to be upset when people use the phrase "got something wrong with them"?

[14thJuly]

(Obvious name change as I know how SN threads go.)
Even though I have very little experience of SN, I am always aghast at the use of the word "wrong". Surely anyone can see the inappropriateness of the terminology? I have gently suggested using another phrase to someone IRL, and was accused of PC behaviour. So I don't bother saying it anymore. A tiny bit of consideration and compassion isn't difficult is it? AIBU?

Depends on the type of SN.

I don't think "what is wrong with her" is an offensive way of describing my dd's painful chronic joint condition any more than it was an offensive way of describing my pleurisy.

Something was wrong with me when I had pleurisy: didn't mean I was wrong. Something else inside my body was wrong, something I did not identify with: an invasion of bacteria that shouldn't have been there. I did not feel obliged to keep this collection of painful and damaging bacteria forever because they were part of me.

And that seems to be exactly how both my dc think of their disabilities. Caused by a chemical imbalance, in dd's case requiring medication with potentially dangerous drugs to allow any decent quality of life, if there was a cure she'd be first in line. To them, it feels no different to an illness they might have contracted later in life or the consequences of an accident.

SN ARE NOT ALL THE SAME. Some are part of the person you are, others are more like an illness, something that doesn't affect your personality (except by making you miserable) and that you would be happy to have taken away if you could.

I'm not sure why its people's business what my daughter's exact condition is. She's in a wheelchair. Do you really need to know? Its obvious she is pretty disabled but her medical history is no-one's business, especially if she is sat there when someone does the 'what's WRONG with her' sentence.
Tactless.

If I was talking to my husband and said "so and so's son has additional needs" he would look at me funny, and he wouldn't understand what I meant.

Additional needs doesn't mean anything to a lot of people.

How are you supposed to describe a person who isn't in a wheelchair but might dribble for example? I would say there is something wrong with them I think.

Think it then. do not say it.

twistyfeet - That is totally understandable and also exactly why I avoid talking to disabled people and their carers. Im too worried about saying the wrong thing

Sole - If I was talking to someone else I mean

Can I just add something? Additional needs isn't favoured where I am over special needs. The new sen reforms don't change from 'sen' which goes to show that words are only words really and an intention to offend will always be worse no matter how politely phrased.

This is the kind of thread that's like a giant political booby trap and there is really only one answer, which is to agree wholeheartedly with the OP. Anything else is to commit social suicide by Mumsnet, not matter how intelligently and philosophically you approach it.

I think if political correctness has no end we will all become mute.

Are people who are not so tall still described as vertically challenged?

I was having a discussion that touches on this with DD (age 11) today, as she wanted to know whether Asperger's counted as a disability. She was perturbed about it because, as she knows, her brother is very able in some ways and struggles mightily in others, so it didn't seemed quite the right term to her.

She decided that what we need is a word 'like obstacle races or something, or starting in different bits of the field' (we were just leaving sports day!).

But that takes us back to 'handicapped' as a term, and I doubt anyone would accept that now. Do we need to invent a new word here?

I'm now wondering how GoodTouch manages to avoid talking to disabled people. I mean, how do you know? Or do you back away slowly once you start to realise that they might not be completely able-bodied or NT (neurotypical)?

Funnily enough Lancelottie I was having that very discussion at my book group the other day, after we'd read a book where the protagonist has AS. We were exploring the idea that an apparent 'disability' can sometimes be nothing of the sort - merely that you may be 'differently abled' in the true sense of the phrase. Some AS people could consider me disabled, if the things they were often spectacularly talented at were measured. And those often classic AS traits skills are often valuable in the workplace or academia, but are often seen as a hindrance in everyday socialising, or the 'Emotional Intelligence' arena of being able to 'read' people and manage people. But then none of us were ever born with a guarantee of being good at everything. Who's to say which traits are the more valuable?

But like I said, it's hard to have a proper philosophical debate about what actually constitutes real disability (given that so many conditions are borderline and subtle) without starting a fracas with people of PO sensibilities.

See what I mean somebody always get offended and tries to imply Ive said something wrong. (I haven't)

Its a shame really that people cant see past the terminology to the intention. Im a nice person, and Id never want to upset anyone. But say the wrong thing and youre suddenly a monster!

I cant help thinking some people enjoy having an axe to grind day in day out

Nope, no axe. Think about it, though, GoodTouch (given that everybody needs nice people to talk to): by saying you never talk to disabled people, you are implying that there are two kinds of people, the ordinary and the 'other'.

They are we are ordinary. It's not a two-way split.

Do you perhaps think of it as like talking to the recently bereaved? As in, better not say anything in case I put my foot in it?

Mind you, I tend to suffer from mouth-before-brain syndrome so would probably use the phrase 'put your foot in it' to a double amputee...

Fellatio, 'spikily profiled' is the criminally awkward phrase used on DS's assessment report.

It can often be a case of just not thinking. I actually used the word 'normal' as opposed to not disabled/able bodied etc recently. I certainly didn't mean to be offensive and feel embarressed that the word just came out. (context - asking someone who works for riding for the disabled if they do riding lessons for .....normal .....um......oh crap thats not what i meant....etc) not thinkibg isn't an excuse byt would be different from being offensive/rude on purpose maybe?

well I get easily offended whn someone looks at me and my child and asks whats wrong with us.

Ive had enough, so from experience, knowing the look and question they cant wait to ask, depending on wether i feel brave that day or not, i either say
'excuse us, we have disabilities' or 'weve got sisabilities, whats your excuse'? the second one usaully shuts them up!

agree some people are just plain ignorant but youdthink in this day and age most people would be at least a BIT educated.

and sometimes its asked for want of a better phrase, but its the way they ask too.

the sneery judgy look with the question, ot the genuine concerned question to which id say same answer as Cwitchesandcuddles.

Maybe those posters who think it's PC gone mad, etc have never had anyone ask what's wrong with their child, or had 'he's not normal, is he?'

Answer to question 1 - 'Nothing.'
Answer to question 2 - 'What's normal? Are you normal?'

Followed by a huge and polite explanation if required.

that's only on a good day, mind.

Good, why cant you just talk to disabled people without asking 'whats WRONG'?
I generally manage to talk to people every day without asking whats wrong. Unless they are crying. My child expects to be treated like any other child. Not asked about her condition. If she is noisy then ask her to shut up and wait. You know, like other kids.

I have been asked 'what's wrong with him' on quite a few occasions wrt ds1.

Usually people apologise as they say it and say they don't know how to ask and they hope I'm not offended, in which case I'm not. They're genuinely interested and just being crap with words. I just answer the question.

If someone used it in a direct way I'd probably see red, but generally those people aren't actually interested in what's going on with ds1, so they don't ask questions. They just swear at him or say he shouldn't be allowed out, or stare or shout or whatever.

I would provide someone with the correct phrase in the case you describe though. I do tell people that terms have changed.

I suppose good if you were talking about ds and all that you could focus on to describe him was his floppiness or dribbling, then I would probably find that hurtful, because there are so many other aspects to him that could be used to describe him.

However if you were discussing him specifically in regards to his sn, then why couldn't you just say he is disabled?

YANBU - it is insensitive. But haven't we come a long way from the frequent use of the word 'spastic' when I was growing up in the 80s. I feel so appalled when I remember the horrible terminology that was acceptable relatively recently.