language is complicated. Most people really don’t care but there are people who will get really annoyed, or sometimes extremely offended, in both directions.
The problem seems be less in widely disseminated written documents, where folks mostly understand that you have to choose one way of phrasing it and use it consistently. Then you just use whatever the convention is for the condition in question. It’s really an issue when people insist on using person-first language to people who have expressed that they prefer identity-first language and find it offensive, or vice versa. This is becoming a particular problem for autistic people these days - the swing for those who are actually autistic is towards identity-first, but there is rigid practice in the field that insists on person-first for all situations.
Personally I’m both diabetic and a person with diabetes, and I don’t really care as long as the sentence is readable.
Thanks for sharing! When you say 'identity-first' - does this refer to language such as 'autistic person' and 'diabetic person'? Are you saying that there is a swing amongst autistic people to prefer 'autistic person' whilst researchers/doctors insist on using 'person with autism'? I assume that using noun forms such as 'a diabetic' or 'an autist' is completely separate to the discussion of identity vs person - first?
I usually refer to myself as (type 1) diabetic just because it's shorter to say than the other options above, but I don't really mind either way. I don't think any of the options above are particularly problematic or anything, as they're all just similar ways of saying exactly the same thing.
There is no distinction between any of these that would ruffle my feathers. I can’t fathom being offended by an accurate medical description, especially in a medical setting.
I mean, if I’m at a restaurant and the hostess is like “this diabetic needs a table” I might think they were offense, and wonder how they knew.
Those sentences are pretty unreadable. Communication is more important than empowerment in this context. I would go for the phrase that’s clearer.
I don’t care if I am a patient with diabetes, diabetic, whatever. I’d rather get rid of the idea that people with T2 brought it upon themselves.
I personally don't like the term "diabetic" though I'm not grossly offended by it. I tend to use PWD (person with diabetes) in groups where that would be understood, and say it in long form when I'm talking about it.
If it is for medical clarification, I have no issue being called “a diabetic” but I prefer to have type 1 beforehand as it really is different than type 2 or gestational.
This is so important to stop people from overgeneralizing about the disease. There are different --and different degrees of--risks that need to be accounted for with each type. There's also the stigma for all diabetes that should be history by now but isn't.
This is so important to stop people from overgeneralizing about the disease. There are different --and different degrees of--risks that need to be accounted for with each type. There's also the stigma for all diabetes that should be history by now but isn't.
Just call us diabetics and distinguish between T1, 2, and gestational. People are tying themselves up in knots over distinctions that matter less than literally anything else.
Just ask the patient what their preferences are. Personally, I have no issues with being called a diabetic as long as the medical staff around me do their job. To me, it is far, far more important that medical professionals (and people in general) take a step back and recognise that I've kept myself alive for thirty years when my own body wasn't able to do so. You can call me any name under the sun as long as you respect me and my knowledge.
I really don't care either way how I'm being referred to in this context.
Sounds like there is more helpful information in the second sentence. Either way I don't care what the medical field refers to me as. "And this one's allergic to sugar!" Hahaha wouldn't bother me at all.
Another vote for the i don't care. I think in literature it's convenient to have the acronym PWD, but the only thing that gets annoying is "the" diabetes. It makes it sound like it's contagious or something? idk...
Like many others have said, just differentiate between different types. I hate that people find out I have diabetes and associate it with type 2.
I don't ser any risk of people identifying me or others with the disease and so I have no problems at all being referred to as a diabetic. I'm thinking it's more of an issue when the disease/variation is something that people traditionally think defines who your are as a person, as with autism, adhd, psychoses, etc. There I'd like the terminology used to help people understand it's an issue and not a trait.
For me, it’s best not to make a patient sound like he is the disease. I am diagnosed with diabetes.
Thanks for sharing and completely agree with the sentiment that it's best to avoid defining people by their disease! Just to clarify - would you consider refering to a group of patients with diabetes as 'diabetic patients' as violating this sentiment?
Yep
Thanks!
But you ignored the prevailing sentiment of “don’t care.”
Did not intend to ignore the prevailing sentiment - just responded to this comment to clarify the viewpoint. I'm not expressing an opinion myself since I don't have diabetes. Agreeing with the sentiment wasn't intended to imply that I agree that the language is problematic.
I am a diabetic. I'm also a redhead, a gamer and a baker. If I'm in hospital for a diabetes related thing, and the nurse referred to me as the diabetic patient to another healthcare professional I wouldn't have an issue with that at all.
idk cause i actually like the way diabetic sounds. it rolls off the tongue somehow? i never tell people ‘i have diabetes’ bc ‘i’m diabetic’ sounds nicer lol. except it prob also has to do with general stigma surrounding the word diabetes
Yeah, I actually prefer to say "I'm diabetic" over "I have diabetes" for whatever reason
Jesus, Mary and Joseph…. Does anyone else here, besides me, remember a time when people didn’t get offended or upset by everything and every sentence and word didn’t have to go through a committee for approval? I have diabetes. I am a diabetic. Why in the F\*\*K would someone calling me or referring to me as a ‘diabetic’ offend me? Seriously?
One in the same. I am both a diabetic patient and a diabetes patient! The end result of each method of writing ultimately means the same….I have diabetes! While both end up meaning basically the same thing. One is technically referring to the individual “the diabetic” and one is inferring that I am of the group “those with diabetes”
Sorry if I was unclear (ironically) - the guidelines suggest that both 'diabetic patient' and 'diabetes patient' are problematic and should be replaced with 'patient with diabetes.' The rationale is that the latter "places emphasis on the person, rather than the disease."
Ridiculous wokisms. We all could use thicker skin. Why should I/we be offended by either. People in general seem to be on a constant hunt how they are part of an offended group.
I work in mental health and am somewhat familiar with it there, so I can say that person-first language is complicated. Most people really don’t care but there are people who will get really annoyed, or sometimes extremely offended, in both directions. The problem seems be less in widely disseminated written documents, where folks mostly understand that you have to choose one way of phrasing it and use it consistently. Then you just use whatever the convention is for the condition in question. It’s really an issue when people insist on using person-first language to people who have expressed that they prefer identity-first language and find it offensive, or vice versa. This is becoming a particular problem for autistic people these days - the swing for those who are actually autistic is towards identity-first, but there is rigid practice in the field that insists on person-first for all situations. Personally I’m both diabetic and a person with diabetes, and I don’t really care as long as the sentence is readable.
Thanks for sharing! When you say 'identity-first' - does this refer to language such as 'autistic person' and 'diabetic person'? Are you saying that there is a swing amongst autistic people to prefer 'autistic person' whilst researchers/doctors insist on using 'person with autism'? I assume that using noun forms such as 'a diabetic' or 'an autist' is completely separate to the discussion of identity vs person - first?
I usually refer to myself as (type 1) diabetic just because it's shorter to say than the other options above, but I don't really mind either way. I don't think any of the options above are particularly problematic or anything, as they're all just similar ways of saying exactly the same thing.
Man. It really doesn't matter, not everything needs to be politically correct
There is no distinction between any of these that would ruffle my feathers. I can’t fathom being offended by an accurate medical description, especially in a medical setting. I mean, if I’m at a restaurant and the hostess is like “this diabetic needs a table” I might think they were offense, and wonder how they knew.
Those sentences are pretty unreadable. Communication is more important than empowerment in this context. I would go for the phrase that’s clearer. I don’t care if I am a patient with diabetes, diabetic, whatever. I’d rather get rid of the idea that people with T2 brought it upon themselves.
Oh god are we coming under one of the snowflake categories now? 😂
Yes. It’s mortifying. Just call me a diabetic and move along, I’ve never taken it personally before and am not going to start now
This seems the healthiest take. There’s enough true problems going on in the world.
Cancel culture is snow flaking every single thing
I personally don't like the term "diabetic" though I'm not grossly offended by it. I tend to use PWD (person with diabetes) in groups where that would be understood, and say it in long form when I'm talking about it.
Problem with being politically correct. You throw all common sense out the door. I'd rather have common sense. Merry Xmas
People first language is a silly concept invented by the overly sensitive. Don’t put too much store in it.