dear MN HQ could you please be so kind as to explain to me publicaly why you allow thread like the super race one

Lemontart. all the things that went through your head would have gone through mine in the same situation. Perhaps we can form an overly analytical nutter support group

In all seriousness, though, if you are genuine and honest, then I do not think it will be taken the wrong way.

I wrote a post on the "positive examples of people who have said the right thing" thread - hold on and I'll find it...

Right:

"A couple of weeks ago I was sat on abench in tyhe shopping centre with dd1 & dd2. They were eating raisins (this constitutes an exciting outing for dd1 ) and an elderly lady was sat next to the girls. She spoke to dd1 - the usual "what's your name?/what's your sister's name?" etc.

I answered that dd1 might not reply as she isn't always able to due to being autistic, and the lady replied "I don't really know much about that - how does it affect her?" but said in a really nice, interested tone."

And the thing is, it was fantastic that someone was upfront.

Dd1 was being socially awkward, at an age where she shouuldn't be (in fact, compared to NT children she was being downright rude - ignoring the lady, singing to herself, demanding my attention when I spoke, etc) and so it would have been odd if the lady hadn't felt a little wrong-footed herself. So I explained, and she explained she didn't know much about it, and then we were off, chattign away.

So please don't let a moment's hesitation stop you form being you - whether that's talking to someone, or pulling faces at the cheeky toddler from across the cafe.

And yes, the use of disability as you've described it is ok by me

So (and I really do apologise if I am coming across as a bumbling fool on this) you think it is ok to still use the term "disability" - just avoid saying "the disabled man/woman/child" and express it as a person with a disability rather than disabled? Honestly, I feel so clumsy with this and the thing about impairment just threw me a little.

I think it is tricky but you know what I don't always get it rigt either LOL.

Not just on disability- I spent 3 years studying world faiths / ethics / culture and still get racial terminology wrong as well.

There's a thing on Sn that we try and see beyond the words after one too many fights with no basis beyong terminology.

Personally, I don't care if you call my boys disabled , imapired, handicapped (now there's word!) or whatever- retard I hate as it's become synonomous with stupidity and my lads are not that. I try and think behind the phraseology and look at the sentiments expressed.

What I like about the phrase disability is that there is a wide acceptance that the disabled need support, and it's become linked with Disability Living Allowance. I ahve found that despite my boys having invisible )well sort of, you can tell ds3 is these days I think) ASD if people make remarks the explanation that they receive DLA tends to help their case.

I agree about the humanity LeninGrad and even as a fairly ignorant and unaware person, I have been disgusted and upset by many things people have posted on these last two threads.

thank you silverfrog

the fear of offending people is very real and it is a shame if that overtakes to the point where it holds you back from engaging and talking to people.

I was out for coffee with my mum the other day in a small cafe. There was a young mum with a little girl in a wheelchair with major disabilities. She had this lovely smile and was cute, like most toddlers. My instant reaction was to smile at her and make a comment to the mum - as I would normally do in public if you end up sitting near someone and just say hello (try to be friendly LOL) I smiled and said hello to the little girl and the mum and then clammed up. Suddenly I was torn up inside worrying. I worried that the woman would think I was only smiling and being nice out of some weird sympathy/pc thing or even think me patronising. I wasn?t, I was acting like I always do if I see a little toddler and they beam up and grin at me - I can?t help but engage and make some non important general chit chat with them. Just who I am. Then, I spent the rest of the time chatting with my mum acutely aware that this woman was next to me. Had I looked uncomfortable? Had I been relaxed and PC with my language? Did she notice I was being careful with what I said and did that annoy/upset/irritate her? Did I talk too much or not enough? Dammit! In the car on the way back to my mums I discussed it with her. She said that I make it all about me instead of about the little girl - perhaps I do, but only because I am annoyed that my fear of upsetting and offending might actually be making it more likely that I do come across as awkward and be misread as something it just is not! She was a sweet little toddler and I said hello and smiled at her and then at her mum. End of story. The mum and child probably had not thought anything of it and not given me a second thought. So why was I left feeling bereft and uncomfortable somehow?

Perhaps I am just an overly analytical nutter! My reason in sharing this rather embarrassing little event and admitting to just how insecure and lunatic I can be, is to show how difficult it can feel. Please don?t slate me on this as I am being painfully honest about it all. I do not approve of my thought processes and am annoyed it was such a big deal to me. But it was.

Is it tricky or is it just tricky in my head?

Will I need to name change after this?!!

Lemontart, I understand what you are saying.

I feel the same way, often, and I have a disabled daughter (or whatever I am supposed to say now).

The thing is, I don't mind what is said, more how it is said, if that makes sense?

It is entirely possible that people do not know what the current pc term is (I do not know myself), but it is still possible to make your point without being offensive/insensitive.

I even waver on the ASD girl/girl with ASD sometimes (my daughter is (has?) ASD). It is tricky, as the autism is such an integral part of her that she is an ASD girl, but then again she is not just an ASD girl, she is a girl with ASD. It really can be a minefield, but I would like to say that you would not offend me if you did not use the latest pc term (certainly not just for that reason!)

MT - I think your last post (and have read through most of this thread carefully) points to an added complication to all this discussion. Many of us who do not have current and direct personal contact with some with a disability, find the topic incredibly difficult to discuss because of the language issue. It is not an excuse NOT to discuss or duck out altogether, but it is something that people feel embarrassed about and can cause unnecessary hurt/insult. For a while it was fine to say "a disabled boy..." then suddenly it was "a boy with disabilities.." was seen as more appropriate (naturally very logical and follow that), now you say that we should possibly avoid "disabled" and replace with "imparement". Without the grasp on the (seemingly) ever changing pc hold on the language and constant fear of expressing your opinion in sensitive and non offensive way, it does make the topic very hard for many people to be actively involved thinking and talking about. If I post on many topics, I feel I just express my opinion and take care to be as considerate to other?s feelings as possible. When commenting on an important topic like this, I feel like I am walking on egg sheels, checking and rechecking my posts as I feel I do not have a grasp on the language let alone the topic!

I wonder if the language barrier and worry about upsetting/insulting people holds a lot back from engaging and becoming better informed? vicious circle type thing? While I recognise a lot of people have happily expressed their views regardless of how it might upset others, I suspect there are a lot out there who would like to discuss and become less ignorant but just do not know where to start.

Not sure if I made any sense there - sorry!

No problem Pagwatch.

I'm not sure if I do disagree with what you say actually. I just wonder that many of us are talking at cross purposes. But thats probably the limits of forums with cross posts, people not reading whole thread (which they cant be expected to do, I think) not enough time to think things out properly. Its a raggle taggle way to discuss stuff, but it's a sanity saver for me non the less.

Not going to read thread as feeling calm and lovely this am but just wanted to do huge to Monkeytrousers.

I disagree with almost everything you say but have no personal issue with you at all.

Just in case you wondered

( reference about 10 zillion pages ago

Imparement is the most up to date PC word, 2 shoes. 'Disabled' has a connotation of not being 'able'. Many people are impared however by many things and its seen as less divisive, less drawing a hard line between the 'able' and the 'disabled'.

I think leningrad is right

You do have to pick your battles; there are too many to fight otherwise, simply that.

Agree about the guilt- am so proud of the campaign by Macmillan (ex employer) which seems to target differently atm. It's affected their fundraising mind- because they offer support rather than ask for help they seem to lose out a lot on egacy fundraising etc.

Anyway.

I thinik my mega post was longer than yours

Truth is I am happy to fight it out on MN becuase ime 99% of netters care. But RL isn't the same; for the vast majority coming on here indicates a certain level of interest in humanity. That's not necessarily the day to day experience of many people I meet!.

Byut not everyone here is like you and I - a practised fighter. And some will be in the x process; there may be some who learned today that their baby may be disabled. How we present Sn to these people is a big responsibility.

I agree about all sides of the story but my experience is that HCP's are very pro-termination for SN, and for many people HCP's are still held as knowers of all things (sadly).

2 things, bing a carer is different than being a parent
and what do you mean by inpairment? (sorry not a word that I have heard used before.)

(Apols for mega post in advance)

Yes, Peachy, I do accept that carers are on call 24hrs a day. I used to be a carer myself (though not 24hr shifts) and I wasn?t trying to make light of the exhausting job being a carer is.

The real reason my friends don?t want to watch isn?t actually because they are too busy. It?s because they think they are going to be lectured and guilt tripped rather than entertained. It?s the legacy of the million charity ads that proposition us every day maybe in many forms ? guilt and pity being the main strategy for them all to get us to notice them. Shoot Your Mouth Off (SYMO) specifically avoids this approach and actively produces stuff to infiltrate the mainstream and especially young people ? who are also statistically the people who are more likely to deride or assault people with impairments. (I?m paraphrasing their mission statement).

SYMO isn?t asking the SN community to be the educators, just that they get behind the cause, so they can carry on doing what they do best.

I know many people with impairments are a large portion of many forum members. The internet format is perfect for people who have mobility problems. It allows them access to a diverse range of communities that just wasn?t possible before. They can join in at their convenience and don?t have to go home if there isn?t a lift to the bar or cinema, get hassled by a taxi driver, or mocked by the chav on the way.

As well as forums though, we could ask them to get behind SYMO. It?s another form of entertainment and is specifically for the disabled community. All that they ask you do to is watch, comment if you want, and pass it on to others. Because if the disabled community can?t get behind a cause and make some noise about it (which we know they can do if they choose ? who will??

You can pass personally, of course you can. There?s nothing worse than feeling obligated to do something. But you could pass it on to others maybe, who might be interested ? and let them know the message and how much it means and more importantly, what it could mean for the disabled community and their families. If we want to promote positive messages about disability to the mainstream, this is one of the best opportunities to do so.

I agree about impartial advice ? but that cuts both ways. That would include meeting people who didn?t regret having a disabled child and also those that did ? those who were prepared to say so anyway. That?s impartiality. As is walking away and leaving people to make their minds up.

I can see why ?super race? is offensive. By contrast, what does that make people with impairments? Part of the nadir race? But it is, unfortunately a phrase that is used in the media all of the time. It doesn?t help to make people sensitive about what is implied by those not deemed ?super? I know. Most people get it from the media though, not nazism.

But also ? who the fuck is super? The race would still include all of the fuck ups and idiots even if genetic diseases could be screened.

I think there is a difference between screening for certain genes that cause impairments and removing those genes from the sex cells or fetus ? and making a huge jump to interpreting this as wanting to ?remove? disabled people from society. This technology is fundamentally a humanitarian project, looking to improve peoples quality of lives. Removing undesirable people from society is a different discussion. I think. They may be linked. But they are not the same and one need not lead to the other.

There is a minority of people who have blatantly prejudiced views about disabled people on this thread. I don?t know if the last three comments Amber posted below constitute malice or ignorance. The road to hell can be full of similar intentions as the ones voiced in there.

What I know is they are still a minority and we shouldn?t forget that. There is actually much to celebrate on the thread with the challenges of such opinions. If you delete the bad, you also delete the good. So I agree with MN for letting it stand., FWIW.

Anyway, I?ll fook off now. Sorry, I?ve made such a massive boring post, but I wanted to respond to you as fully as I could.

Can't stop, but yeah I put the odds badly. I just meant if it were very "likely" to be a serious thing or equally "likely" to be a not so serious thing and I plucked figures out the air

Ours did though, we had several calls from MW, then when we agreed to counselling it was in fact an appt for amnio and we actually packed up and ran away!

Course he didnt have DS; he has ASD LOL!

Monkeytrousers, I followed the link and watched Hope Springs just to see what it was about. It did have me wanting to know what came next which is the essential ingredient in my opinion.

I will look at some of the others when I get back.

We all have disadvantages though don't we? I mean I couldnt climb that tree. And I am shite at maths.

There's also a risk that by seeming to place a greater emphasis on the value of a disbaility free life (selected conception etc- let us not forget that taking the IVF route is very definite: it's a huge message of commitment to a cause) we will negatively affect the treatment and support vailable for anyone who becomes disabled later on, as many of us will as we age.

I don't have an issue with choice at concption although not for me; the termination laws atm make me seriosuly by definitions of serious disability etc.

What is a serious disability?

It's not an easy question: ds1 with AS is more severely disadvantaged than ds3 with asd and thats recognised by the DWP for DLA payments. A albel predicts very little at the moment.

It's a perfectly good question, leningrad.

The quick answer is 'every significant disability', but that is a fuzzy term isn't it.

Let me say for those who might not know, that I am a man. So I am not the one who has to go through the termination and start over again. There will be feelings that I cannot experience directly and cannot possibly imagine.
In fact no one on the outside is qualified to make that decision. This is why I'm in favor of it being the woman's choice in every case with no pressure either way.

Also in practice you are working on probabilities, so while I'd certainly be in favour of terminating if there was a 1 in 5 chance of a major problem that would mean constant operations and pain, I would probably take a chance if it were a 1 in 5 chance of a very minor problem.

Imagine though that we're talking about some kind of IVF conception where there are dozens of possible fetuses and imagine that some computer could show how each would turn out at birth. I would pick the one with no disability at all.

Every conception chooses one and discards the rest. 1000s of potential children are rejected who would be just as loved and lovable if they had the chance to be born. The difference is I'd make it the mother's choice and not the roll of a dice.

It's about wanting them to have the best life. We'd love a child who couldn't read well or climb trees, but we're pleased when they can. That's why we buy them books and take them to the park. It doesn't mean we hate adults who cannot read.

We seek to improve their life. We want them to be happy, have friends, a career, a partner and children of their own. In an uncertain world where anything might happen we want to at least start them off level with everyone else.

We can talk about changing the world to make it comfortable for everyone with a disability, but that's just not possible. We can put ramps in everywhere and that's good, but if the ball gets caught in the tree you have to ask someone who isn't in a wheelchair to get it for you. A disability is a disadvantage. We can minimise that as much as possible, but it's still true.

I can think of more and better examples, but I'm trying to avoid mentioning specific disabilities so as not to upset people.

No Peachy, thank you, and the rest of MNers with disabilities in their families, for showing me the alternative view

(That sounds v cheesy but is true - I actually have a smashing job now working in a residential unit for people with severe physical disabilities - I don't think I would even have considered it if I hadn't learnt so much from MN by the time it came up last year)

Aye, seconding what Peachy just said.