Changing name of special needs forum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer special needs

+1. Do not consider all special needs to be disabling.

Can you give an example?

Food allergies

Food allergies are specifically named as an example of a disability covered by ADA and 504. They pretty perfectly fit the definition of a condition that prevents people from doing things that other people can do, and that require accommodations such as food labels.

but people do not think of them as disabilities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer special needs

+1. Do not consider all special needs to be disabling.

Can you give an example?

Many in the autism community do not think of autism as a disability.

Autistic advocates absolutely think that autism is a disability. They just disagree that having a disability is bad.

[Anonymous]

Did you read this thread?

https://community.babycenter.com/post/a77310687/why-is-the-term-special-needs-widely-used-when-most-disabled-people-dont-like-that-term

[Anonymous]

Parent of a child who fits into that category. Just what the heck are you thinking is going to be better by changing the terminology every five years or so? It’s just a way to shame those who misspeak and make you feel better than they are to make up for all the challenges we face with our kids. Just stop it. My kid has problems and will be behind their peers and no amount of wishful thinking, like the autism “advocates” do and other communitiesinsist, is going to make that change.

The words that exist now are fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer special needs

+1. Do not consider all special needs to be disabling.

Can you give an example?

Many in the autism community do not think of autism as a disability.

Autistic advocates absolutely think that autism is a disability. They just disagree that having a disability is bad.

Many in the autism rights movement do not regard autism as a disability but as a normal variation of the brain. They argue for recognition as a minority and accommodation based on that.

[Anonymous]

As a sn parent of an sn child, I like special needs much better. Differently abledm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One way to encourage both sides is "Children with Disabilities and Special Needs"

It appeases both sides, those who prefer one vs the other.

This works.

+1 Parents have a lot of questions before their children are diagnosed and might need a board like this, but without a diagnosis, they might feel like they don’t belong on a forum for disabled children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parent of a child who fits into that category. Just what the heck are you thinking is going to be better by changing the terminology every five years or so? It’s just a way to shame those who misspeak and make you feel better than they are to make up for all the challenges we face with our kids. Just stop it. My kid has problems and will be behind their peers and no amount of wishful thinking, like the autism “advocates” do and other communitiesinsist, is going to make that change.

The words that exist now are fine.

I am an actual disabled person, and I find terms like "special needs", "differently-abled" and "handi-capable" to be stigmatizing. Due to this stigma I felt embarrassed for being disabled during my teenage years. This did not help me at all. I had a negative self image. I didn't want any help or services that were aimed at "disabled" or "special needs" people. I was embarrassed if others saw me as "disabled" or "special".

Terms like "special needs" are not only stigmatizing, it is a way to avoid using the term disability. Many able-bodied people are uncomfortable with the terms "disability" and "disabled" , so they came up with euphemisms to avoid saying those words, like "special needs", "handi-capable", and "differently-abled". What this ends up doing is sending the message that disability is something to be ashamed about, which is harmful overall. These people don't even ask actual disabled people what terms they prefer, and at times, disabled people are even told how to identify themselves. Yes, people were told not to call THEMSELVES autistic, and instead to say "person with autism".

I suggest you listen to actual disabled people. Read blogs and books by disabled people.

[Anonymous]

Leave it as is. I'm not really into the language policing, and I actually don't see my child as "disabled" and don't want him to see himself that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer special needs

+1. Do not consider all special needs to be disabling.

Can you give an example?

Many in the autism community do not think of autism as a disability.

Autistic advocates absolutely think that autism is a disability. They just disagree that having a disability is bad.

No, they don't. There's no one blanket dictat from above about what all autistic people think (or their parents.) There may be a small core of autistic advocates who dominate twitter who have decided on a particular word we should all use, lest we be cancelled. I don't think these forums should be subject to that kind of language policing. I'm fine with enlarging the title to "chlidren with special needs and disabilities" because I think that's more inclusive and will indicate to more parents what's covered. But otherwise, nah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer special needs

+1. Do not consider all special needs to be disabling.

Can you give an example?

Many in the autism community do not think of autism as a disability.

Autistic advocates absolutely think that autism is a disability. They just disagree that having a disability is bad.

Many in the autism rights movement do not regard autism as a disability but as a normal variation of the brain. They argue for recognition as a minority and accommodation based on that.

So they don't want to be covered by the ADA or IDEA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of a child who fits into that category. Just what the heck are you thinking is going to be better by changing the terminology every five years or so? It’s just a way to shame those who misspeak and make you feel better than they are to make up for all the challenges we face with our kids. Just stop it. My kid has problems and will be behind their peers and no amount of wishful thinking, like the autism “advocates” do and other communitiesinsist, is going to make that change.

The words that exist now are fine.

I am an actual disabled person, and I find terms like "special needs", "differently-abled" and "handi-capable" to be stigmatizing. Due to this stigma I felt embarrassed for being disabled during my teenage years. This did not help me at all. I had a negative self image. I didn't want any help or services that were aimed at "disabled" or "special needs" people. I was embarrassed if others saw me as "disabled" or "special".

Terms like "special needs" are not only stigmatizing, it is a way to avoid using the term disability. Many able-bodied people are uncomfortable with the terms "disability" and "disabled" , so they came up with euphemisms to avoid saying those words, like "special needs", "handi-capable", and "differently-abled". What this ends up doing is sending the message that disability is something to be ashamed about, which is harmful overall. These people don't even ask actual disabled people what terms they prefer, and at times, disabled people are even told how to identify themselves. Yes, people were told not to call THEMSELVES autistic, and instead to say "person with autism".

I suggest you listen to actual disabled people. Read blogs and books by disabled people.

Except that it's disability advocates who told us to use "people first" language, aka "person with autism." I'm sympathetic to your viewpoint, but over-focusing on vocabulary is not going to get you what you want. Because the vocabulary is going to constantly change. "Disabled" was a word used to replace more insulting terms like "handicapped" and "retarded."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Leave it as is. I'm not really into the language policing, and I actually don't see my child as "disabled" and don't want him to see himself that way.

Why don't you want your kid to see himself as disabled? Is there something wrong with being disabled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parent of a child who fits into that category. Just what the heck are you thinking is going to be better by changing the terminology every five years or so? It’s just a way to shame those who misspeak and make you feel better than they are to make up for all the challenges we face with our kids. Just stop it. My kid has problems and will be behind their peers and no amount of wishful thinking, like the autism “advocates” do and other communitiesinsist, is going to make that change.

The words that exist now are fine.

I am an actual disabled person, and I find terms like "special needs", "differently-abled" and "handi-capable" to be stigmatizing. Due to this stigma I felt embarrassed for being disabled during my teenage years. This did not help me at all. I had a negative self image. I didn't want any help or services that were aimed at "disabled" or "special needs" people. I was embarrassed if others saw me as "disabled" or "special".

Terms like "special needs" are not only stigmatizing, it is a way to avoid using the term disability. Many able-bodied people are uncomfortable with the terms "disability" and "disabled" , so they came up with euphemisms to avoid saying those words, like "special needs", "handi-capable", and "differently-abled". What this ends up doing is sending the message that disability is something to be ashamed about, which is harmful overall. These people don't even ask actual disabled people what terms they prefer, and at times, disabled people are even told how to identify themselves. Yes, people were told not to call THEMSELVES autistic, and instead to say "person with autism".

I suggest you listen to actual disabled people. Read blogs and books by disabled people.

Absolutely. Most of the disability community actually hates the term "special needs" and being referred to as such. They don't have "special" needs, this is a form of othering and setting them apart. You can just use the term neurodivergent, or if referring to a specific community use the terms they use. In general, euphemisms for disability and neurodivergence should be avoided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Leave it as is. I'm not really into the language policing, and I actually don't see my child as "disabled" and don't want him to see himself that way.

Why don't you want your kid to see himself as disabled? Is there something wrong with being disabled?

Because he's just different, not disabled. DISabled obviously is in contrast to "abled." It goes against everything the neurodiversity movement is attempting. That said, if this forum were already called the "children with disabilities" forum I'd not want to change it because the label wars are a silly sideshow dominated by the loudest advocates, nothing to do with actually helping anyone.