Reply to Acronyms used in this Forum

Forum Index » Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities

Reply to "Acronyms used in this Forum"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The reason that people continue to use terms such as "mental retardation" is that they have not been educated regarding the importance of using the appropriate terminology.  When the term "mental retardation" replaced the term "feeble minded", I would think that it probably took some time to educate people regarding the fact that "feeble minded" should be replaced with "mental retardation", just as it will take people some time for people to understand that "intellectual disability" should replace "mental retardation".  Once upon a time, very derogatory terms were used to describe other marginalized groups such as ethnic minorities and homosexuals.  It was only through education that people came to learn that these terms were not only offensive but continued to perpetuate negative stereotypes.

In addition, "intellectual disability"y refers to limitations with respect to memory and cognition, just as "mental retardation" did.  They both refer to the same group of individuals - it is just that the latter is offensive while the former is not.  Furthermore, just because somebody is familiar with a colloquialism does not mean that it is polite to use it.  There are plenty of colloquialisms with which I am familiar but which I would never use because they are offensive.  If young children are being taught the appropriate language to use to refer to individuals who have cognitive limitations (which they are teaching in elementary schools, middle schools, and high schools), then I think that it is not unreasonable to expect that most adults would be familiar with the term, even if they have not yet started to use it.

In addition, the term intellectual disability is more than just a Congressionally granted right and responsibility.  Indeed major medical journals and websites and print materials for medical facilities and institutes of higher learning have changed terminology to refer to "intellectual disabilities" rather than "mental retardation".

he bottom line is that it's not alright to use offensive terminology because some people may not be familiar with the less offensive wording.  Rather, it provides people with permission to continue to perpetuate negative stereotypes.[/quote]

I definitely agree with the normative aspect of what you're saying.  I believe that in the above quote (I'm the one responding to the OP here) I said the term was offensive.  My question was, as a message board, do we want ease of use in our terminology?  IOW, what are the ends we seek here?  I think that intellectual disability is a misnomer too quickly adopted by both Congress and the journals you speak of out of fear of looking insensitive.  Most special needs on here are "intellectual disabilities," at least as one commonly understands the word.  Which brings me to my point:  I prefer to think of the use of MR as a balancing test, much like the balancing tests they use in case law.  It pits the utile, traditional, easily understood terminology and its effects on the board and its readers against the normative element and sensitivity of said readers.

I was merely just pointing this out.  I think DCUM has done well to resist the normative aspect of its acronyms and instead has provided the reader and user with a clearer, more traditional term.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics