[senco-forum] A call for thoughts: headings

As a parent who has had to deal with labels in disability since the birth of

On 03/08/07 11:20, "Vikki Horner" <vikki.horner at mathsextra.com> wrote:
<snipped>
> As a parent who has had to deal with labels in disability since the birth of
> my daughter who has Down syndrome, I find referring to individuals simply by
> label is distasteful.  She's a Downs, Down syndrome people and so forth.  By
> turning it around ...people/children/individuals with Down syndrome.....
> allows them to be people first who happen to have ....whatever.....

> Your headers for 4, 5, and 6 in my view amount to the same.
> Chapter 4: The Dyslexic writes.
> Chapter 5: The Dyslexic counts.
> Chapter 6: The Dyslexic understands.
> What about ....Individuals/pupils/people with Dyslexia count..... ?

> Over the past 16 years, my experience, other parents, and those of
> individuals who have a particular disability or difficulty do actually find
> labelling in this way offensive.  Although I can understand that it is
> easier and more expedient to use to describe a particular condition.

I am also a parent with label experience. One of my sons has significant
learning and communication difficulties. He also has Down's Syndrome.
If appropriate to the conversation, that is the way I tend to describe him.

Most of Matthew's characteristics are to do with his individuality, his
'Matthew-ness' if you like. Only a few are to do with his genetic condition.

I'm with Vikki here. People first language please.
Hopefully there is people first thinking and attitude going on out there
too, but we only hear the language of others.

On 03/08/07 15:00, "John Bergin" <john.e.bergin at ntlworld.com> wrote:
<snipped> 
> Gently and with much respect
> Vikki, I find your statement
> distasteful and very worrying.
John, Vikki made several statements, all quite reasonable in my opinion.
I don't know which one (or ones) you found difficulties within. Perhaps you
could explain?

> I am a late diagnosed adult dyslexic.
> One not "with" anything.

> Lots of us lots
> of the time don't even "suffer". Eh,
> we'd be "without" then, wouldn't we?

> Sorry but you see my point?
Assuming that the point is nothing at all to do with the language of extreme
irony or sarcasm, I'm sorry John, but I find myself unable to see your
point.

Regards, Mike
-- 
Mike Boyd <mike at green43.demon.co.uk>