Talk Guidelines and references to disability

[OneFrenchEgg]

Hi MN

I know there have been ongoing comments and posts so apologies for adding to them.
would it be possible to update the Talk Guidelines? I can see reference to ‘hate speech’ but maybe a reference that due to the diversity of membership and desire to create an inclusive environment posters are asked to avoid stereotypes or lazy diagnosis? It could help to avoid the responses referencing Neurodiversity (could they have autism because they are <insert annoying thing>) but also leave people free to explore concerns about possible conditions if they are suspecting this? I’m always happy to chat about concerns about behaviour if someone suspects eg adhd but not things like ‘I’m a bit OCD’ ‘she’s a bit on the spectrum’ ‘could your annoying neighbour have dementia’ etc?

www.mumsnet.com/i/netiquette

Hi @OneFrenchEgg thanks for sharing your thoughts. We'll certainly have a chat about this. The guidelines do say, as you've noted, that we don't allow hate speech and this would include disablism and ableism. We try and avoid having site rules that are overly specific as we look at all reports on a case-by-case basis.

If you ever have questions or concerns about any aspect of our moderation, we're always happy to discuss it further. You can post here or drop us a line on [email protected]

Hi - thank you. I appreciate the reference to hate speech but I think that's very clear and posters would avoid engaging in it. It's the constant use of disability offered up in passing / casually for poor behaviour, and tackling this type of ignorance would be very welcome.

I wish someone had told me many years ago that the behaviours my H has which cause me emotional pain could have been due to Autism. He has a diagnosis now and he has. My mum became rude and unpleasant to a neighbour when she developed dementia. Disinhibited behaviour is a symptom of dementia.

The plain reality is that certain conditions can cause those with those conditions to behave in ways that can be upsetting, anti-social and difficult for those subject to them to understand. It can be reasonable to suggest that such behaviour MAY be caused by such a condition. If there is, even at a later date, a diagnosis, it can make it a lot easier for people to understand the behaviour.

That's not what I'm referencing at all. I'm referencing the casual 'maybe they are autistic' posts often the first or second response. If you want an inclusive forum you can't use actual clinical labels as casual suggestions for someone pissing their neighbour off.

But in the example you are giving they are not saying ' they are autistic' . They are saying ' maybe', they are offering it up as a possibility.

The approach you are advocating means that people are too intimidated into offering suggestions which may actually be life transforming for some people if they then explore that route and end up with a diagnosis.

And the approach you are advocating also means that people don't explore possibilities other than someone is just being weird or deliberately unpleasant.

‘I’m a bit OCD’

You do realise that you are trying to police how people refer to themselves as? You have no right to do that. If I wish to describe myself as a bit OCD, that's my right. People like you do far more harm than good in policing discussion.

It’s a slippery slope. Your hate speech may be my truth telling. I think abiding by the legal guidelines of what is permissible is the best and only way to go. A bit of courtesy doesn’t go amiss , either, but that’s up to the poster unfortunately.

we’ve all seen where one set of special interests ( not MH) policing other peoples ‘lived experience’ can lead to some very odd and undesirable outcomes.

there seems to be a bit of a concerted effort to shut down any ‘ adverse’ statements about some MH conditions, but I , to name just one, have found some of these threads very , very useful in untangling previous experiences.

( I just wish MN could get a system which put Capitals At the Beginning of a Paragraph)

I don't think you can make rules for it but I agree that it's profoundly depressing that so much abhorrent behaviour attracts ' maybe they have autism' within the first three posts. All you can do is challenge it and report ableism

I really hope MN doesn't go down this road. People should be allowed to suggest that someone maybe has e.g. dementia. Yes, some people might suggest that inappropriately, but people post wrong or silly things here all the time - accepting that is part of having an open forum. I don't like it when people post falsehoods about the environment and other things, but I accept that people will say things I don't like. I'd hate to see more censorship than we already have.

@Allthegoodnamesarechosen

I agree. There are appalling examples of people really struggling with the reality of living with a child or spouse with a disability or difficulty and they are brutally treated by those who wish to shut them down for speaking about this. How does stopping parents and spouses from getting the support they seek help anyone? How can they get support without naming the challenges? How can they stay strong to support their child or spouse if they cannot get support for themselves?

Yes, we have to stop pretending that the 'adverse' whether in MH, Autism or any other disability or learning disability do not exist. The more we understand about how these conditions effect behaviour, then the more accommodation we can all make for each other and the better we can all get along.

Thanks - clearly in a minority, people seem to want to continue doing this. And obviously I'm referring to 'im a bit OCD' being used as shorthand for likeing a tidy kitchen etc. Oh well - previous threads with this type of request have gone the same way, I'm out of step with the masses.

It's the minimalising though and it is insulting to say "I'm a bit OCD " because you like your house clean.

You describing your own diagnosed OCD in the way you do isn't the same.

Look, before my H's diagnosis when I posted about incidents with my husband I was told he was abusive, to contact Woman's Aid, and if I ever said 'I don't think this is it', I was told I had fallen for the Script' and I needed to wake to it.

Now there is the diagnosis and I have read up on how autism can manifest in relationships, it explains ALL of his behaviour. All of it. That behaviour can be very painful to those on the receiving end of it. That is just a reality.

This really boils my blood, it really does. Mumsnet is already too too far PC and restricting when it comes to discussing disabilities, (and I say this as a person with ASD - actually diagnosed, OCD and depression/anxiety, and someone wants to tighten the screws of this very restricted place even further??? What this site needs is a relaxation of rules surrounding discussions on disability, not tightening, it's already like walking on eggshells on this site about what you can/cannot say. You cannot make a post questioning over-diagnosing if so some trouble-maker reports it and it's deleted. Even in my Aspie (I hope I am allowed to describe my own self like that!?) community there are deep concerns about over-diagnosing, wrong diagnosing or just diagnosis-shopping. This should be allowed to be discussed. But having conversations around disabilities is hard because it is so restricted on here it truly is walking on eggshells.

The rules need to be relaxed, not further tightened!!

Can I just point out before people keep piling in on how ND people are so awful to live with and we must be free to talk about it etc and how it's outrageous to even suggest anything....

All I have done is asked that they use of stereotypes and lazy responses suggesting a condition is present is considered in talk guidelines? I've said nothing about the ongoing support threads for partners, nothing about asking for support if you suspect something, nothing about a considered suggestion made in response to a post asking for support.

So please don't misinterpret and start a straw man argument.

All you can do is challenge and report op.

Good luck.

#stillbruisedfrommyattemptttoraisetheissue

Because in those support threads you still get people, following the thinking underlying your agenda here, saying ' Oh no, its not because of the autism your partner is like that, and you are all haters and we need to shut down this thread'. So yes, what you are saying is part of that movement.

And yes, people do need to be free to suggest behaviours may be caused by an actual condition of some sort, because conditions can manifest in behaviours that are difficult and upsetting for others. They may actually be right.

MORE understanding is needed of how behaviours can manifest, not less because ' shh, we mustn't talk of it or we'll be called names and haters.' MORE understanding, leads to early understanding, leads to be able to get along better.

because conditions can manifest in behaviours that are difficult and upsetting for others.

I think you've made your point, several times, on this. Could you stop reminding me on a thread I've started asking for consideration, about how I'm probably a crap person to be around? Genuinely, please could you stop now?

I’m with you OP. Any other negative stereotypes are challenged but neurodiversity is a free for all. If my skin were any thicker it’d be concrete but reading some of these responses on threads make me so mad

I am clearly not telling you that you are a crap person to be around. If you actually read what I have actually written, repeatedly, I am saying that if there is more understanding of how behaviours manifest it becomes EASIER for people to get along. If someone had suggested to my H he had autism earlier in his life, and he got a diagnosis, and I knew he had autism and how that affected things from the start of our relationship, maybe things would not have got as bad as they did. But you need open discussion to be able to name these things to find ways to navigate them. And you can't do that with more censorship.

So can you please stop now?

So now you're trying to dictate who can reply to you and how many times as well. And people still wonder why those like myself and burgundyblues are very concerned about the suffocating censorship on this site regarding disabilities. It doesn't stop at censoring how people talk about disabilities, clearly. It extends to who replies and how many times. If you don't want people replying to you and engaging you in a debate, then maybe a message forum where people communicate isn't for you.

@StarryKnight @deliverooyoutoo
I was participating (loosely) in the last thread. Genuinely thought a mild suggestion might be up for discussion but clearly I'm naive about this.

@burgundyblues being passive aggressive and parroting me doesn't feel very kind? I'm just asking you to stop reinforcing how awful the behaviour of ND people is for you.

Ok @JennyNotFromTheBlock I've said several times I'm clearly in a minority. Yes maybe you're right and the forum isn't for me. I was hoping to be met in the same manner I'd posted, and having repeated reference to ND behaviour being awful doesn't feel like that.

No where did burgundyblues say the behaviour of ND people is awful. You are creating a false narrative by twisting what they said. They've never said anything remotely like that.

Awful was my short hand for 'upsetting, anti-social and difficult' - I don't really see a difference but apologies if I've confused you.