Hrm. I have a question (speaking as someone with Asperger's who does identify as disabled): do you think anyone is "disabled"?
This isn't rhetorical -- I'm not clear from your post whether you feel it's an unhelpful term to apply to anyone, or whether you feel that there are disabled people*, but that Jackson doesn't fall into that category.
Dis- is a prefix implying negation or lack, and believe me, this boy has no lack of ability. Strengths and weaknesses, definitely. But he’s not unable to function.
The thing is, that's true of all the disabled people I've ever met, including people with unambiguous "disabilities" like needing to use wheelchairs, and people with severe autism who are considered "low-functioning" (but who can be smart and playful and passionate and all sorts of other fine things).
No-one's an inert entity who doesn't have any kind of positive quality or ability, you know?
I understand if you feel his issues are mild enough that you'd rather not call him "disabled", but IMHO it's important not to inadvertently stumble into saying "he goes to school, he has friends, he reads, he is generally awesome, therefore he can't be disabled because disabled people can't do any of those things."
Apologies if this is offensive or crossing appropriate boundaries, but it made me go hrm and feel uncomfortable and I wanted to explain why.
{Contextual note: I'm in the UK, where people often use "disabled person" where North Americans would use "person with disabilities." Some people prefer it as an allusion to the social model of disability, where someone is "disabled" not by their individual limitations but by whether or not society accommodates those limitations.}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-06-13 07:48 pm (UTC)This isn't rhetorical -- I'm not clear from your post whether you feel it's an unhelpful term to apply to anyone, or whether you feel that there are disabled people*, but that Jackson doesn't fall into that category.
Dis- is a prefix implying negation or lack, and believe me, this boy has no lack of ability. Strengths and weaknesses, definitely. But he’s not unable to function.
The thing is, that's true of all the disabled people I've ever met, including people with unambiguous "disabilities" like needing to use wheelchairs, and people with severe autism who are considered "low-functioning" (but who can be smart and playful and passionate and all sorts of other fine things).
No-one's an inert entity who doesn't have any kind of positive quality or ability, you know?
I understand if you feel his issues are mild enough that you'd rather not call him "disabled", but IMHO it's important not to inadvertently stumble into saying "he goes to school, he has friends, he reads, he is generally awesome, therefore he can't be disabled
because disabled people can't do any of those things."Apologies if this is offensive or crossing appropriate boundaries, but it made me go hrm and feel uncomfortable and I wanted to explain why.
{Contextual note: I'm in the UK, where people often use "disabled person" where North Americans would use "person with disabilities." Some people prefer it as an allusion to the social model of disability, where someone is "disabled" not by their individual limitations but by whether or not society accommodates those limitations.}