this annoys me and I'm not personally affected so god knows how some of you must feel...

[wannaBe]

yesterday I happened upon a thread about someone having a tripple test and the result etc ...

anyway I couldn't help noticing that some people on said thread kept making references to "a downs baby" and "a downs child". Now maybe I'm totally off the mark here but surely it's a "baby who has downs"? after all the disability does not define the child does it?

Does this annoy those of you who have children with downs or other disabilities whose disabilities appear to get mentioned before the child? I just wanted to say something on the thread in question but felt maybe it wasn't my place?

Some people definitely get upset by this and I don't like it myself for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

I find it difficult. When people aksed if my son has a dx I often say 'Louis syndrome' as they cant google that and make up assumptions about him and how he will develop.

Disability definatly does not define the child and Im learning that more and more as my son learns new things.

yes it bothers me too,i won't say my kids are autistic, as it seems to suggest thats all they are, ok they have autism, but its not all they have IYKWIM

yes it does bother me. You hear on the news about a child who "suffers" from cp. My dd does not suffer.
also she is who is 12(who happens to have cp) she is first iynwim

suffer
when my girls were DX we were told they suffered from mental retardation and autism
me & DH say it's us that suffer
afflicted is another word aaarrggghhh

Wannabe - yes yes yes it annoys me. Someone said to me once "oh, you have a Downs" - like "oh you have a puppy" Its flippin ridiculous.
I have 3 daughters, all gorgeous, all different, one of them has Downs syndrome. She doesn't suffer from it either.

'a Down's'
People really don't think about what comes out of their mouths, do they?

I so agree...

it's like when people try to define others by a condition, like diabetes for instance. It really annoys me when I hear that so-and-so is "a diabetic". They have diabetes for crying out.

Let them be a child, a mother, a wife, an accountant (or whatever) first, but please don't define them by their "condition"!

Oh and more often than not, they don't actually "suffer" either.

So annoying, and I so agree with this thread!

I do usually say that ds2 is autistic, rather than has autism. It kind of seems as much who he is as saying he's tall or blond. Maybe because it feels like it's so intertwined with his personality?

I'm really going to try not to do it with ref to other people, though. I hadn't really thought about it and I want to be more considerate.

But would always say 'with downs syndrome'

at 'a down's'

I agree with you, it really annoys me too, also diabetic, epileptic, hypertensive etc.

OTOH I do sometimes say about my son that he's deaf rather than has a hearing loss because having a hearing loss sounds a bit unnatural or even pompous (less so as the years go by, it's become more second nature) and because I'm not "in denial" or scared anymore of the word and its connotations, which usually make one think of total deafness. Sometimes I remember to add that he wears an implant and he can in fact hear and speak.

i do because to me dd1 is so much more than her condition - she has down syndrome and it is just a small part that makes up the whole.

have had the ' you have a downs baby'

also had a mum approach dh and I and say she had one of those at home - i wondered whether it was a pram or handbag or something and then realised she meant a child with down syndrome?!?!

also heard someone call dd1 a 'downsie!!' that went down well NOT!!

wanna be I have to be in a particular mood to approach those threads these days - you know I get tired of asking that they use the more appropriate term and getting jumped on about someone's worry being greater than my need for them to be respectful to other people.

It all gets bit interesting in teh Deaf community. peopel do sometimes refer to them selves or friends as Deafies. also got the whole d deaf or D Deaf issue.
I guess if you use a pet name for your own condition its rather differnt to some else labeling you with it. personally I'm happy to be dyslexic , i find it an easier word to say than dyslxia. ( and spell seemingly)

Actually, I'm going to go a bit against the grain here. Although I usually say "so and so has " because I recognise that it bothers most people, personally I wouldn't be concerned if folks referred to DD1 as "an ic" Not that they could, cos it's a bit of a list and most of them don't have names that work as -ic, but anyway. It does define her, in a lot of ways. Much of who she is and how she behaves is determined by her conditions and it takes a deliberate effort to see DD1 as a child first and foremost, to see the wood for the trees as it were.

If I were elsewhere on MN, I'd be saying "and that probably makes me a bad mother" in a sort of "tell me I'm wrong" sort of a way. But as it goes, I know I'm not a bad mother, and here we all know how hard it is to walk in someone else's shoes.

hmmm, yes sometimes staff at the hospital like the o.t. and the physio, refer to dd1 (and others with hemiplegia like her)as 'a hemi'

i don't know whether to be upset and say something or just get used to it. after all, it's far from the worst thing they've done to us)

but it just sounds like that's all dd is and i don't like the sound of it

years ago, when my best friend 's step-MIL met dd for the first time when she was a toddler, step-MIL said to bf in front of both of us "is it cp?"

("yes. is it a stupid bitch?")

the step-MIL is dead now.

With the autistic spectrum it's quite a ticky minefield. Some adults on the spectrum (and I'm referring to those who would be classed as low functioning, eg Amanda Baggs - (see "Getting the Truth Out" and "In my Language") as well as those classed as high functioning do not like being referred to as a person with autism, as they believe that that implies they have something and that autism is something that is as much a part of them as them being, for example, female. So they do call themselves autistic, rather than say they have autism. There are others who say that they prefer the "person with" label. And just to confuse you further there are some that separate the spectrum into autism and aspergers, high and low functioning and others who believe that there should be no distinctions, everyone is autistic. I prefer to have my AS label as it defines me the best way, but I'm happy to say I'm on the autistic spectrum as there's so much between autism and aspergers that intertwines. Personally, I don't care either way whether someone says I have Aspergers or I AM Aspergers, as long as they don't make out that my AS is a terrible affliction. There's parts that can be a terrible nuisance, but there's loads of good aspects as well and I'm happy with myself as I am.
I think the golden rule is to go by what the person wants to be referred to, or if they can't tell you, what their parents or guardians want them to be referred to.

I meant to say tricky.

I think bullet has nailed it on the head. It's down to personal choice, in the end. My ds (8) loves referring to himself and others like him as 'an Aspie', and if that helps him accept his differences and work on his self management skills then all to the good.

I don't have any problems with the way his condition is referred to, by anyone. The only thing I do object to is when it's ignored and not accepted as part of him, and attempts to 'normalise' him despite all his obvious difficulties.

Yeah, that's kind of how I feel about ds2. And as his awareness and curiosity about his place in the world is growing it's felt like a positive thing to say, eg, this book was written by someone who's autistic, like you. And I think the 'autistic pride'- not sure if that's the right term! - movement is about claiming autism as a central integral part of the person, rather than a cage that's holding an nt person.

I'm struggling to find a path through this; it's feeling like a big thing in our/ his life atm. I don't know very many ad ults who are autistic, and obv there isn't a consensus among them anyway.

Hope this hasn't veered off-subject too much

I agree that Autism is so much a part of their personality, behaviour etc that I refer to ds as Autistic.
To me, saying he has autism implys that it can be cured and I get so many people saying that he'll grow out of it.

agree it's down to the preference of the person with the condition if you are talking about an individual. As a journalist, I try to avoid writing someone is 'an epileptic' or 'a diabetic' or referring to 'epileptics' (most style guides now say not to do this, by the way). It's the 'an' that I dislike, I think, they are 'one of them'. I might use 'is autistic' - the 'is' makes a difference as someone 'is' lots of things. But would probably go for 'has autism' or 'people with autism' unless the person concerned told me different.

(I have epilepsy btw and hate people with this condition being referred to as 'an epileptic'.)

Donna Williams has written interesting stuff about autistic culture versus autistic condition (which I agree with). I don't think that autism is part of my son's personality but he has no sense of autistic culture, and is no part of it. I do refer to him as autistic though; I don;t see autism as being negative but I see whatever it is that stops him being able to talk & makes him so compulsive as being negative. He hates being so compulsive and will sometimes position himself to prevent running away stuff kicking in etc. Really my son's autism 'voice' is Lucy Blackman who I think is very very similar. She is non-verbal but has written a book (& a chaper in another book).

I think it's very different for HFA/AS.

I do say the boys are autistic, it just seems Ok to me

However, the boys were chatting to a child with Downs Syndrome on holiday and kept referring to the Downs Boy. now, we didnt know his name and I suspect that if we did they'd ahve called him X but I kept having to say ' do you mean the child with downs syndrome' or sometimes 'the boy in the red shorts'

I genuinely dont think anything is emant by it by most people though, it just seems an unfortunate language convention

yes I can see the reasoning behind saying you have a child who is autistic, but even then you would talk of your "child who is autistic" rather than your "autistic child"?

I am blind, I could be visually impaired or visually handycapped or whatever politically correct term is invented tomorrow, but it doesn't take away from the fact I am blind, but I still would rather be referred to as xxx who is blind (if it does need mentioning) rather than, as I read in a report I was given to type by my boss who had all the tact of a brick wall that "xxx, our blind typest.".