AVOID flag is not Inclusive. No CONTEXT definitions will lead to discrimination and alienation.

[jeevajay]

Hi,

I'm creating this issue to address that how we use flags is concerning. Especially, the usage of the AVOID flag. Based on my concerns, I've been researching and learning to understand it from the perspective of the usage of language and linguistics. Below I've used a few terms I learned to make my case. I don't claim to be an expert in these broad linguistic fields.

Few definitions to set Context for our Conversation:

"Pragmatics studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge (grammar, lexicon, etc.) of the speaker and listener but also on the context of the utterance, any pre-existing knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and other factors. In that respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity since meaning relies on the manner, place, time, etc. of an utterance." source

"Ambiguity is a type of meaning in which a phrase, statement, or resolution is not explicitly defined, making several interpretations plausible. A common aspect of ambiguity is uncertainty. It is thus an attribute of any idea or statement whose intended meaning cannot be definitively resolved according to a rule or process with a finite number of steps." source

"Context in the language is what surrounds a word or piece of text. In order to understand what words mean, we have to know something about the situation where they are used. In print, a word, phrase, or sentence has other text around it. This helps the reader to understand the piece in question. In the speech, the social setting, as well as the language, help the listener to understand what is said." source

Issue: AVOID FLAG IS NOT INCLUSIVE
Definition Example: Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)

Personal Context: I have ADHD misdiagnosed with OCD first. I was diagnosed with PTSD after a traumatic event, but I identify myself more with CPTSD. I live with Depression.

As you see above, I'm okay with identifying myself with ADHD. I'm from India, where mental health care is not accessible to the millions in need. People who are privileged enough to access MH care will not speak about it openly due to stigma. My own blood-relations judge me as lazy and dumb. I can't openly go for therapy. But then, why I identify myself with ADHD? It's because of the work of people like Dani Donovan, Pina Varnel, Jessica McCabe, and others whose work validates and defines ADHD struggles without stigmatizing. While their work emphasizes the importance of Diagnosis, it also illustrates how the dysfunction and struggles differ between people.

When we say AVOID, we prioritize the Context of Western Majority Elites who creates strict rules for diagnosis in the name of DSM. When we say AVOID, we use the Context of Harmful MH Practitioners who diagnose based on the set rules instead of listening to sufferers. When we say AVOID, we use the Context of Bullies who stigmatizes the diagnosis and abuse the sufferers.

From the different contexts I mentioned above, we can see that Diagnosis is harmful when strictly used as labels and not communicated with care and empathy. But, simply flagging the term as AVOID is not Inclusive. Also, flagging it simply as Medical Appropriation prioritizes the abuser, not the people who actually suffer.

Reference: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/24/mental-health-labels-diagnosis-study-psychiatrists

I'm looking for feedback and suggestions from the Self Defined community and everyone involved with the project to fix this issue. I will also be creating separate issues for OCD Page Issues and Medical Appropriation. Will connect it here soon

Thanks to @tatianamac for inputs and direction.

[tatianamac]

Thanks, @jeevajay, for this insight and issue!

I've read through and understand where you're coming from and would like to propose the following fixes:

1. Change "avoid" to the more neutral "flag." It was created in an isolated manner and its usage has grown to accommodate other types of flags. Addressing this at the code level (where it exists in the actual queries, would solve one aspect of this concern.
2. Suppress flags for undefined terms
3. For undefined terms with flags that we still want to alert people of their potential issues, to ensure we define one aspect of them first to avoid potential harm. I get the issue with only defining something based on its "negative" context (as per your personal example above). One of the goals of the dictionary though is to make sure we reduce harm. I'm trying to balance both doing that before defining all the terms and finding a way to do it that makes sense.

Outside of the tactical fixes, I think a lot of the issues you describe are actually due to a lack of written context as to how I'm approaching this dictionary and my understanding of its limitations. I think having that explicitly written somewhere will both name and recognise the issue without preventing us from existing at all.

[jeevajay]

@tatianamac thanks much for acknowledging the issue and taking immediate actions to address the issue. I agree with the fixes proposed as the next steps.

Regarding "lack of written context", yes it would be very helpful to have a post about how you're approaching this dictionary.