To want someone to tell me what "NT" stands for?

[magicmummy1]

I see it on lots of threads here, and I assume from the context that it refers to children who are not disabled/don't have special needs. But I can't figure out for the life of me what it stands for.

I'm sure I'm being thick, but would someone please rescue me from my ignorance?

oh good, serves me right for skimming instead or reading properly.

as someone who has an 'NT' child and has a very very limited experience of people who aren't 'NT' or who are physically disabled (my only experience is working in a theatre and helping a few patrons who needed assistance) I can TOTALLY understand why that's offensive fanjo.

the terminology can be very confusing, I did a 'shape' course at work - basically disability awareness, and 50% of the day was taken up with going through different terms which were offensive to some groups but acceptable to others, it did get very confusing, I can see how it can be tempting to just throw your hands up and not try at all to get it right.

my own mother calls DD a "child with problems" in front of her.

BUT the terminology can be very confusing...

Apocalypse, I so vividly remember your bus thread, where, IIRC, you were psychically supposed to have realised that you needed to shop faster because on the one day your DH had left the house unlocked, your daughter would be dropped off half an hour early and abandoned.

It ws quite entertaining to watch the contortions of the NT parents who were still despairingly insisting that it HAD to be your fault somehow, if they could only work out how...

My kids are ND plus they are disabled as they have mobility and other physical problems.

I like the NT/ND diferentiation purely because my kids have Autism. It's not a catch all to describe all additional needs.

fanjo that's horrible.

I remember that bus thread too, it was ridiculous.

cory, I fully understand where you are coming form.

but I don't think anyone is proposing (here, or in the wider world) to use NT/ND to describe all disability.

it is usually used in conjunction with ASD, and other spectrum learning disabilities.

I'm not sure I understand why you would think it would be used ot describe your children? (genuine question, no snippiness meant )

using NT ot describe a child does not mean they have no disability, just that they have no neurological disability.

eg, dd1 is ND, and also has OT issues, so has elements of physical disability.

I would use NT to differentiate from ds1 who is ASD (autistic spectrum disorder for those of you struggling with all the acronyms ), but I wouldn't assume that someone who was NT may not have other additional needs. It doesn't cover everything.

x post with silverfrog, sorry!

For those grumbling about the use of 'NT'

Our lot get....

Disabled

Special needs

Sub normal

Spastic

'handicapped'

retarded

mongol

Learning disabled

Etc and so on, all of which for the most point we grin and bear, so in a conversation sometimes we use NT to differentiate between the two, if we used normal, whatever that is it's somehow feels like an admission that ours are 'abnormal' which isn't the nicest way of putting things nor is it the kind of thing I want my children, or anybody elses overhearing, so just to be awkward we use NT.

Hth

And another hated one of mine 'physically and mentally impaired', must prefer the psychologists recent description of my son as 'being the blind boy leading an infinite elephant'.

Just abut sums him up !

Neurotypical

Did you read the thread OreoLove?

OK, perhaps I am out of touch and I really (genuinely) don't mean to be offensive, but what is wrong with "handicapped"?

What's right with it ?

Or cripple for that matter ?

i don't find being 'not normal' offensive.

i like oddity.

calling kids normal is a vast generalisation that doesn't describe the fullness of their condition.

you can be 'normal' and very odd indeed.

also, on a point of logic - if i call a child or group of children 'normal' you can't infer from that that i would use a term such as 'abnormal' or 'not normal' for every child outside that particular grouping.

It's a logical fallacy (of the kind that goes - those cows eat grass - all other cows, therefore, don't eat grass...the inference is false.).

And I do think there is an element on here of leaping on peope in a playgroundish 'you said a bad word' kind of way, when there is absolutely no way that person could have had realised.

NT is very far from a term in common speech - or even in the speech of educated people.

As evidenced by quite a few usual MNers being on here admiting they didn't know what it stood for.

'NT is very far from a term in common speech - or even in the speech of educated people. '

So far

silverfrog, I didn't mean that I find it offensive: what I meant was that on the SN board, NT is not just used by parents with children on the ASD spectrum or with learning disabilities, it has come to be used more or less as a catch phrase for "all who do not grapple with special needs"/"all the others that this forum is not really for"- which sometimes does make me feel awkward about using the board

I absolutely do not snipe at the phrase and I certainly do not find it offensive

It's a bit like when women have a thread detailing something stupid their OH has done and lots of posters pile in with 'Leave the useless shit' and I think they are over-reacting, and that it wasn't so bad and they should work together to sort out the problem. Sometimes I don't even see it as a problem, but others do.
If you'd spent a decade or more seeing your child taunted and picked on for being different and not normal, been his advocate through that time and plan on continuing to be so forever as necessary, it might be that you would see a problem with certain terminology when someone without those experiences would just think 'FFS'
As I do on so many of the marital and partnership squabble threads.

Well I use NT and i'm an uneducated smurf

You are blue? How unusual. What shade?

Royal blue, I have red rosy cheeks and a cheesy grin