So which do you prefer saying and does it matter?

"I have bipolar" or "I am bipolar"? [insert your mental illness]

This came up at a support group meeting some time ago and started a rather argumentative and heated debate. One of those present took great offense to others introducing themselves as, "My name is so-in-so and I am bipolar." She insisted it be 'have'. Her own standpoint was that by saying 'am' one was identifying themselves as being the mental illness.

I suppose she had a point. In my own case however, I don't mind being identified as being bipolar. It explains a lot of who I am and the reasons why. But then again, I don't hide the fact I am (there I go again) mentally ill. Being the diagnosis identifies who I am.

Her argument came from a stand point of not self-identifying as being mentally ill. her choice.

But I was considering this again today and the argument began to bother me.

Yes, I suppose she is right in her own way. A diabetic person for instance would say, "I have..." But my argument is that that person's character is not defined by their illness. On the other hand, a mentally ill person is.

So, I wonder where you stand in this debate? Do you say, "I AM" or do you say, "I HAVE"?

You can't be a diagnosis, it would be foolish to be so
You can only have a diagnosis, not be one. Moreover, you can choose not to own it

"I have" for sure. Think about how "I am" works for other illnesses:

"I am cancer"
"I am diabetes"
"I am depression"

It sounds quite silly, doesn't it? But for some reason with Bipolar Disorder, it is quite popular to say "I am Bipolar". Same goes for "I am OCD". Perhaps because some people feel like the illness defines them as a person, which is rather unfortunate. We are so much more than our diagnoses.

Originally Posted by scaredandconfused

"I have" for sure. Think about how "I am" works for other illnesses:

"I am cancer"
"I am diabetes"
"I am depression"

It sounds quite silly, doesn't it? But for some reason with Bipolar Disorder, it is quite popular to say "I am Bipolar". Same goes for "I am OCD". Perhaps because some people feel like the illness defines them as a person, which is rather unfortunate. We are so much more than our diagnoses.

It's stigma. There are still people who can say "You're depressed", "You're anxious". Hah, funny to think of "You're cancer", or "You're diabetes"

I say both honestly and don't read much into it. I am bipolar. I am happy. I am a mother. I am extroverted. I am borderline. I am a cat person. I am a lot of things.

I totally see the argument and get it though. It absolutely makes sense. It just isn't on the list of things I worry about.

[Nammu]

I have bipolar it is not me. I can have bad days and good days that have nothing to do with bipolar. Just everyday mood fluctuations.

[unaluna]

Like, the french say, "j'ai faim" - "i have hunger", to express "i'm hungry". So in english you have a choice: you "have" the noun, or you "are" the adjective. I guess whatever feels more precise for the person.

[Teddy Bear]

I am schizophrenic but I don't care if someone wants to say I have schizophrenia. I don't see the problem with using I am

Originally Posted by scaredandconfused

"I have" for sure. Think about how "I am" works for other illnesses:

"I am cancer"
"I am diabetes"
"I am depression"

It sounds quite silly, doesn't it? But for some reason with Bipolar Disorder, it is quite popular to say "I am Bipolar". Same goes for "I am OCD". Perhaps because some people feel like the illness defines them as a person, which is rather unfortunate. We are so much more than our diagnoses.

I actually included this as part of my discourse.

I agree these things sound silly. We are not these things we have these things. They do not define us. We are "Robin, I have cancer." But my argument for the other, I "am" is that the illness DOES define us.

Oh well, each to their own.

I have no intention to argue out which is correct by the way. I am simply curious as to peoples leanings and their thought process. I think it great we're sharing.

I think the differences between "I have" and "I am" is what one seeks from the mental health field.
When someone would say "I am", it means the person seeks belonging, particularly around the mental health field
But when someone would say "I have", it means the person sees mental health in a more objective way, as an identifier of diagnoses to be treated, coldly as it is

[avlady]

I never really thought about it but now that it's addressed, i would rather say i have schitzophrenia than I am schitzophrenic. just a thought.

[kirsten.dittmann]

Originally Posted by justafriend306

So which do you prefer saying and does it matter?

"I have bipolar" or "I am bipolar"? [insert your mental illness]

This came up at a support group meeting some time ago and started a rather argumentative and heated debate. One of those present took great offense to others introducing themselves as, "My name is so-in-so and I am bipolar." She insisted it be 'have'. Her own standpoint was that by saying 'am' one was identifying themselves as being the mental illness.

I suppose she had a point. In my own case however, I don't mind being identified as being bipolar. It explains a lot of who I am and the reasons why. But then again, I don't hide the fact I am (there I go again) mentally ill. Being the diagnosis identifies who I am.

Her argument came from a stand point of not self-identifying as being mentally ill. her choice.

But I was considering this again today and the argument began to bother me.

Yes, I suppose she is right in her own way. A diabetic person for instance would say, "I have..." But my argument is that that person's character is not defined by their illness. On the other hand, a mentally ill person is.

So, I wonder where you stand in this debate? Do you say, "I AM" or do you say, "I HAVE"?

I prefer I have because bipolar doesn't define me.

[*Laurie*]

I used to say, "I am bipolar." Never thought anything of it. I considered bipolar as defining, in part, who I am as a person. Recently it has become unpopular to say, "I am bipolar" and more acceptable to say, "I have bipolar disorder."

The "I have" is supposed to reduce stigma. Personally, I kind of feel like "I am" is still defining...I am not ashamed of being bipolar; it's part of who I am, my very fabric.

If I have an illness such as diabetes, that is not a part of who I am. It does not define my personality or character. It is a disease I am fighting against, not a disorder that is integral to the person I call "me". So I'd say, "I have diabetes."

But, since it's important to work on stopping mental illness stigma, which is apparently perpetuated by saying "I am", nowadays I say, "I have bipolar disorder."

[splitimage]

By a very narrow margin, I come down on the "I have" side of the argument, I think because I don't deal with mental illness every day. I have some days even long periods where it's not an issue for me, so saying I have depression feels more accurate to me than saying I'm depressed, although I will say that to my psychiatrist when I'm in the middle of an episode.

It's like the difference between AA and women for sobriety. At AA everyone introduces themselves with some variation of "My name is X and I'm an alcoholic." whereas WFS Statement 1 says, "I have a life threatening problem..."

splitimage

Originally Posted by splitimage

By a very narrow margin, I come down on the "I have" side of the argument, I think because I don't deal with mental illness every day. I have some days even long periods where it's not an issue for me, so saying I have depression feels more accurate to me than saying I'm depressed, although I will say that to my psychiatrist when I'm in the middle of an episode.

It's like the difference between AA and women for sobriety. At AA everyone introduces themselves with some variation of "My name is X and I'm an alcoholic." whereas WFS Statement 1 says, "I have a life threatening problem..."

splitimage

Because when you have something, it’s more distant from you than when you say you are something

[Albatross2008]

It doesn't always have to be rigid. People without eyesight say "I am blind," rather than "I have blindness." Under most circumstances, though, I prefer to say I "have," rather than "am." This is because "I have" describes an ongoing condition, while "I am" can be taken as what's going on at the moment. To say I have the chronic illness of depression is one thing, but say "I am depressed," and immediately people are going to ask that question I hate so much. "What are you depressed about?" It's an illness. It doesn't have to be *about* anything. Even on a good day, when I'm not feeling bad, I still have the illness.

In other instances, the "am" is just plain wrong. To say "I'm OCD about washing my hands before eating," for example, is both medically and grammatically incorrect. Washing your hands before eating is merely a good habit, not OCD, and it doesn't make sense to BE a disorder. Even in AA, they say "I am an alcoholic," but they don't say "I am alcoholism."

“I am blind” because it’s a constant and permanent condition
Depression for instance, is sometimes a matter of ups and downs, or perhaps a temporary mental illness

[Agent Misty]

It's interesting how much one word in the same type of comment can change the connotation.

Certain phrases are going to call for the use of "am" over "have" and vice versa. you could say I have diabetes or you could say I am diabetic and neither way of saying it has to imply that it "defines" you if you don't want it to. other people will probably decide how much they think that defines you in their own opinion regardless of wether you use have or am. Personally I think it's mostly just splitting hairs. because either type of phrasing leads the listener to the same general conclusions of what you are trying to say, wether you use the words have or am.

[lizardlady]

I prefer "I have..." My illness(es) do not define me. They are part of the whole package. This is kind of a silly example, but makes my point. I have red hair, not I am red hair.

[downandlonely]

I usually say I have depression. Depression is a tough one, because it can have so many meanings. People say they feel depressed because it's raining for example, and then some people are so depressed they have to be hospitalized. There's a broad range of depression.

Originally Posted by Agent Misty

It's interesting how much one word in the same type of comment can change the connotation.

Certain phrases are going to call for the use of "am" over "have" and vice versa. you could say I have diabetes or you could say I am diabetic and neither way of saying it has to imply that it "defines" you if you don't want it to. other people will probably decide how much they think that defines you in their own opinion regardless of wether you use have or am. Personally I think it's mostly just splitting hairs. because either type of phrasing leads the listener to the same general conclusions of what you are trying to say, wether you use the words have or am.

I disagree. Statistically, people are more likely to conclude one conclusion based on the words chosen. “I am X” will more likely be interpreted as a part of the persona, while “I have X” will more likely be interpreted as something a persona has, as if it can also be taken away from them.
Language is important to communicate what is best at your interest.
There is nothing wrong with saying “I am bipolar” for instance. Some people use “am” in the hopes of finding associations with another person about a similar aspect. But not everyone associates themselves with whatever other people do

[whisperingskye]

I’m on the have side of this argument.

One of my diagnoses is depression. I am not depression. I am depressed a lot of the time but that does not define me.

[emgreen]

I make a point of saying, "I have," when necessary. I seldom disclose to others, though. The few folks & family who know are in my tight circle. That's just a matter of choice, however.

[unaluna]

Originally Posted by lizardlady

I prefer "I have..." My illness(es) do not define me. They are part of the whole package. This is kind of a silly example, but makes my point. I have red hair, not I am red hair.

I like this argument best of all. "Blondes have more fun." Oh, you must be fiery because youre a redhead. As if one characteristic, which may or may not be acquired, hereditary, temporary, or permanent, defines you. Unless you want it to.