You’re not alone there!

I, for one, got that. I am not within that field, but the context of your message elludes to a separate field of study. In the work I do, this would be called jargon. When addressing an audience outside the field of study, it’s important to identify and define the jargon (which you did, so you were cognizant of your audience). No “theory of mind” problems here.

My point, which I failed to get around to apparently, is that including these distinctions in your “about” section would be a good idea if you want the “general public” to understand the significance of the distinction in your mind and among your studied peers.

The other point, which I think I did make and which you reiterated, is that a rhetor must be a rhetorician to some degree in order to be effective. Therefore, the other person’s claims are invalid. You cannot simply be a rhetor without having the ability to be a rhetorician. But, of course, this is coming from someone who has not studied rhetoric beyond a “critical thinking” course and reading Plato, so I’m sure my point could easily be dismissed because I’m not qualified to make it.

As for what you say about what I’ve written going over that person’s head — ha! Maybe. I don’t know. If anything, that person is convinced I’m an unempathetic n00b with a faulty ToM chip. So, misunderstanding will always be the fault of my “devastating neurological disorder.” *groan*

I suppose what I’ve written might make lay people scratch their heads. But really… I think language is important, and I like to think nerdy things about language. And this idea of reclaiming language fascinates me.

In any event… I hope the main point of my post was clear enough! Basically, I tend to agree with most everything, I think, that you and others have contributed to the discussion of “aspie” as a troubled term. Because it certainly presents problems, and often others use it in a way that divides the autistic community. But I wanted to add that, at root, it wasn’t/isn’t a term served to exclude or exude shininess: its use often involves reclaiming a name that a doctor handed out. So designating oneself an aspie isn’t necessarily an act that signals “whee! look at how awesomely superior I am!” but rather an act that might signal “I’m not someone who ’suffers’ from autism — I belong to a community of autistic human beings who have been systematically oppressed and denied rights, and I’m going to take this pathological designation that the world has given me and turn it on its head.”

For instance, in my field (and a lot of other English classes), we often talk about this thing called the rhetorical triangle, and you can find an image example here: http://tech-rhet.net/resources/rhetoric/img/RhetoricalTriangle-big.gif

Generally speaking, the rhetorical triangle is the relationship between a rhetor (and a rhetor is a writer, speaker, orator, etc. — someone conveying a message), the rhetor’s audience, and the rhetor’s purpose or message.

While certainly, rhetors engage in some of a rhetorician’s work (especially if their message is to be effective!), a rhetorician is primarily concerned with *studying* what rhetors do and how they relate back to the rest of the triangle — what rhetoric is.

I hope that clarifies it! The ironic part of all of this is… that Evil Person would say that all of your comments indicate that I lack a theory of mind. (Really.) Because apparently I failed to properly situate my discussion in the context of a very specific field with its own long-held discussions and debates!

Actual response: I’m not sure the distinction between rhetor and rhetorician is widely recognized.

Dictionary definition of rhetor:
1) Master or teacher of rhetoric
2) Orator

Dictionary definition of rhetorician:
1) a person skilled in rhetoric
2) a teacher of rhetoric
3) a person who writes or speaks in a rhetorical, or showy, elaborate manner
(Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th ed)

Neither of these definitions suggest the distinction made.

Perhaps more to the point, if–as an aspie–you couldn’t analyze and study another’s argument, you couldn’t devise a logical argument of your own. Logic is a learned art. In order to learn this art, you have to study arguments, understand them, internalize the mechanics, and duplicate them while using your own ideas.

“But a rather large part of aspie and autie involves taking back the words that others come to know us by.”

In that sense, it’s not really going to matter which label you “own,” it matters how you own it. I tend to lean more towards describing my children as autistic. But I also interlace “children with autism” and such as well. Through it all is the concept that my children are human beings, people deserving of respect and consideration irregardless of labels, differences or what-not. My hope (however misguided it may be) is that people will be seen as people, no matter what labels or distinctions we attach to them.

Whether you go by “aspie rhetor” or “autistic rhetorician” you are you and you are valuable. And I hope this other person, and everyone like that, will be able to look past any prejudices they cling to so they can see you clearly as a person.

I also suspect your quite complicated use of the term “aspie rhetor” would go right over the head of the person who first called you one.