Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

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

6 replies

Samcro · 16/08/2016 15:21

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??

KateSMumsnet · 16/08/2016 17:36

Hi everyone,

Thank so much for all your posts. We'd just like to reassure everyone that our stance on disablist posts hasn't changed at all, and we're always happy to talk through these issues and removed posts as appropriate.

RowanMumsnet · 18/08/2016 18:11

@Jasonandyawegunorts

But no one said that, they said some DCs supposedly with ADHD and ASD were sometimes just horrible kids. NO THEY DIDN'T THIS IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID

The poster specifically said "most children with a diagnoses are just horrible children, a minority will have a disability."

THIS IS HATE SPEECH!

STOP DISMISSING AND UNPLAYING HATE SPEECH.

If we've got the same post you're thinking of, it said:

'Its wrong that kids are getting those labels because some of them will just be horrible children.'

(And it was deleted!)

RowanMumsnet · 18/08/2016 18:17

@Jasonandyawegunorts

Rowan

Be fair and post the whole quote.

That is nasty and disgusting cutting it off before it important bit.

We think that is the whole of the relevant post - it's what was being quoted by other users directly after the deleted post, when they had just seen it and still had the undeleted post in front of them. But we'll get Tech to dig out the whole thing and post it up when we've got it. (Because it's a deleted post on a deleted thread it's a bit trickier than normal).

Sorry to come in at an inopportune moment - we've been meaning to post this up all day, because our understanding of what happened isn't the same as that of some of you, but we kept getting distracted. Seeing this convo happening now reminded us, that's all. Sorry for butting in!

RowanMumsnet · 18/08/2016 18:21

Found it - this is the whole quote:

'Its wrong that kids are getting those labels because some of them will just be horrible children, a minority will have a medical reason, but not as many as get the labels.' (So apologies Jason, you're correct, there was more to it than was subsequently quoted by other posters.)

Our postal address is: Studio 6, Deane House Studios, Greenwood Place, Highgate Road, London NW5 1LB.

RowanMumsnet · 18/08/2016 18:26

@fanjoforthemammaries

"A minority will have a medical reason". Is the same as a majority won't.

Yes agreed Fanjo, substantially it's as Jason reports it here.

Just want to reiterate that it was deleted though!

RebeccaMumsnet · 19/08/2016 12:09

Hi all,

We wanted to clarify about the post mentioning Down's syndrome made by me on the previous thread.

It does seem to have been read as it was not intended and for that, I apologise. We did not infer that any disability is more or less 'worthy'.
Below is the post in full, it was meant specific to a thread talking about labelling:

Just5minswithDacre
Those who do not have any experience, may well have no idea. If the OP had posted to goad or inflame and not a genuine enquiry, it would be different but she asked a question that is not common knowledge for many, she was given a clear answer and she listened.

Shutting down discussion would not be helpful to anyone in this situation.

There's an easy test RebeccaMumsnet for anyone struggling to grasp the very simple and patently easy to grasp fact that Autism is an unchanging disability with a physical cause, and it's this;

Would you say/ask the same about Downs Syndrome?
Would you say/ask the same thing about Visual Impairment?
Would you say/ask the same thing about severe Dyslexia?

NO? Well then it's not acceptable to say it about Autism.

Just not acceptable.

The question in this instance was:

ivyonmywalls
A close friend has informed us that after lots of tests, her son has aspergers and it got me reading about it online. As I've been reading up on it, I've come across adult signs of autism and it appears I have some of the milder traits. A lot of us probably do!

It made me think, that If I had been born now, instead of nearly 50 years ago, I would almost surely have had a label of Aspergers given to me, which I would then have had to live with and carry for the rest of my life.

if I do have it, according to the list it's very mild and hardly noticeable and I think a label would have been more of a hindrance than a help throughout my life.
Obliviously in the majority of cases, a diagnosis can bring lots of much needed help and support and I think that's great.
But what if somebody has a very mild version? Is it right to label them and put them in a 'category'?

Wouldn't that be a burden? Especially if they didn't ask or want to be labelled.

This applies to all labels given to children.

It is not possible to substitute with Down's syndrome in this case as, please do correct me if I am wrong, but Down's syndrome is generally identified and diagnosed in infancy.

You could ask the same about visual impairment and Dyslexia, although not severe as the OP does state But what if somebody has a very mild version?

Your questions are very good barometers to judge by and I will share your post with the team, thank you.

The formatting is incorrect as you can't copy and paste quotes, sadly but for clarity, the italicised copy is that of MNHQ.

We could have been clearer and we apologise that folks have taken it the wrong way. We simply meant that Down's Syndrome could not be used as an example in this specific instance as there isn't a similar diagnostic process and that is what the thread was about.

We are very aware that Autism is a life-long disability, however, this post was specific to the thread and regarding the diagnostic processes and in response to Just5minswithDacre post about testing what we had posted by substituting Autism with other disabilities.

No offence was intended and I apologise if we upset anyone.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates

End of posts

There are no more MNHQ posts on this thread