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.

put not out!!!

I agree that context is all and I would not maybe , jump down the throat of an 80 year old woman using that word. I do think in general though that posters should be open to being guided as to a better word or terminology to use rather than using arguments such as "it changes all the time so how can we know?". I do feel that there is a lot of defensiveness when it comes to this and there shouldn't be.

Agree NickiFury and actually I have learned a lot from MN on this subject.

I know someone polish that used to use the R word - she was using to describe a close family member and she was actually talking about how shed been upset by a nasty comment about people with disabilities because her brother is r*.

I was a bit but maybe it's still used in Europe ?

George Carlin said that it's not words that are offensive, it's the intention behind them
No, that's not necessarily the case, offensive words are used regularly and not always to be offensive. Spaz, fuctard etc are often used to mean that people are being a bit dozy, or that someone has fallen over, or whatever. They are meant in a light hearted manner. They're still offensive.

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 an assumption about someone because I say "she's brunette".

You're right, there isn't, but many do.

There's not many negative connotations associated with being a brunette. I've certainly never heard any. Have you?

However if I had a penny for every cliche or negative opinion I have heard or read with regard to my child's autism, I wouldn't be posting here, I would be sunning myself on the beach in the Bahamas counting all my pennies.

The older generation still use " a bit backward" - yes. And no - I don't like the words you mentioned either alter - I hate "special needs" though - hate it! I don't know what I wd use really - ideally nothing at all.

If I have to explain I'll say something more along the lines of "he finds being in big groups difficult" but I'll use a label if I need to deal with school of Health professionals as they will respond to that.

or not of FFS - keyboard!!

"There's not many negative connotations associated with being a brunette. I've certainly never heard any. Have you?"

Okay, fair comment. No, I haven't.

Now let's send the brunette to Vidal Sassoon's and change her hair colour.

I have heard of negative connotations to "redhead". Have you? :)

My DC2 is loads of things. A fantastic singer, an animal lover, a talented cook, funny, loud, sarcastic, a fan of The Simpsons. All that and a redhead.

That element is just part of a whole. It doesn't define my child.

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.

But who is to be the judge of what is correct? That's the problem. People should be allowed to define themselves as they choose without someone "correcting" them. A family friend has autism. He firmly defines himself as autistic. He would not thank anyone here for correcting him. That is his choice.

I describe him as a person with autism, that is mine (but not to his face because he'd get shirty).

He has a good job, a PhD, a loving family and a nice home. But he describes himself as an autistic and should be allowed to do so. It doesn't define all of him but it's his choice to be called what he chooses.

You're right it doesn't but I don't think one physical characteristic stands up in comparison to a condition with a spectrum of 100's of symptoms that affects every aspect of a persons communication and functioning for their entire life. Many people have preconceptions as to what autism means. A LOT of people don't even believe autism exists, preferring to label that child antisocial, disruptive and aggressive etc. My child HAS autism but he is also kind, empathetic, affectionate and funny. These qualities aren't often thought of once the word autism is mentioned.

I think Hooby that you cannot see the issue because you are a very accepting person with no pre conceptions. Believe me, you are in the minority.

That is exactly what I meant Sunna - it is the "correcting" that is sanctimonious - or as Andro called it "linguistic Top Trumps"

(realised my post was ambiguous)

I think it's about intent. If someone uses language intended to offend, that's totally different to a slip up. FWIW, I really don't see the drama around "person with autism" (or whatever) and "autistic person". One is the noun and the other the adjective, and I say this as someone with three autistic nephews/nephews with autism.

Similarly, my DP is mixed race. However, he always refers to himself as "half caste". I had no idea this was considered rude and used to describe him in similar terms until someone at work chastised me. But that's the word he uses.

I was sort of agreeing and enlarging, Cricket

I think I should give up today! Not only can I not type properly today but I seem unable to write anything that is clear!!! My lovely DS has just come home and is making me a cup of coffee. My lovely boy! (with all his oddities and difficulties and struggles and quirks......and labels)

As long as there was clearly no malice meant then no I personally wouldn't mind. x

It's all right for you, Cricket, I have to go to work now. With teenagers.

Came on to say much the same as Chrome

Words in themselves rarely offend me (like others have said, what is currently OK today will have changed by tomorrow anyway), but it is more the intent behind the word that matters.

I grew up with a very close relative with Cerebral Palsy - but of course back then we all knew he was what was known as spastic and was assisted by the Spastic Society. I'm still quite happy with that term as a medical term but if course if used as an insult it takes on a totally different meaning.

One area of language I find difficult to try to adapt is with gendered terminology - I've seen it increasingly argued that wherever possible you should avoid using gendered language, because even if (to you) the person standing in front of you looks female that doesn't mean they necessarily identify as female, or as male for that matter, they may be non-binary. So unless a person has identified themselves as using a particular pronoun, you should default to something neutral like "they". Something I often struggle to remember to put into practice...

That's nice of you to say so, Nicki. I suppose I do see people as redheaded and autistic and funny and loud and 1D fans and dyslexic and fond of Ribena and scared of horses and affectionate as well as a million other things, not just as plain old autistic/redheaded/loud/funny and that's that. It beats me as to why anyone else wouldn't.

chrome100, the last person I heard using the term "half caste" was white and over 70 years of age. I'm not sure I've ever heard a non white person say it, not for 30 years at least.

It's funny because although I'm still not convinced over "is autistic" vs "with autism" I (a white woman) wouldn't dream of saying someone was "half caste".

It isn't my place to tell someone off for saying it but I have in the past politely suggested to an elderly relative that using the term might cause offence and that "mixed race" is preferable these days.

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.

^^this.

You see it so many times on mn, the sn brigade, professionally offended, people take offence at anything, pc brigade etc etc.

Pointing out that terminology has changed is ok
Pointing out that a word is hurtful and insulting is ok

If you're going to get offended about how someone who is well meaning and being respectful as they know how, you're shutting down any discussion which is not what you want to do.

You want disabilities to be an open conversation topic so that people are comfortable talking about it, and therefore comfortable with other disabilities. Right now, it still makes people uneasy to talk about them and they don't know how to act around disabled people, particularly ones with mental disabilities. In short, allowing open conversation humanizes people with disabilities instead of relegating them to "other". Getting "offended" shuts that down.
(Note: This obviously doesn't apply to people being deliberately offensive)

For what it's worth, not even the disabled community is in agreement about what terms to use. Over here signs and forms all either say: handicap, accessible, disabled, with no word really taking a majority lead.

I typically don't worry about it.

Dh is Chinese and originally referred to ds1 as 'half caste' and that was a phrase I grew up with using. I am 32. Of course we know now not to use it.

I actually found the discussion on that thread about the person been made disabled by the society very interesting.
And I also found like the OP that I'm likely to use the wrong terminology, not helped with the fact English isn't my first language and some words (like handicapped) are similar in my language but don't have the negative connotations they have here.