Great to see MNHQ involved in both campaigns (Stonewall campaign here but I am not sure why they can't be linked in terms of using offensive language.
There are many heated debates on the use of disablist language here, yet this has not been part of the 'This is my child' campaign - why?
The Stonewall release even says:
"It's often having that chat with the student and explaining to them that it shouldn't be used and equating it with words of race or language of disability that they might use that they know is unacceptable."
Yet, do people know that disablist language is unacceptable? I really think they don't and that the use of disablist language on tv and amongst mainstream figures is at least as prevalent and apparently 'acceptable' as homophobic language (if not more so). It seems de rigeur for some so-called 'comedians'.
Why the difference in approach? Is it because disabled children is all about 'children in need' and cuddly, pitiable disabled kiddies who need to be understood?
We don't need to persuade anyone of our children's rights to be heard and to live free of disablist language and discrimination.
We need to demand their rights.
Don't get me wrong: no form of discrimination is more or less acceptable than the other but why the difference in approach?
No one is saying 'this is my gay son' with lots of cuddly photos and pleas for acceptance are they? And their is a reason for that.