Re: Person first terminology -- are you autistic/aspie or a person with something?

[Guest guest]

Gayle wrote:

>It is the curebies who think that autism can be

>separated from the person, and, of course they think

>of it as something bad.

I agree. We don't say Jane is " a person with femaleness, " nor should

we say that I am " a person with autism. " Although no single

characteristic conveys all of me, it is a fact that I am female, it

is a fact that I am autistic. All the way through. It's what I am. If

you could extract it from me, I would become " an autistic without

autism, " just as extracting my X chromosomes would make me " a female

without femaleness. " Obviously impossible in both cases.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Or you could use a religious/spiritual analogy — would you call a

Buddhist " a person with Buddhism " ? Would you call ahteists/agnostics

" people with atheism or agnosticism " ? If you can find out what

religion your teacher believes, ask your teacher that question about

his/her religion: e.g., " Does 'people-first' mean I call you 'a person

with Catholicism'? If not, why not? "

An analogy to handedness can also raise awareness — ask your teacher

if s/he considers him/herself " a person with right-handedness. " (or

" with left-handedness, " or " with ambidexteriry, " depending on your

teacher)

Or just ask " why does this 'person with' thing happen only for stuff

that peole want to cure? Why don't you similarly insist on calling

yourself a 'person with neurotypicality'? "

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

> After thinking about it, I decided I should just put this question

> of " person first " terminology on the

> list and then see if there are any interesting responses I can

> share with my teacher (so that I can demonstrate to her that I am

> not the only autistic who feels this way). So if anyone has any

> comments on this, please specify if I can have permission to quote

> you to my teacher.

Even if you *do* think of autism as a disorder (which we don't,

obviously, but if you do), it's very different from most other

disorders in that it's formative of the entire personality. That

being the case, it's not the same as any other disorder; it's

integral to who we are, so referring to us as " people with autism "

makes no more sense than it would to refer to a woman as being a

" person with femaleness " .

I might also add that it's generally considered rude to address

people using terms that they have explicitly said they do not wish to

be addressed by. Star Trek fans, for example, have stated that they

dislike the term " Trekkies " and prefer not to be called by that

name. Many people don't know that, of course, and that's perfectly

excusable, but once a Trek enthusiast explains that that community

considers the term " Trekkie " to be derogatory, the only proper

response is to stop using the term because non-Trek enthusiasts have

no moral authority to make a claim as to what Trek enthusiasts should

be called.

You may quote this to your teacher, in whole or in any part you see

fit, so long as you credit me.

[Guest guest]

If someone refers to me as " a person with autism " , then I get to thinking

that it sounds as though I have something that other people can catch, that

autism is contagious. Or that my autism can be cured.

Saying that I'm autistic means that autism is a part of me (this has been said

many times, I know) and that it is something that will always be a part of me,

it is something that cannot be changed.

I'm autistic - I'm also a lot of other things besides;) - autism is a part of

the whole deal that makes up me.

Not sure you'll want to quote me but you are welcome to.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[Guest guest]

Hey I am new around here but i am autistic to some degree - I didnt catch it

Just another vote --go tell it like it is --quote all of us

Cheers Col

Suzanne wrote:

>

> If someone refers to me as " a person with autism " , then I get to

> thinking that it sounds as though I have something that other people

> can catch, that autism is contagious. Or that my autism can be cured.

> Saying that I'm autistic means that autism is a part of me (this has

> been said many times, I know) and that it is something that will

> always be a part of me, it is something that cannot be changed.

> I'm autistic - I'm also a lot of other things besides;) - autism is a

> part of the whole deal that makes up me.

>

> Not sure you'll want to quote me but you are welcome to.

>

>

> Send instant messages to your online friends

> http://au.messenger.yahoo.com <http://au.messenger.yahoo.com>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Quote anything I've said or written about this " person-first " matter.

Point out, perhaps, that you find it as offensive to have to call

yourself " a person with autism " as a black student would find it to

have to call him/herself " a person with blackness " if whites told

blacks to put " people first " in this situation, too.

In my experience and observation, you can get a REALLY big impact

if you even go a little further: if you say that having to call

yourself " person with autism " feels (to you) like a black person

having to call him/herself " nigger. " If some group of white people had

decided to make " nigger " the officially approved and required term for

talking about black people, would the college expect you to go along

with that too? Would the college fail a black student for refusing to

call him/herself a " nigger " ?

Also ask the teacher this:

If 'person-first' means so much good, if the requirement exists to

teach us that differences don't make people bad, then why does the

requirement to use it apply *only* to differences that people consider

bad?

It doesn't matter if you say " red-haired girl " or " girl with red

hair " — so why make it matter if you say " autistic girl " or " girl with

autism " ?

Getting a choice of phrase for some human differences (such as

red hair) but not getting the same choice for other human differences

(such as autism) has a BAD effect, not a good one, because it makes

you categorize some human differences differently than others: you get

a choice of grammar for the " okay " differences that you don't get for

the " disability " differences. To me, this sounds like discrimination

and NOT like equality!

If the school still won't bend, call the American Civil Liberties

Union. They provide much legal help, often for no cost, in

freedom-of-expression cases.

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

> Exceptional Learners, I had points taken off a paper

> for repeatedly referring to " autistics " rather than

> " people with autism. " The students are supposed to

> use " person first " language.

There are several answers to that one.

First, if one accepts the " person first " issue, one must still

consider that autistics may self-identify as such; i.e.,

identify with autism. (One way to clarify that is to use a

capital " A " .) Similar, a Democrat wouldn't want to be called " a

person with Democratic. " Perhaps recently Republicans may wish

to be called " people with Republicanism " ??

Second, a change in expression should be helpful, and not placed

as an impediment to writing. In its worst aspect, the " correct "

language is obstructionist. The relative value (if any) to

autistics to be called " people with autism " needs to be balanced

with the burden of restricting expression. Difficult expression

of thoughts belongs in patent claim drafting; not description of

social issues.

Third, many autistics consider autism a social condition, albeit

with medical causes, or alternatively a personality type.

Therefore " people first " language for autistics becomes

superfluous. It should be sufficient to state that an autistic

child is really foremost a child without having to resort to " a

child with autism " .

Fourth, " people first " language suggests that the condition is

an isolated descriptor in the sense of not describing the

person. Autistics consider autism to be a personality type and

a form of identity. If they weren't autistic, they would be a

completely different person.

There are some cases where " people first " avoids a basic issue.

For example, a " wheelchair athlete " is not a " person with

athletics and by the way also happens to use a wheelchair " .

- s

[Guest guest]

Regarding the " person first " verbal compulsion (a compulsion which I

prefer to call " putting diversity last " ) — please note the following

from Wikipedia's article on that subject. This comes from the

article's section on reasons *against* such a verbal taboo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-first_terminology

Criticism [of " person-first " terminology]

Person-first terminology is rejected by some disabled people, most

commonly deaf and autistic people. People with these two conditions

generally see their condition as an important part of their identity,

and so prefer to be described as " deaf people " and " autistic people "

rather than " people with deafness " and " people with autism " . In a

reversal of the rationale for person-first terminology, these people

see person-first terminology as devaluing an important part of their

identity and falsely suggesting that there is, somewhere in them, a

person distinct from their condition. Notably, these two conditions

have extensive effects on language use, leading to significant

subcultures, the deaf community and the autistic community. These

features are not shared with most other conditions that are commonly

considered disabilities. Some people with these conditions (especially

high-functioning autism) do not consider them disabilities, but rather

traits.

Most disability rights activists in the United States, perceive

person-first terminology as an euphemism and prefer to avoid it, often

using " disabled people " as the alternative. Among disability rights

activists in the United Kingdom who adhere to the social model of

disability, person-first language is not used because it locates

disability within the individual person. Social model adherents

believe that while differences between human bodies exist and may be

located within individual people, the cause of disability is due to

oppression of people with certain types of differences. Since

person-first terminology falls under the medical model of disability,

social model adherents reject it.

Some people consider person-first terminology to be unnecessarily

wordy or odd-sounding. They argue that because terms like " disabled " ,

" blind " , etc. are used as adjectives instead of nouns, they are not

more significant than " person " just because they come first in a

phrase.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\

-=-=-=

Folks — in addition to what Wikipedia says, I'd also like to point out

a BIG problem with the " person-first " compulsion: when someone in

charge of a workplace/program/classroom has that compulsion and tries

to make others acquire that compulsion too, people who resist the

order to ape that compulsion cannot even raise the subject without

getting in trouble just for talking about this subject without using

the approved " magic words " of " person with ______ " !

For instance: suppose your professor asks you — or suppose you just

want to let him know — why you say and write " autistic people. " Just

by using the phrase, you go down a few notches in his opinion: if he

takes off 5 points for each use of the phrase, then he can very easily

flunk you just for using it often enough to lose enough points.

In fact, when a professor knows you don't share his compulsion and he

therefore WANTS to flunk you for not feeling all icky about the words

" autistic people. " on your next exam he merely has to make one of the

questions an essay, worth 50 points, asking students to:

" Please state and defend your opinion on person-first

terminology. You can express an opinion either for this terminology or

against it. Write this essay using the terminology you prefer " ...

then, when you use the terminology you prefer, he can flunk you for

having preferred the " wrong " terminology ... or if you decided to

" play it socially smart " and write the essay with the proper " magic

words " so you wouldn't fail, he can point to your use of the " proper "

words and opinions as proof that you really don't mind " person-first

terminology after all.

A boss or other person-in-charge can do much the same thing:

e.g., if you say " autistic people " and the boss doesn't approve, the

boss can ask you to put in writing why you prefer " autistic people "

.... and then the boss can evaluate you poorly for putting that in

writing. (Or if you refuse to put it in writing, the boss can evaluate

you poorly for disobeying an order.)

At college or at work or elsewhere, you might want to contact the

ADA/EEOC/disabilities office. Point out that the requirement to

describe yourself (and others like you) as " people with autism "

discriminates against you because other people (who have different

personal traits) don't have to do this sort of thing when describing

*their* personal traits: e.g., nobody has to call him/herself (or

anyone) a " person with red-headedness " or " a person with

left-handedness " or " a person with blackness " or " a person with

Hispanicness " or " a person with athleticism " or " a person with

sociality " : red-headed people, lefties, blacks, Hispanics, athletes,

and socially adept folks don't have to re-name themselves & others

like them as " persons-with " -something-or-other, so why must you?

Doesn't this treat some people differently than others purely because

of a disability or perceived disability?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

At 11:11 AM 11/8/2006, sacha delia wrote:

>Anyway -- this week in this class, called Survey of

>Exceptional Learners, I had points taken off a paper

>for repeatedly referring to " autistics " rather than

> " people with autism. " The students are supposed to

>use " person first " language.

shouldn't the class then be called " Survey of Learners with Exceptionalities " ?

-jypsy

________________________________

[Guest guest]

jypsy wrote:

>shouldn't the class then be called " Survey of Learners with Exceptionalities " ?

:-) In a nutshell!

Jane

[Guest guest]

Re:

> >Anyway -- this week in this class, called Survey of

> >Exceptional Learners, I had points taken off a paper

> >for repeatedly referring to " autistics " rather than

> > " people with autism. " The students are supposed to

> >use " person first " language.

>

> shouldn't the class then be called " Survey of Learners with

> Exceptionalities " ?

Great point! Ask the professor why you have to use " person-first "

language when the course doesn't!

Then, if they do change the name of the course, go in detail

through the college catalog/syllabus notes/ALL other college

publications and insist they make everything else " person-first, " too!

If they want " autistic people " to change to " people with autism, "

they had better first change " college students " to " students with

college membership, "

they had better first change " Department of Special Education " to

" Department of Education with Specialness, "

they had better change " entering students " and " freshman

students " and " graduating students " and " failing students " to

" students with entrance " and " students with freshmanism " and " students

with graduation " and " students with failure " if they really believe

(or want you to believe) that only a brute or a cad would ever say

anything any other way than " people first. "

If they refuse, or they say " it doesn't matter for THESE words, "

ask them why not. What makes " people-first " ( " specifics last " ) All

Right when speaking about autism and All Wrong when speaking about

graduation?

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

> > >Anyway -- this week in this class, called Survey of

> > >Exceptional Learners, I had points taken off a paper

> > >for repeatedly referring to " autistics " rather than

> > > " people with autism. " The students are supposed to

> > >use " person first " language.

> >

> > shouldn't the class then be called " Survey of Learners with

> > Exceptionalities " ?

>

> Great point! Ask the professor why you have to use " person-first "

> language when the course doesn't!

> Then, if they do change the name of the course, go in detail

> through the college catalog/syllabus notes/ALL other college

> publications and insist they make everything else " person-first, " too!

Well, hell, you can take this even further than that. What's up with

doctors referring to " patients " , for example? Or lawyers and CPAs

saying that they have " clients " ?

[Guest guest]

>

> Well, hell, you can take this even further than that. What's up with

> doctors referring to " patients " , for example? Or lawyers and CPAs

> saying that they have " clients " ?

Or businesses calling what used to be called " customers " consumers. I

detest that word.

a (an autistic person)

[Guest guest]

Re:

> ... " customers " consumers. ...

Heck, in the name of " persons first " someone could logically call for

a ban on all terms-for-people that end in " -or " (like " baker " or

" consumer " or " editor " or " instructor " or " professor " ) ... ),

because the " -er " / " or " ending in terms for people indicates " person

who ______ " ,

so if you accept " putting the person first "

then obviously the word " baker " has to become " erbake " ...

the word " consumer " has to become " erconsume " ...

and every editor, professor, or instructor who insists upon " person first "

must call him/herself an " oredit " or an " orprofess " or an " orinstruct "

(and must not object when we call him/her that.)

Don't forget the " -cian/-tian/-ian/-an " endings

(which mean " person who does ______ or comes from _____ " )

as in " musician, beautician, Parisian, Canadian, American " ...

.... putting " person first " plainly requires saying and writing only

" ianmusic, ianbeauty, Ianparis, Iancanada, Anameric "

instead of those horrible, evil, " person-last " words

that all the " person-first, difference-last " compulsives

have somehow forgotten to change.

And once the " person-first " fetishists DO change all those words —

or even now —

you can always ask them this:

Hey, if 'person-first' fetishism really does any good,

can you please explain why the hundreds of countries/languages

that ALREADY put words-for-people (and other nouns) first

(and have done so for millennia)

have AT LEAST as big a disability-bigotry problem as the

English-speaking nations?

In French, you don't say " blind person, " you say " person blind "

( " personne aveugle " ) — putting " person[ne]s " first didn't stop French

schools for blind people from outlawing Braille and calling its

inventor a " personne insaine " (you can figure out what that means)

which they did ferociously for several decades after Braille's

invention.

Ancient Rome had " person-first language, " too —

nouns-before-adjectives all over the place — which did not stop the

ancient Romans from using people with disabilities as roadside

freak-exhibits: people with severe stutters who would try to talk if

you threw them a penny, people with mobility impairments who would try

to get up and dance if you threw them a penny, people with deformities

who would show you their deformities if you threw them a penny ...

.... usually slaves or really poor people (oops, sorry, I mean " people

with enslavement or poverty issues " ) who couldn't make a living any

other way.

I doubt any Romans who had to make their living as

laugh-at-me-for-a-penny human zoo exhibits

really felt it made their lives so much better and more wonderful to

have the noun before the adjective.

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

Why not 'shake things up' a bit? I know grades are important in achieving

any goals you may have, but why not at least expose this teacher with the

information you stated here?

Nothing ventured......after all.

You may plant a seed in him.

>

> I posted this on another autistic list as well --

> apologies to those who may get it twice.

>

> I am taking a course in Special Education at the

> local university. As an aspie with ADD ( " deficit " and

> " disorder, " right), learning " disabilities " and

> giftedness, I want to get a certification for teaching

> special ed because I can understand and appreciate

> neurodiversity much better than NTs can. (I have

> already tutored for years with enormous success.)

>

> Anyway -- this week in this class, called Survey of

> Exceptional Learners, I had points taken off a paper

> for repeatedly referring to " autistics " rather than

> " people with autism. " The students are supposed to

> use " person first " language.

>

> I am debating with myself whether to say something to

> this teacher (who is pretty by the book) or just

> follow the rules and never use the word " autistic " --

> even when referring to myself or family members --

> only " people with autism. "

>

> I came across this piece on the internet that

> perfectly describes my feelings about " person first "

> language as regards autistics.

>

>

http://web.syr.edu/~jisincla/person_first.htm<http://web.syr.edu/%7Ejisincla/per\

son_first.htm>

>

> " People with AIDS, " yes. " People in wheelchairs, "

> yes. If those people didn't have AIDS or were not in

> wheelchairs, they would still be the same person. It

> is not part of who they are in the way that autism is

> part of who I am. Furthermore, as the piece

> articulates, the " people first " practice is based on

> the assumption that autism is bad.

>

> It is the curebies who think that autism can be

> separated from the person, and, of course they think

> of it as something bad.

>

> But in this class, I am =obligated= to use

> terminology that I and other autistics find offensive.

>

> After thinking about it, I decided I should just put

> this question of " person first " terminology on the

> list and then see if there are any interesting

> responses I can share with my teacher (so that I can

> demonstrate to her that I am not the only autistic who

> feels this way). So if anyone has any comments on

> this, please specify if I can have permission to quote

> you to my teacher.

>

> Thank you.

>

> Gayle

>

> __________________________________________________________

> Sponsored Link

>

> Talk more and pay less. Vonage can save you up to $300 a year on your

> phone bill.

> Sign up now. http://www.vonage.com/startsavingnow/

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 12:34 PM 11/9/2006, jypsy [ janet norman-bain ] wrote:

>shouldn't the class then be called " Survey of Learners with Exceptionalities " ?

>

>-jypsy

ok, just realized that in proper person first lingo, that should be

" Survey of People who learn with Exceptionalities "

-jypsy

________________________________

[Guest guest]

Re:

> >shouldn't the class then be called " Survey of Learners with

> Exceptionalities " ?

> >

> >-jypsy

>

> ok, just realized that in proper person first lingo, that should be

> " Survey of People who learn with Exceptionalities "

.... except that even the " people-first " fetishists have probably

noticed that this doesn't really *say* anything ...

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

I am reading these in reverse order so did not see your request for

permission to quote. You may quote anything I said in my previous

post, and also you may tell your teacher that I do not consider

myself a " person who has autism " but an " autistic person and that I

do not think autism is a negative thing, therefore I have no need to

distance myself from either the disabilities OR the strengths I have

that are part of my autism. Yes, dear teacher, autistic people DO

have strengths!

I don't think points should be taken off a test for

using " politically incorrect " language, either! That seems to me to

be a naked display of power (if it is such, or maybe just an outmoded

way of assigning grades). The teacher probably does not think of it

as that. I do not think grades should be assigned on the basis of the

teacher's personal belief system.

I think if the teacher is unwilling to listen to alternative points

of view, maybe you two should switch places, and have the teacher be

the exceptional learner. A teacher should be willing to learn from

students, to expand his or her base of understanding. Not that I've

always done that, but I try to now (thinking about my current job as

a choir director, which has been having its difficult moments). I am

perhaps, " a person with a choir.... "

Autistic Rhonda

>

>

> >

> > I posted this on another autistic list as well --

> > apologies to those who may get it twice.

> >

> > I am taking a course in Special Education at the

> > local university. As an aspie with ADD ( " deficit " and

> > " disorder, " right), learning " disabilities " and

> > giftedness, I want to get a certification for teaching

> > special ed because I can understand and appreciate

> > neurodiversity much better than NTs can. (I have

> > already tutored for years with enormous success.)

> >

> > Anyway -- this week in this class, called Survey of

> > Exceptional Learners, I had points taken off a paper

> > for repeatedly referring to " autistics " rather than

> > " people with autism. " The students are supposed to

> > use " person first " language.

> >

> > I am debating with myself whether to say something to

> > this teacher (who is pretty by the book) or just

> > follow the rules and never use the word " autistic " --

> > even when referring to myself or family members --

> > only " people with autism. "

> >

> > I came across this piece on the internet that

> > perfectly describes my feelings about " person first "

> > language as regards autistics.

> >

> > http://web.syr.edu/~jisincla/person_first.htm<http://web.syr.edu/%

7Ejisincla/person_first.htm>

> >

> > " People with AIDS, " yes. " People in wheelchairs, "

> > yes. If those people didn't have AIDS or were not in

> > wheelchairs, they would still be the same person. It

> > is not part of who they are in the way that autism is

> > part of who I am. Furthermore, as the piece

> > articulates, the " people first " practice is based on

> > the assumption that autism is bad.

> >

> > It is the curebies who think that autism can be

> > separated from the person, and, of course they think

> > of it as something bad.

> >

> > But in this class, I am =obligated= to use

> > terminology that I and other autistics find offensive.

> >

> > After thinking about it, I decided I should just put

> > this question of " person first " terminology on the

> > list and then see if there are any interesting

> > responses I can share with my teacher (so that I can

> > demonstrate to her that I am not the only autistic who

> > feels this way). So if anyone has any comments on

> > this, please specify if I can have permission to quote

> > you to my teacher.

> >

> > Thank you.

> >

> > Gayle

> >

> > __________________________________________________________

> > Sponsored Link

> >

> > Talk more and pay less. Vonage can save you up to $300 a year on

your

> > phone bill.

> > Sign up now. http://www.vonage.com/startsavingnow/

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I think about this the way that Rhonda does. However, I have to point

out one thing regarding professors' beliefs about " proper " language.

Professors who take off points for saying/writing things like

" autistic person " do this for more than one reason. In addition to

just their own " personal belief-systems, " they have on their side the

" belief-systems " of the people who will eventually hire their students

(as teachers or whatever). Rules in many schools/school-districts —

and even laws, that affect schools or other places receiving

government funding — increasingly require using the " proper " phrases

as part of " professionalism. " E.g., a special-ed teacher who

says/writes " autistic people " during work-hours can lose his/her job

really, really fast (for breaking school/district rules and even

breaking some laws), and a school or district that lets its employees

use the phrase " autistic people " can get into trouble with the city,

state, and/or even federal government. (A school or district can even

lose funding if it lets people use this phrase!) And — as you can

guess — if someone wants a job in (say) education), and says " autistic

person " on the application or in the job-interview, s/he won't get the

job because s/he did not demonstrate knowledge of and compliance with

" professionalism, " " workplace standards, " or what-have-you.

So the professors who take off points for " autistic people "

probably feel that they have to prepare the students to get and keep

actual jobs in their fields. At least, they could — and probably would

— say this if they ever had to defend their actions: " I can't allow my

students to come out of my class thinking that 'autistic people' is

okay, because they will have to go to work in places that think

'autistic people' is NOT okay. If I don't teach them the proper

vocabulary and require them to use it, I don't fulfill my

responsibility to teach them what they will need to know in order to

get and hold a job in the profession that they want to prepare for.

Even if I totally agreed that 'autistic people' should be okay, I

could not say that phrase or accept it if I wanted my students to be

able to get jobs in their field ... and I could not say that phrase or

accept it if I wanted to keep my own job. The students who want me to

make 'autistic people' okay in my classroom don't have to convince

only me — they have to convince this whole college, the profession,

their future employers, and government agencies. If they can make

'autistic people' okay with the college, the profession, employers,

and the government, I'll be happy to go along ... but right now, this

hasn't happened. This student needs to pass the course on the same

terms as anyone else. Nobody else in this classroom objects to 'people

with autism' or can afford to object to that phrase — so this student

has to accept and use it too, or she really hasn't mastered that part

of the course-work. "

Kate Gladstone

[Guest guest]

It was 9 Nov 2006, when Parrish S. Knight commented:

>

> > > >Anyway -- this week in this class, called Survey of

> > > >Exceptional Learners, I had points taken off a paper

> > > >for repeatedly referring to " autistics " rather than

> > > > " people with autism. " The students are supposed to

> > > >use " person first " language.

> > >

> > > shouldn't the class then be called " Survey of Learners with

> > > Exceptionalities " ?

> >

> > Great point! Ask the professor why you have to use " person-first "

> > language when the course doesn't!

> > Then, if they do change the name of the course, go in detail

> > through the college catalog/syllabus notes/ALL other college

> > publications and insist they make everything else " person-first, " too!

>

> Well, hell, you can take this even further than that. What's up with

> doctors referring to " patients " , for example? Or lawyers and CPAs saying

> that they have " clients " ?

Shouldn't that be " persons with Law/Accounting credentials? "