|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 6:03:31 GMT -5
Wait, now I'm confused. Is this a thread about how disabilities should no longer be called "disabilities," or is this a discussion about what is or is not a disability? Nat, maybe if this thread was about non-physical conditions, you might want to take out "deafness" from your list in your original post. ^^; Aaaah good point. I phrased things way wrong. ^^;; Sorry. Fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Oct 24, 2011 6:06:33 GMT -5
:/ Semantics, semantics. It's called a disability because you're lacking an ability. Deaf people lack the ability to hear. Blind people lack the ability to see. It's not saying anything about their capabilities, it's just a term. Why does it need to be changed? I find this offensive. I have Asperger's, and I don't lack an ability to do anything. I can see well, hear well, empathize with other people, sing, love, dance around, write, develop romantic feelings, make friends, and have fun. I don't have a disability. I happen to have a different kind of personality. I am not sick. Bear in mind that there are people here who are living with this stuff. Saeryena, what Komori explained is even in the law. Citizens have different rights from others to adjust to their needs, it's kind of a different measure of justice to each person, I'm not saying people with disabilities have to be treated better than others, but they have their needs and they must be helped. You're losing the point here, no one accused you of being not being able to love, sing, dance and feel. But there is a condition, I for example have a hard time identifying the right options and even saying some stuff. It is there, it's an interpretation problem. It is keeping me from doing things like others do when reading or talking fast, not feelings. What if, for some reason, you interpreted things wrong in a conversation and people start being intolerant with you? What if they start blaming you for a mistake that is not your fault directly? To be tolerant, there must be circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 7:26:19 GMT -5
Komori's got the ticket - a disability is the lack of a certain ability or abilities. For people with Asperger's it's communication, social skills and lack of perception of the self with regard to the surrounding world.Sarn, are you saying I don't know who I am? Because I'm pretty sure I do.
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Oct 24, 2011 7:44:00 GMT -5
Komori's got the ticket - a disability is the lack of a certain ability or abilities. For people with Asperger's it's communication, social skills and lack of perception of the self with regard to the surrounding world.Sarn, are you saying I don't know who I am? Because I'm pretty sure I do. I think what she's saying, if I'm correct, is that one of the symptoms of Asperger's is that sometimes there is a difficulty in relating oneself with the rest of the world. It doesn't have to be empathically (though it can), it can mean various things, like unable to grasp things on a global scale or diffierent cultures. It doesn't mean it's impossible, and some people deal with it better than others. And it's important to understand what's the point some people are trying to make. The word 'disorder' or 'disability', by itself, is simply what it means. Something out of order or lacking in an ability. It's not a derogrative nor is it an insult. It's simply saying, black and white, that people with such conditions physically or mentally lack something. That's the circumstance such people are born into or develop; what they do with that is up to them and the people and environment around them.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Oct 24, 2011 7:54:42 GMT -5
Sae, if your condition wasn't making you different in some way, you wouldn't be telling us you had it. It's something that makes you "differently abled" (if you prefer that term) than other people, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to give it its own name, right? I mean, no one's creating names like IhaveBrownHair's Syndrome.
|
|
|
Post by Avery on Oct 24, 2011 8:04:17 GMT -5
Sarn, are you saying I don't know who I am? Because I'm pretty sure I do. I think what she's saying, if I'm correct, is that one of the symptoms of Asperger's is that sometimes there is a difficulty in relating oneself with the rest of the world. It doesn't have to be empathically (though it can), it can mean various things, like unable to grasp things on a global scale or diffierent cultures. It doesn't mean it's impossible, and some people deal with it better than others. And it's important to understand what's the point some people are trying to make. The word 'disorder' or 'disability', by itself, is simply what it means. Something out of order or lacking in an ability. It's not a derogrative nor is it an insult. It's simply saying, black and white, that people with such conditions physically or mentally lack something. That's the circumstance such people are born into or develop; what they do with that is up to them and the people and environment around them. To hijack this point, let's look at an analogy, albeit not a perfect one. Allergies. As a whole, you could define the symptoms of allergies as runny nose, itchy eyes, and congestion. This doesn't mean every single person with allergies will display all of these symptoms; some allergy sufferers have more severe reactions than others, even though they're allergic to exactly the same thing. For symptoms one does show, different people will manage it differently, and thus it may impact one specific person more than another. Say Amy and Carly both have a stuffed nose. Amy takes allergy pills and nasal spray and so her nose hardly bothers her, because she's learned how to deal with it and adapt to her allergies. Her nose still will get stuffed, but she knows how to handle it. Carly has a more difficult time with it, and can't quite get the problem fixed, so you could say she's impacted more severely. Again, not a perfect analogy, but I think it fits enough. Listing the generalities of a disorder doesn't mean everyone will have all those traits; nor does it mean those who do will show them in exactly the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Oct 24, 2011 8:41:56 GMT -5
But it does mean that special compensation has to be made for them; and to say that they're not requiring special compensation when they are is ignoring the efforts of others on their behalf, and that can make people really bitter and cause a lot of hurt feelings and is unfair. Not to mention makes those people with the disabilities very, very unhappy and bitter. Got a girl in my 4th grade. Sweet, quiet, friendly girl. I'm not sure what she has, but she definitely has some sort of a learning disability. As in, she's slow. Her brain doesn't seem to pick up much of anything, her handwriting is completely illegible and if you as much as ask her to repeat the pronunciation of a word, she'll struggle with it. Last year she was graded on the same exact principles as all other kids in her class even though she's been lightyears behind them since first grade, because her mother wouldn't accept her issues and wouldn't let her be placed under a special simplified curriculum. Needless to say, she failed justabout everything. We the teachers all tried to grade her as nicely as possible but for the most part, there just wasn't anything to grade. This year she finally got placed into the simplified curriculum. Sits in the class listening along, doing her own thing, doesn't get graded, doesn't get stress, and looks a lot happier than she was the entire last year. Basically, glossing over disabilities seems to do more harm than good. The people who flat-out can't meet some expectation or other for some reason or other that's out of their hands can't well be forced to meet it. Can't force a blind person to work in an animation office, can't force a deaf person to work a call center, can't force a person with social disorders to interact with difficult people on a daily basis. The society can be tolerant, but it won't generally be tolerant at other people's expense. As a customer, I won't appreciate a cashier blowing up in my face for no reason, even if I knew about their disability, so I'd expect their employer to be aware of it and simply not use them in a position that triggers their disability.
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Oct 24, 2011 10:37:34 GMT -5
Sae, if your condition wasn't making you different in some way, you wouldn't be telling us you had it. It's something that makes you "differently abled" (if you prefer that term) than other people, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to give it its own name, right? I mean, no one's creating names like IhaveBrownHair's Syndrome. Good point, if it wasn't a disability then it wouldn't have a diagnosis in the first place. My friend's cousin has Asperge's, she has problems accepting it as disability and understanding the differences of her behavior with others, her level of Asperge's is really light but it's still a challenge to my friend socializing with her. It is there, and saying it's not would make things much more harder both for my friend and her cousin.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 12:06:25 GMT -5
The only ability I lack is the ability to not feel like less of a person by being labeled this way. "Disability" makes me think I'm just another statistic, not a person.
In fact, I would say, myself, that I relate to this world better than most people. (I'm not trying to offend any of you, these are only my experiences) I feel love flowing from the world itself to me and vice versa.
Pleas don't call me delusional. It just so happens that I empathize with the planet as if it were a living thing (to me, it is a living thing).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 12:14:43 GMT -5
Mreh. I have ADD and depression, but I've also been identified as gifted, so my perspective is a little wonky. I can say that although I view ADD as more of a difference than anything else, it CAN be crippling enough to be very disabling. Depression is a definite liability, though. I get pretty miffed when people don't take it seriously. Being gifted normally isn't seen as a "disability" because it's seen as being "better", but it really can be a challenge socially. So seeing it recognized as a difference that needs accommodation (see also: 504 plans) is a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Joker on Oct 24, 2011 12:18:29 GMT -5
Hair color, eye color, race, gender, age and sexual orientation all make you "another statistic" too. Do those offend you? At some point it's just another descriptive tag. I could understand disputing the diagnosis of Asperger's if you feel it doesn't apply to you, but I don't quite understand accepting that description and not the word "disability"...? (Although if you honestly don't think you have any trouble relating to the world, etc., then perhaps you don't feel that you have Asperger's at all, which is a whole different discussion.)
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Oct 24, 2011 12:48:14 GMT -5
The only ability I lack is the ability to not feel like less of a person by being labeled this way. "Disability" makes me think I'm just another statistic, not a person. In fact, I would say, myself, that I relate to this world better than most people. (I'm not trying to offend any of you, these are only my experiences) I feel love flowing from the world itself to me and vice versa. Pleas don't call me delusional. It just so happens that I empathize with the planet as if it were a living thing (to me, it is a living thing). Sae, you may not like to hear it, but you're displaying the reasons why this is considered a disorder even while arguing against the classification. For example, you're getting upset at the term. To you, it's just who you are and nothing more. It's part of you. That's a good way at taking a personal view of the situation and not letting it define you. But not letting it define who you are is different than acknowledging it as a disorder or disability. No one is attempting to make you a statistic. You're also not the only person here that has it, and a lot of them except the same classification and use it to help their own understanding of matters. But see, while you're trying to convince and show why it's not a disorder and just part of your personality, what you're showing is that you don't see things the same way as the rest of the world. The rest of the world classifies it as a disorder and that's just a common view (and calling it that doesn't mean that it's dehumanizing--just a clinical definition the same way that someone with the flu has an illness and is sick doesn't demean them). But you can't relate yourself or your views to that. Let's think about past debates. You've had a hard time participating in debates as you often get very upset by topics or what has been said by people on a matter. You have a hard time communicating in those situations and relating yourself to the context and what's happening. It gets to you in ways that it doesn't get to others and sometimes you can't cope with that. You also talk about, quite often, how you would just be wrecked emotionally if your view of the world was too strongly challenged. If someone contradicts it, even just to give another view, or to even talk about proveable facts, you get really upset and believe your view is being attacked. You can't allow yourself anything outside of a certain viewpoint to be listened to because it might contradict your worldview and you'd be left drift less. That's an inability to function like most people, or to relate yourself to the world at large. By saying that you could never stop believing X because you'd be too upset to function (even if X could be shown to be wrong or what have you), you're outright saying you have a hard time relating yourself o the world and to others. These are classic symptoms, and create problems for you (and others with the disorder) to function indepently and in the world at large. Yes, it is who you are, but acknowledging the disorder aspect isn't insulting. In fact, it's usually a good way at embracing it fully and finding ways to overcome the difficulties it might create for those with it. For example, addictions can be a disorder as well. And often times it's part of who a person is (genetic predispositions). But it's something a person has to admit to before they can seek help at overcoming the issues that it creates for them. Not that various addictions and Asperger's are in the same boat of effects (addictions tend to be destructive, etc), but there is a similarity in coming to terms with it.
|
|
|
Post by Dju on Oct 24, 2011 13:22:53 GMT -5
The only ability I lack is the ability to not feel like less of a person by being labeled this way. "Disability" makes me think I'm just another statistic, not a person. In fact, I would say, myself, that I relate to this world better than most people. (I'm not trying to offend any of you, these are only my experiences) I feel love flowing from the world itself to me and vice versa. Pleas don't call me delusional. It just so happens that I empathize with the planet as if it were a living thing (to me, it is a living thing). Sae, you may not like to hear it, but you're displaying the reasons why this is considered a disorder even while arguing against the classification. For example, you're getting upset at the term. To you, it's just who you are and nothing more. It's part of you. That's a good way at taking a personal view of the situation and not letting it define you. But not letting it define who you are is different than acknowledging it as a disorder or disability. No one is attempting to make you a statistic. You're also not the only person here that has it, and a lot of them except the same classification and use it to help their own understanding of matters. But see, while you're trying to convince and show why it's not a disorder and just part of your personality, what you're showing is that you don't see things the same way as the rest of the world. The rest of the world classifies it as a disorder and that's just a common view (and calling it that doesn't mean that it's dehumanizing--just a clinical definition the same way that someone with the flu has an illness and is sick doesn't demean them). But you can't relate yourself or your views to that. Let's think about past debates. You've had a hard time participating in debates as you often get very upset by topics or what has been said by people on a matter. You have a hard time communicating in those situations and relating yourself to the context and what's happening. It gets to you in ways that it doesn't get to others and sometimes you can't cope with that. You also talk about, quite often, how you would just be wrecked emotionally if your view of the world was too strongly challenged. If someone contradicts it, even just to give another view, or to even talk about proveable facts, you get really upset and believe your view is being attacked. You can't allow yourself anything outside of a certain viewpoint to be listened to because it might contradict your worldview and you'd be left drift less. That's an inability to function like most people, or to relate yourself to the world at large. By saying that you could never stop believing X because you'd be too upset to function (even if X could be shown to be wrong or what have you), you're outright saying you have a hard time relating yourself o the world and to others. These are classic symptoms, and create problems for you (and others with the disorder) to function indepently and in the world at large. Yes, it is who you are, but acknowledging the disorder aspect isn't insulting. In fact, it's usually a good way at embracing it fully and finding ways to overcome the difficulties it might create for those with it. For example, addictions can be a disorder as well. And often times it's part of who a person is (genetic predispositions). But it's something a person has to admit to before they can seek help at overcoming the issues that it creates for them. Not that various addictions and Asperger's are in the same boat of effects (addictions tend to be destructive, etc), but there is a similarity in coming to terms with it. You said everything! Wise Stal, wise indeed!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2011 13:58:38 GMT -5
I would like to make a general advice to everyone, not to make make your own case stand out if you do not like people to weave it into the debate. But also that this topic should steer back on the general track instead of getting personal.
As for my opinion on the matter, I choose to see it simply as it is: If you have a lack of ability, you are disabled. I know the stigma that can follow in the wake of such a term, but it is the term never the less. And I know a lot of disabled people who have done and achieved a lot more than your average Joe. So people who have disabilities... be proud of what you can, despite it all. And yes, I also see severe depression, anxiety, aspergers and other mental conditions as disabilities. I have a case of OCD. It's been my own disability since I was a child. I've learned to live with it, but not without dragging a low self-esteem behind me. I have learned to control it more, but I doubt it will ever truly disappear.
|
|
|
Post by Gelquie on Oct 24, 2011 14:15:02 GMT -5
Working on a counter-point, I can see why the word "disability" can be offensive. It describes something honest by law (well, unless there's misdiagnoses), but it automatically labels someone as "not able to do things as well". And to be honest, that's not very inspiring, even with all the "overcoming the odds" stories. Combined with the frustrations of dealing with the disability, whether you know you have it or not... Can't be the best of times.
But as for changing the stigma attached to the word? ...I have no idea. The word itself blatantly says that you're not able to do something as well as everyone else. Even if it's just a case of one person vs normality.
Not to say we shouldn't have honesty in the world, but unless something changes, someone's always going to see the world as offensive.
--
And I want to back up Leoness' standpoint on trying not to take this discussion too personally. May be best to try to keep this general and to not use self-examples too much if you're sensitive. Everyone's different, after all, and the same goes with opinions on this matter.
(I know I was sensitive to the term and the topic in the past. Maybe I still do to a degree. But it really does help to try to keep the topic general so that issues you're having trouble with aren't forced into the limelight, but it still allows you to have a discussion about it. (Being honest with oneself also helps with the sensitivity thing too.))
|
|