Anonymous wrote:It often seems that the currently-labeled "Kids with Special Needs" forum is the ASD and ADHD only forum but it includes more than that. This thread can also keep that in mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact is - "advocates" don't like "special needs" because it's a term parents use, and they love to attack parents as a group. Also, the internal logic here is that they have to attack SOMETHING symbolic, so they'll attack whatever the terminology of the day is -- nevermind that the terminology of today was the terminology adopted due to advocacy yesterday.

I am a disabled advocate. I'm not here to attack parents, but able-bodied parents of disabled children need to stop speaking over disabled adults. They should not be the primary voices in the disability community. White parents of black children don't speak over black adults. The NAACP is run by POC. GLADD is run by LGBT people. So why doesn't Autism Speaks doesn't have a single autistic person on their board.

By the way, your child may become one of those advocates one day. I have told my own parents what they can do better and they listen. By the same token, I listen to people of color, LGBT people and other marginalized groups on what I can do to end discrimination.

I find the term "special needs" 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".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't possibly see how "disabled" is better than Special Needs.

"Disabled" is an accurate term. "Special needs" is a euphemism.

Anonymous wrote:I can't possibly see how "disabled" is better than Special Needs.

Anonymous wrote:The fact is - "advocates" don't like "special needs" because it's a term parents use, and they love to attack parents as a group. Also, the internal logic here is that they have to attack SOMETHING symbolic, so they'll attack whatever the terminology of the day is -- nevermind that the terminology of today was the terminology adopted due to advocacy yesterday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

It's not actual disabled people who told you to use people first language. Its able-bodied parents and professionals. Most autistic adults prefer "autistic".

https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-firs

https://researchautism.org/1000-people-surveyed-sur

The problem is the conversations in the disability community tend to be dominated by able-bodied parents and professionals. The disability community is the only community where its members are denied the right to speak for themselves. Roma people don't like the term "Gypsy" and I see people pointing that out online. The NAACP is run by POC. GLADD is run by LGBT people. Yet Autism Speaks doesn't have an autistic person on their board. The term "special needs" continues to be widely used. Professors teaching future special ed teachers will give their students assignment to interview parents of disabled kids, but not give assignments to interview an actual disabled person, because able-bodied people's opinions about disability matter more.

Some people with disabilities do prefer people first langusage, but many do not. The problem is people are often taught by their able-bodied professors in the graduate program or by the social worker that thesd are the ONLY polite terms, but never consult actual disabled people. Disabled people are even told how to identify themselves. Yes, people are told not to call THEMSELVES autistic, and instead to say "person with autism". Disabled people are also shut out of discussions regarding their medical care plans, IEPs, etc.

At the end of 10th grade I had an IEP meeting. If you wonder what that was like, it was a bunch of adults sitting around me talking about me without involving me in the conversation. They decided next year they will work on "a better understanding of social cues" but they never asked me if that's what **I** wanted to work on. Would you like it if people talked about what's in your "best interests" without involving you in the conversation? They wrote the entire IEP, not I. They never asked for my input on the goals or anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

It's not actual disabled people who told you to use people first language. Its able-bodied parents and professionals. Most autistic adults prefer "autistic".

https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-firs

https://researchautism.org/1000-people-surveyed-sur

The problem is the conversations in the disability community tend to be dominated by able-bodied parents and professionals. The disability community is the only community where its members are denied the right to speak for themselves. Roma people don't like the term "Gypsy" and I see people pointing that out online. The NAACP is run by POC. GLADD is run by LGBT people. Yet Autism Speaks doesn't have an autistic person on their board. The term "special needs" continues to be widely used. Professors teaching future special ed teachers will give their students assignment to interview parents of disabled kids, but not give assignments to interview an actual disabled person, because able-bodied people's opinions about disability matter more.

Some people with disabilities do prefer people first langusage, but many do not. The problem is people are often taught by their able-bodied professors in the graduate program or by the social worker that thesd are the ONLY polite terms, but never consult actual disabled people. Disabled people are even told how to identify themselves. Yes, people are told not to call THEMSELVES autistic, and instead to say "person with autism". Disabled people are also shut out of discussions regarding their medical care plans, IEPs, etc.

At the end of 10th grade I had an IEP meeting. If you wonder what that was like, it was a bunch of adults sitting around me talking about me without involving me in the conversation. They decided next year they will work on "a better understanding of social cues" but they never asked me if that's what **I** wanted to work on. Would you like it if people talked about what's in your "best interests" without involving you in the conversation? They wrote the entire IEP, not I. They never asked for my input on the goals or anything.

Except that's not the actual history of "people first" language. "People first" language was developed by advocates in the 80s. I'm fine with calling an autistic person whatever they want to be called, but I'm over the dramatic insistence on the label-du-jour as being the only acceptable way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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."

It's not actual disabled people who told you to use people first language. Its able-bodied parents and professionals. Most autistic adults prefer "autistic".

https://autisticadvocacy.org/about-asan/identity-firs

https://researchautism.org/1000-people-surveyed-sur

The problem is the conversations in the disability community tend to be dominated by able-bodied parents and professionals. The disability community is the only community where its members are denied the right to speak for themselves. Roma people don't like the term "Gypsy" and I see people pointing that out online. The NAACP is run by POC. GLADD is run by LGBT people. Yet Autism Speaks doesn't have an autistic person on their board. The term "special needs" continues to be widely used. Professors teaching future special ed teachers will give their students assignment to interview parents of disabled kids, but not give assignments to interview an actual disabled person, because able-bodied people's opinions about disability matter more.

Some people with disabilities do prefer people first langusage, but many do not. The problem is people are often taught by their able-bodied professors in the graduate program or by the social worker that thesd are the ONLY polite terms, but never consult actual disabled people. Disabled people are even told how to identify themselves. Yes, people are told not to call THEMSELVES autistic, and instead to say "person with autism". Disabled people are also shut out of discussions regarding their medical care plans, IEPs, etc.

At the end of 10th grade I had an IEP meeting. If you wonder what that was like, it was a bunch of adults sitting around me talking about me without involving me in the conversation. They decided next year they will work on "a better understanding of social cues" but they never asked me if that's what **I** wanted to work on. Would you like it if people talked about what's in your "best interests" without involving you in the conversation? They wrote the entire IEP, not I. They never asked for my input on the goals or anything.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.