AIBU to be annoyed by this worthy advert

[2shoes]

it is for sense and a worthy cause but every time I see i get annoyed.
cute boy described as a deaf/blind child.
oh dear I do shout at the tv

Shows that whoever designed their advert hasn't got much understanding or sense! Is it just those who live with it really get the point? I hate DS being identified by label - cute boy in the advert could be described as X's gorgeous son.. I bet mumsnetters could come up with a better ad!!

Don't understand the problem. The appeal is for a charity for deafblind people. It's not offensive to describe someone as deafblind. Or deaf. Or blind.

This is the transcript:
On screen: Close ups Elliot.

Voice over: "Elliot is a very special little boy."

On screen: Close up of Elliot?s eyes

Voice over: "He?s one of thousands of deafblind children."

What on earth is offensive about that? I honestly don't get it. Elliot's mum is in the ad. Deafblind people refer to their disability in this way.

but replace the word "deafblind" with Downs Syndrome, and people would really dislike the wording. I honestly don't know whether the word "deafblind" is the preferred terminology by those affected.

It is though. Just as deaf people are happy to call themselves deaf, not people with deafness.

The Deaf Liberation Front use the terms Deaf people, Deaf children etc all the time.

Voice over: "He?s one of thousands of deafblind children."

should be imo" He's one of thousands of children who are deafblind"

he is a child first

Still don't get it, are you really complaining about where the adjective goes in the noun phrase??? My DS has just been diagnosed with Asperger's - am I not allowed to call him an Asperger's child?

Or is the problem with mentioning the condition in the first place? How are they supposed to advertise their services and raise funds if they can't specify their clients?

2shoes, if people who are deafblind prefer the phrase deafblind child/deafblind person, I don't really understand why you upset about it or challenging it. Would you object to "Chinese child" or insist it was changed to "child from China" ? Most deaf people - and particularly activists, insist on being called Deaf people not people who are deaf.
The charity Sense is highly sensitive to terminology.

You get these debates about autism too - whether it is right or wrong to say ' My DS is autistic' or 'My DS has autism'.
The underlying point is sometimes whether the person making the statement believes that 'recovery' or 'cure' is possible. However I use both expressions and I don't read much into why others use the terms. Life is too short.

Black/white/Asian child or child who is black/white/Asian?

sorry I have no objection to an advert raising money for a worthy cause.
dd has cp . so I would say this is dd she has cp not this is cp dd. (hope that makes sense) she is dd first.

Well, Cp isn't an adjective, it's a noun. Blind and deaf are adjectives. That's the difference as I see it. So you wouldn't say France child, but you would say French child.
Or you can say autistic child but not Autism child.

hmm tricky one. I hate hate hate it when I see a child with ds being referred to as a "downs child", because the disability does not define the child.

But I think the reason why this could be seen as different is because while downs is a condition, deafblindness is a result of the condition, often rubella.

so whereas your dd has cp, she isn't cp, iykwim? but a child who had rubella in utero, is deafblind. does that make sense?

I can see it from both sides tbh because I agree that the disability shouldnt come first, but I can see why it does in this instance.

Yeah, I've been wondering about this one. Deafness and blindness seem to be the exception to the thing about putting the child first. You also find 'visually impaired child' used a lot rather than 'child who has a visual impairment' and nobody seems to mind. I can't say I mind either way - although I agree with you wannaBe about the 'downs child' thing - or actually almost any other disability.

Perhaps it also has something to do with the ambivalence of many people with sensory impairments (espcially deaf people) about being defined as 'disabled'?

I am starting to understand. it is soooo complicated.

Still don't get it completely. To be actually offended by it I mean. It's just a colloquialism, sometimes you need to get info out as quickly and clearly as necessary - eg when the cost of tv advertising time is huge and you are a charity with other important things to spend money on. Sometimes people have to be grouped together verbally, temporarily, for the sake of communication. Lots of us talk about our NT DS's and DD's, not our children who are NT or our children who don't have SN.

It's not just a colloquialism though in this case. It is the preferred (PC if you like) term for people with this dual impairment. Blind people do not describe themselves as people with blindness and deaf people certainly do not describe themselves as people with deafness. Lots of deaf (or Deaf) people would be very insulted by that. To them it is as inappropriate as calling a black person 'a person with blackness'! I am happy to talk about my dyspraxic child or say 'he's dyspraxic' or I might say 'he has dyspraxia'. I wouldn't say 'my dyspraxia child', because that would be grammatically incorrect.