Can we remove the "Special Needs" out of the Forum Index to "Neurodiversity and Disabilities"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Special needs only has a negative connotation because jerks have historically used it as an insult. I think it's better than "disabilities" which clearly implies a deficit or being less than. I am in favor of reclaiming/embracing "special needs"

There really isn't going to be a better term that includes the same people.

Are you disabled? Because disability rights advocates don't agree with you and prefer the word disability over special needs. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/disability-pride-month-july-2022/

I think the disability rights community is not a monolith and some prefer using disability.

I haven't seen anything written by a disabled person who prefers "special needs." Can you point to anything?

Many of the students with IEPs or 504’s (and their parents) do not refer to themselves as disabled, they would not identify themselves that way- some would not identify as neurodiverse either. That is why I like the title that includes both Special Needs and Disability. I would be fine if the proposal was to add Neurodiversity to the Special Needs and Disabilities title.

The kids who don't identify that way generally don't because they have been taught self hate, including by their parents who reject any connection with disabilities.

"I don't see you as disabled" is offensive in the same way that telling someone "I don't see you as a woman because you're smart" is.

That’s an insane take.

[Anonymous]

What does neurotypical look like?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What does neurotypical look like?

Someone who is not impaired enough to get any kind of diagnosis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Special needs only has a negative connotation because jerks have historically used it as an insult. I think it's better than "disabilities" which clearly implies a deficit or being less than. I am in favor of reclaiming/embracing "special needs"

There really isn't going to be a better term that includes the same people.

Are you disabled? Because disability rights advocates don't agree with you and prefer the word disability over special needs. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/disability-pride-month-july-2022/

I think the disability rights community is not a monolith and some prefer using disability.

I haven't seen anything written by a disabled person who prefers "special needs." Can you point to anything?

Many of the students with IEPs or 504’s (and their parents) do not refer to themselves as disabled, they would not identify themselves that way- some would not identify as neurodiverse either. That is why I like the title that includes both Special Needs and Disability. I would be fine if the proposal was to add Neurodiversity to the Special Needs and Disabilities title.

The kids who don't identify that way generally don't because they have been taught self hate, including by their parents who reject any connection with disabilities.

"I don't see you as disabled" is offensive in the same way that telling someone "I don't see you as a woman because you're smart" is.

I think you are way over thinking this. There are many conditions that would result in an IEP or 504 that would not rise the level of disability. For example, a child that needs speech therapy in early ES is not disabled, but would have an IEP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
For example, a child that needs speech therapy in early ES is not disabled, but would have an IEP.

Huh? There are many conditions treated with speech therapy that are classified as disabilities.

[Anonymous]

I feel like people view neurodiverse as autism/adhd. So it does not make sense to add that to the name.

[Anonymous]

No

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Special needs only has a negative connotation because jerks have historically used it as an insult. I think it's better than "disabilities" which clearly implies a deficit or being less than. I am in favor of reclaiming/embracing "special needs"

There really isn't going to be a better term that includes the same people.

Are you disabled? Because disability rights advocates don't agree with you and prefer the word disability over special needs. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/disability-pride-month-july-2022/

I think the disability rights community is not a monolith and some prefer using disability.

I haven't seen anything written by a disabled person who prefers "special needs." Can you point to anything?

Many of the students with IEPs or 504’s (and their parents) do not refer to themselves as disabled, they would not identify themselves that way- some would not identify as neurodiverse either. That is why I like the title that includes both Special Needs and Disability. I would be fine if the proposal was to add Neurodiversity to the Special Needs and Disabilities title.

The kids who don't identify that way generally don't because they have been taught self hate, including by their parents who reject any connection with disabilities.

"I don't see you as disabled" is offensive in the same way that telling someone "I don't see you as a woman because you're smart" is.

I think you are way over thinking this. There are many conditions that would result in an IEP or 504 that would not rise the level of disability. For example, a child that needs speech therapy in early ES is not disabled, but would have an IEP.

By definition, in order to have an IEP or 504, you must have a disability. That is the very legal basis for eligibility. You may or may not have a permanent disability, but at the time you have a 504 or IEP, you are certainly disabled.

[Anonymous]

What if the special needs aren’t related to neuro diversity? Think it’s good as is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:May seem very minor but also appears a bit outdated...

No.

Leave it as is.

[Anonymous]

Special needs is fine. It covers physical disabilities, handicaps, mental disabilities, and invisible disabilities like adhd/asd.

Self denial or imposing of silly semantics of such special needs would be quite a setback.

[Anonymous]

If it’s a code and described on the DSM it’s also a Special Need.
For school, for meds, for therapies, for understanding that kid or person, for providing accommodations at home, school and maybe even the work place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atypical needs

That's awful. There's nothing atypical about my autistic child's need for community and social interaction, communication, and learning.

Why do we need euphemisms for disability?

What’s atypical is that they need to be explicitly taught, over and over again, how to behave in social interactions, communications, and retaining learnings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Atypical needs

Atypical implies it’s uncommon, special needs aren’t atypical.

Oh brother.

Roll out the stats, data, and dictionary PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you have bandwidth to even care about this?

She’s an activist. You know the type. The only person allowed to talk about ADHD or ASD is someone with (the mind blindness of) ADHD and ASD.
We shall only listen to those such people, or doctors or experts or suffering loved ones.