Great article about DS in the Guardian

[hoxtonchick]

here . I thought this was so positive, & all the children & parents sounded lovely. There were nice pictures too, though you can't see those online.

The thing I can't understand, and I know this has been discussed many times, is that this is ostensibly a positive article about Down's Syndrome, yet the journalist insists on referring to 'Downs children' the whole way through and even a 'Downs Syndrome actor' in the standfirst (not an apostrophe in sight by the way). I know it's picky, but surely if the journalist wanted to write a positive article the very least she could have done is referred to the Down's Syndrome Association whose website clearly suggests you refer not to a Down's Person but to a person/child (actor?) with Down's Syndrome. Person first, syndrome second. It's not that hard a concept and IMO quite fundamental to positive perceptions.

Stepping off my soapbox now.

I get the same thing all the time they refer to my kids as "autistic children" and they are in fact children with autism !!!!!!

sorry I am guilty of this [blush}{ and my daughter has special needs. It winds me up sometimes, other days it doesnt (I am very fickle!) My friend who's daughter has a rare syndrome refers to her daughter as mentally handicapped aswell(!!! not that I would do this) but I think it's because thats all that people understand, although not right iykwim ?

Reading the feature it seems the parents of at least two of the children concerned also refer to "Downs children", and they are the parents, so I presume they think it is ok, though I know it isn't considered the correct terminology. Also don't lots of parents refer to autistic children, or auti chidren? I certainly don't think it was meant as a slight.
BTW a very nice interview with Paula Sage in the Standard today and in the Mail, all to do with the new film. I'm sure she will be delighted with them. Actually, the Guardian did get one fact completely wrong. Paula is 24, not 34.

aloha, I don't think for one minute the journalist meant it as a slight, I just felt it was a bit, well, uninformed.

I did notice that the parents referred to their children that way too so guessed that probably that is why the journalist felt it was okay. But I do think if a journalist is writing about issues such as this it really doesn't take a lot of research to find out current thinking on terminology. I think also if she had just said it once or twice that's fair enough, journalistically 'children with Down's syndrome' is after all a bit clumsy, but 'Downs child/ren' is repeted the whole way through the article.

I know that I am guilty of sometimes not using the preferred terminology, all of us probably are. But I do think it is one thing for it to crop up in conversation and quite another when it is an article written for a national newspaper which is supposed to be a positive representation of people with Down's Syndrome.

But I probably shouldn't be so picky . It was a nice article and fantastic for Paula Sage.