dear mn hq why are so many disablist threads being left up

[Samcro]

one today for instance and mn hq post
"We don't think that this thread is disablist, it is a valid discussion that we don't think should be shut down. "

yet it has obviously been reported.
cause hurt and upset
how is that making life easier(or better) for the sn community`?

or this message from mn hq
That CBeebies is just far too PC
Thread deleted
Message from MNHQ: Thanks so much for all the reports about this.

Although there has been some interesting debate and discussion, we do agree that the OP and some of what ensues is disablist, so we have decided to delete.

how can these be interesting debates??
\not long ago mn hq said that they were going to be quicker dealing with this stuff
what happened??

I drank it all.

Well hand over a replacement bottle for me and Dixie then!

I don't think it's helpful to suggest that aspergers is to autism as shortsightedness into blindness.

Agreed.

I can't believe that we're having to have another thread like this, so soon after the last ones.

I read some of the labelling thread, but couldn't muster enough energy to post.

I'll throw my hat into the ring re: ASD/Aspergers/HFA. I have one of each and they are all very definitely disabled by their conditions.

Dd1 has severe ASD and learning difficulties. At 12 she is still on P scales, and will probably never live independently. However, she is not more disabled by her autism than dd2 is (9, dx'd with Aspergers, G&T academically but a bundle of overthinking nervous energy who constantly worries she isn't masking well enough and will be caught out as 'different') or Ds (4, his dx is HFA, and again he appears (as much as anyone who hasn't even started school yet can be!) to be heading towards G&T, yet he cannot bear anyone outside the family talking to him at all - starting school is going to be interesting

They are all profoundly affected by their autism, regardless of 'appearing normal' in two cases.

I worded my last post really badly, I meant that MNHQ should take advice from a group of MNSNers to improve the way they deal with disabling threads, not that the group of MNSNers should deal with it.

akkakk do you know that the diagnosis of aspergers is being phased out and replaced by autism? In my borough you get a diagnosis of autism, that's it. The essential difference is the ability to talk at 3yo.

I've that extreme form of maleness banded about. just fucking annoys me. Kathy letts was talking about it on to the other day.

With a disability there is very often a scale of severity - e.g. eyesight as a nice non-controversial discussion, there are millions of people (I am one) who are short or long-sighted, yet would not consider themselves to be disabled, or to have a disability - yet at an extreme someone who is blind clearly does...
Short or long sightedness is not a disability. Even extreme short-sightedness is not a disability, because it can be corrected with glasses. There are definitions within the field of visual impairment that assess a person's vision and decide whether someone fits the categories of visually impaired or severely visually impaired. It is not as simple as a sliding scale.

Disability affects people in different ways and to different degrees but you are wrong to describe it as a scale, because that implies the single line going from the incredibly misleading "mild" to "severe". Disability is SO much more complicated than that. Spectrum is a better description for almost all disabilities.

People can't just consider themselves to have a disability, there has to be some medical diagnosis of some kind that recognises their disability

one definition in the sector is that it is the essence of maleness, and a scale on which we all fall
Thankfully this is not a medically recognised description because it is bollocks.

Glasses don't always fix sight problems.
Glasses fix short-sightedness, which is what the PP had mentioned.

I understand very
I am visually impaired and don't wear glasses as they don't help me, so yes I know that frustration of having to explain that :)

It's very irritating when people tell me they can't see a thing without their glasses so if I'm disabled then they must be too, but it completely misses the point that they can put their glasses on and see perfectly - something I can never do. That's why it is different.

I am sure that hearing loss is far more complex than a sliding scale and if hearing aids don't help him then that has to be disabling.

Hang on, I actually missed the content. Are mnhq (don't give me the individual moderator guff, each moderator speaks corporately AS mnhq) actually saying autism isn't a disability?

Because that would be very, very wrong.

In my family autism presents itself in at least 3 different ways. Even though some are considered 'higher' functioning than others that in itself presents its own challenges and makes it no less disabling.

Because if mnhq think ASD isn't a disability perhaps the organisations they're considering being a part of this campaign with should know about these very strong attitudes and the complete dismissal of disablism as a huge problem on these boards?

Need another thing with deafness is that hearing aids aren't the full solution.

You're still impaired - just because the sound is amplified doesn't mean you don't still have the distortion that the root problem causes, it's just louder. You also hear everything in the room at the same volume which can be disorientating.

I'm still if an open letter to those who invited MN to the campaign might be in order, highlighting what he happened to us on here as people with disabilities and their parents/carers might be an idea?

Hang on, I actually missed the content. Are mnhq (don't give me the individual moderator guff, each moderator speaks corporately AS mnhq) actually saying autism isn't a disability

They're not saying it isn't.

But they won't say that it IS just as much a disability as any other disability either.

And they seem to find both non-infant diagnosis and the 'world view' of those of us with direct experience relevant to the issue in some ill-defined way.

There was a post about whether it is helpful to label a child as autistic and whether it would negatively impact the child. Would they be better off not being labelled as many children years ago experienced.

Many posters replied to say that this question would never be asked about any other disability, that you wouldn't ask the same about a child with Down's Syndrome for example.

The response from MNHQ was that Down's is different because it is diagnosed in infancy and the discussion about ASD is valid and not disablist.

But ASD is a disability

I am even getting a support worker to help me because of my ASD. I wouldn't be getting one if I wasn't disabled.

And that not everyone who lives with SN every day is as up to speed as those as us who are so it's helpful if we explain it.

Again.

The anecdotes on a couple of threads that were allowed to stand (off the top of my head):
I know parents who tried to get their NT children statemented in year 5 so they could get into a particular secondary school
If a child has no behaviourial issues at school they don't have autism
I had a boy staying at my house who his parents said had adhd but he slept fine at my house - I just told him to get back to bed!
My friend says her son has ADHD but actually he's fucked up because he has a chaotic life (including DV which is obviously the 'friend's' fault)
She said her son had autism but there's no way he does because he's too young for a diagnosis

All disablist. All autism/neuro disability myths. All allowed to stand

Gah at the whole labelling phenomenon rearing its head again. In my limited experience of HCPs there are very occasionally ones who like to try and preempt the whole label-phobia thing with use of "mild" or "High Functioning" when talking about ASDs. Fine when used in the right context, but not as a lazy or easy option. Most parents are able to take stuff on board and it's unhelpful to everyone to simplify something that obviously is causing a problem in the first place. I often had discussions (inappropriate in itself) with my pain management consultant who belittled some if the difficulties I had coping with a child (with a Dx of ADHD) because he didn't "believe in it". He also said he didn't like labels. An actual doctor who had training in neurological disorders. Some people are indeed uneducable! (Love that phrase pigtrotters).

BishopBrennansarse. I think that's a good idea.

It is a difficult discussion, but I am not suggesting simplistic solutions... The examples were to illustrate a point...

The point being that on a forum (which brings its own difficulties) it is far more challenging to understand the nuances around disablities than it might be with racism or sexism. Most people identify solidly with a specific class / race / sex etc. but disabilities are less black and white...

The point of my illustrations were to show how this can be challenging to understand by those outside, eg is short-sightedness a disability, it could be to some, but I wouldn't consider myself disabled because I need glasses, but for someone else, or who might be blind, then yes it is a disability... i.e. it is not as black and white as other areas of contention... And let's remember that this thread is about how MNHQ moderates this area or discussion... If it is impossible to define some disabilities as definitively as might be liked, then it is not easy to moderate threads...

And it is not helped by the posters who pop up claiming that because they have xyz experience no-one else has a clue, or is allowed an opinion...

Part of the claims about disablist threads, the demands that they should be deleted are one person's strident view - other issues raised are valid... Ultimately MN is a discussion forum, discussion includes all perspectives and it is allowed for others to have different views...

That expectation that different views exist on a forum, alongside the challenge in moderating such discussions means that sometimes threads folks don't like might exist, generally MNHQ is very good at moderating, let's not turn it into a police state where no discussion is allowed because someone disagrees, if a poster has a different view they can post it, if they feel that hey are continually having to say the same thing, then perhaps they need to consider why they are having that discussion on a public forum...

There are already guidelines about how people should behave and that is what should be enforced, the same levels of courtesy whether the discussion is disablities or Thomas the tank engine!

akk, I'm tired and this has all been very distressing.
However.
Race isn't a distinct issue. Literally not black and white.
Class isn't a distinct issue. There's no actual test for class despite the Mitford's criteria.
Religion? You can change.
Gender? Ego has that covered.
You might think HFA is mild and therefore isn't a proper disability. Holy fuck I wish I could get dd a pair of glasses that sorted out her myriad social, emotional and physical issues. She had a lifelong set of impairments. She's awesome at some stuff. Much like say Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson. She might be faster in her wheelchair than I am on my two legs. I bet she'd rather be walking around though. Nobody says she can't be disabled because she's fast.

" I wouldn't consider myself disabled because I need glasses, but for someone else, or who might be blind, then yes it is a disability... i.e. it is not as black and white as other areas of contention."

Actually though - autism is pretty black and white, in that, someone either has it or doesn't.

Only people with autism are on the autistic spectrum, so mild autism (which isn't as far as I'm aware actually a diagnosis anyway) is still autism, it's not a lesser form that may or may not cause issues, it's still autism, meets the diagnostic criteria for autism so is a disability. High functioning autism isn't mild...it just means autism without IQ being affected.

They're all still autism.

It's really not comparable to saying short sightedness could be similar/different to being Blind as to whether it's a disability - it's more like comparing people who are registered Blind and deciding some might be less Blind than others so therefore not actually disabled by it, technically sort of true, but it wouldn't be up for discussion.

I'm short sighted in one eye (I pick that because I am, lol) but I manage fine, do you think being registered Blind is actually a useful label? Because I think if I was a child now, I could be registered Blind...Or do you think it limits people? I mean, they could just be a bit shortsighted they could just cope with it like I do.That's effectively the OP of that thread translated into visual disabilities.

aak what you and a lot of different posters don't seem to be able to grasp is that autism as a recognised disability is not up for debate. It is not a discussion. It is not something that people can have differing opinions on. It is a fact.

If people with a disability do not see themselves as disabled, do not describe themselves as such that is absolutely fine and their personal choice. It doesn't change the fact that they do have a recognised disability whether they see it as disabling or not.