Can I ask if this would upset/offend you?

[JaneFonda]

Another thread got me thinking about this, and I just thought I'd ask here because I'd really appreciate honest answers!

If someone uses the incorrect terminology for something eg. Disabled toilet instead of accessible toilet, or autistic child instead of child with autism, does it offend you?

I really try not to upset anyone and to be sensitive when I talk, but reading threads on here has made me realise that I may inadvertently be doing so by using incorrect phrases that I genuinely didn't know weren't the right thing to say.

I understand different people prefer or dislike different terminology, but I'm just curious as to if it's upsetting for you when someone uses the wrong word.

Saying an autistic person is not saying that autism is that person's only characteristic, any more than if you were describing a gay man, a black woman, a bilingual teenager for example.

My DS is an autistic child, but he's also an intelligent child, a tall child, a lovely child, etc.

MovingOnUp yes, I absolutely agree that you should respect whatever preference an individual has when talking about their disability.

Very few people get actually offended by this on MN. Occasionally people will point it out. But not everyone.

People are more offended by terms like "special" I find. Merely mixing word order at most gets people pointing it out nicely.

Sick of this concept of an SN brigade getting easily offended at things, which is readily thrown about. Mentioning something nicely is not the same as being outraged. Have only seen outrage at use of R word etc.

The terms you mentioned wouldn't really bother me, no.

Pointing something out to educate someone in correct terminology does not equal being offended.

Purpleroxy that's interesting what you said about the school not using the word autism. My DS's school is the same & in one meeting, after the headteacher had been waffling on about 'children with these types of additional needs' I got so fed up that I ended up shouting at him 'you can say autism, you know!'

It makes me bristle when people say "he's autistic" instead of "he has autism" but not generally enough to correct them.

vs

I am autistic and have an autistic child. I prefer that to person/child with autism but I'm not offended by someone using the other in good faith.

The issue for the population at large is highlighted quite neatly right there ^.

Neither term is inherently offensive, but different people have different preferences. To attempt to dictate to either of the posters I've quoted that you are wrong and are being offensive would be an extraordinary insult to whoever was deemed wrong.

One of DS's friends is autistic, he prefers it to be stated that way because being autistic defines many of his personality traits - help him develop as a person, don't try and change him as a person (he feels that the people who use 'has autism' are the one who try to fix him as opposed to accept him).

MN is really going all out to make people with kids with SN or with disabilities themselves feel welcome at moment.

Threads about how people should get taken from wheelchair so sleeping babies can have disabled space on bus,.loads of people making people with disabilities feel bad for not wanting them to use the disabled toilet, people arguing for hours why they can wait in blue badge spaces, and now a thread full of implication that if they mention some terminology they are instantly being ridiculously offended.

Not very nice place to be at moment, sadly.

Yabu op, because...

Disabled toilet/lift/parking is wrong that is the problem, its not the same argument as 'person with autism' vs 'autistic person'.
The toilet is not disabled, it is either an accessible toilet or a toilet for the disabled

Somebody I know (older generation if that's relevant) refers to children with SEN as being "slow learners". I've picked them up on it before but they are convinced that it's the politically correct thing to say, and continue to use it. I think they may have got confused with "learning difficulties"?

They mean no malice however - interested to know whether people would be offended by it in RL?

See i used disabled toilet there But my point stands.

If there's a thread about disabled parking for example people start posting "gets popcorn".

MN sucks ass sometimes.

I didn't say "only" I said "primary".

Agree entirely with Fanjo regarding this idea that there is a brigade of posters affected by additional needs just waiting to leap on anyone who gets it wrong. On the other thread the second post corrected terminology but it was done in a perfectly pleasant way.

My question is why are people so offended about being corrected if they use inaccurate terminology? you wouldn't mind if it were anything else, e.g baking terminology or something. Why does the correcting additional needs terminology need huge discussion whether it's ok to do it or not? Of course it is, because it's the same as any other subject discussed on here. There's always a place for raising awareness and passing on knowledge.

Handicapped is used more in the US (and has fewer pejorative connotations) than in the UK, but is mostly used to describe parking, bathroom facilities, etc. rather than people. The preferred practice is "people first" language as in the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects the civil and other rights of people with disabilities.

I think context is everything, but how you act is what is important.

I posted on a thread a few days ago about a friend of mine who is registered "disabled" with her local council. She terms herself "handicapped", despite the word being considered un-PC. Her logic is that her disabilites do not prevent her from doing certain things, but they hinder her, so handicapping her ability to do them. She feels people perceive "disabled" = unable.

I object to the "right" and "wrong" attitude. Who says that one phrase it correct and another not? And at what point does something "officially" change from being OK to "offensive"?

If someone doesn't like a way of expressing something they have a right to ask for it not to be used

• but they don't have the right to "ban" the term. In five years time the term will have changed again. "Special Needs" is already being used as an insult by kids in schools and so those who used it sanctimoniously in the past in place of disabled will now find themselves being politically incorrect because they don't use "person with additional needs", (which by the way is an extremely unhelpful term and tells us nothing).

Most people don't intend to insult, patronize or offend when they talk. ( And my DS is not neuro typical)

Why is trying to use the right word "sanctimonious"? Why the pejorative language?

Nicki sorry, I wasn't directing my comment specifically at you, but I can see why you thought I was.

But really, there is no consensus on what's the correct terminology, so 'correcting' someone is unnecessary and can be offensive. I'll refer to your DCs as children with autism but I want to be able to call my DS an autistic child without being told I'm wrong.

so handicapping her ability to do them

Which harkens back to the original etymology of the word, as in sports handicapping.

If people need or I want them to know about by child's needs then I will name them i.e Autism, Dyspraxia, Hypermobility etc.

If I use the term "Additional Needs" it's a short cut and it's telling you nothing because YOU don't need to know.

It's far preferable to "Special", which I find patronising in the extreme but that us just my opinion.

Meant to say 'I'll refer to your DC as children with autism if that's what you prefer but I want to be able to call by DS an autistic child without being told I'm wrong.

I agree Borka and that is why I would never "correct" terms such as that, though as I said previously it would make me "bristle" because personally I don't like it. However there ARE some described on here that are offensive and should be corrected without offence being taken. I don't think ALL these terms are subjective, some quite clearly need correcting and I don't think the "well they change so quickly how can we know?" argument is a valid one. So what? Move with the programme and don't huff and puff about the touchy SN Brigade.

NickiFury I tihnk that your question about why people get involved in such a huge discussion about this terminology but not when it involves baking for example is that:

• it is a terminology that is constantly changing so what was ok a few years ago isn't now

• the "correction" of terminology often goes hand in hand with and assumption of ignorance, prejudice, "disablism" - sometimes along with "report him/her to his manger/ to HR dept"
• if it does affect you and someone does say something that hurts - especially about your child - it goes very deep indeed so feelings run high.

(My lovely great aunt called my son "retarded" the other day but that was fine. It means "delayed" and was the word she was taught in her childhood. She is in her eighties, she is wonderful, she is good to me and my DS and lived with her handicapped, (her word), husband for 40 years.)

I would not use that word myself and accept that it is neither accurate nor very inclusive and no longer acceptable. But context is all.

FanjoForTheMammaries - it's not the 'trying to use the right word' which is sanctimonious, the the attitude of the type of people cricketpitch is referring to. They play a game of linguistic top trumps in the hope of appearing socially perfect and appropriately empathetic.

They are also the the kind of people who have perfected the art of slightly sad sickly sympathy when they find out that you are an adoptive person - the saccharine makes my teeth itch!

Trying to use the correct word is not sanctimonious - it is telling everyone that a particular word is correct and another is not - and is in fact offensive and indicates ignorance and prejudice. That is what I was trying to say.

I don't know what to call my DS - he is what/ who he is. I use whatever label helps in whatever situation. And I really try not to offend, truly.

Thank you for the explanation regarding an autistic child vs a child with autism. To the people who prefer the latter, I understand what you're saying.

I don't know that I agree with it because it assumes something which isn't necessarily there and sure as anything wouldn't be the undertone if I described someone as "autistic" as opposed to "with autism".

There's no reason to assume autism as the sole or primary characteristic of someone just because I've said "he's autistic" than there is to make assumption about someone because I say "she's brunette".

X-post with Andro - and you out it better.!