“Special Needs”

[Divitalia]

Do you think it’s alright to refer to people with a disability as “special needs?” I personally disagree with the term because it ostracizes those people more than if one was to simply explain their disability, and labels them.

I’d love to see other people’s opinions and reasoning on this.

[Alvecia]

Depends on the context I suppose.

Saying "That person has special needs" is more a statement of fact than an insult, because due to their disability they literally do have special needs.
Similarly, something like "that group of special needs" could also just be refering directly to the extra needs they require as people with disabilities.

[Ifreann]

I don't see anything wrong with it.

[The First German Order]

I personally think that it’s fine. I mean, when it comes to mental disabilities, someone has severe Autism for example, they’d most likely need something that someone without Autism wouldn’t need, like extra care or meds. When it comes to physical disabilities, if someone has broken legs they’d need a wheelchair or crutches. The term “special needs” makes sense.

[Soleanna]

It's generally okay with denoting them as "Special Needs", although some tend to take that into offense. A rephrase of the term, in some degree of context wouldn't hurt to remove the negativity.

[Purpelia]

I honestly and truly believe with all my heart that it is newer acceptable to have stupid discussions like this about what words you are supposed to use or not use to refer to people. It's just stupid.

[Dogmeat]

Pointless. Any term you use will eventually take on a negative connotation.

[Divitalia]

I honestly and truly believe with all my heart that it is newer acceptable to have stupid discussions like this about what words you are supposed to use or not use to refer to people. It's just stupid.

Why is this?

[Valrifell]

Pointless. Any term you use will eventually take on a negative connotation.

This is very true when talking about those with special needs.

Idiot, moron, and retard were once medically defined and used terms, and the Internet has gone on a spout within the last few years in using "autistic" as an insult. Any term used to describe these people will inevitably be adopted by the mainstream as an insult, no matter how creative you get.

[Ankuran]

Seems fine, context permitting. The problem's with the stigma, not the word.

[Sunstruck]

Pointless. Any term you use will eventually take on a negative connotation.

This makes sense

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Pointless. Any term you use will eventually take on a negative connotation.

And if a student uses them in a negative way, expel them. There's more place in society for individuals with special needs than there ever was for the scumbags denigrating them.

[Des-Bal]

The problem is the negative connotation and the denotation of words to describe the handicapped are the same.

When you say "gay" to mean "bad" you're using the word to mean two different things.
When you say an idea's "retarded" you're implying it sounds like something a mentally retarded person would think of. As long as there's a word that means "retarded" that word can and will be applied to both situations.

Referring to someone as special needs is as inoffensive as any adequately descriptive word can be.

[Hammer Britannia]

Context Matters, usually yes it's ok

[The New California Republic]

It is becoming common for people to say "additional needs" rather than "special needs", at least here in the UK.

[Kramanica]

Pointless. Any term you use will eventually take on a negative connotation.

This is very true when talking about those with special needs.

Idiot, moron, and retard were once medically defined and used terms, and the Internet has gone on a spout within the last few years in using "autistic" as an insult. Any term used to describe these people will inevitably be adopted by the mainstream as an insult, no matter how creative you get.

This is very true. Switching up words is a pointless endeavour.

[Purpelia]

I honestly and truly believe with all my heart that it is newer acceptable to have stupid discussions like this about what words you are supposed to use or not use to refer to people. It's just stupid.

Why is this?

For many reasons. But if I had to single one out for the purpose of this discussion I think I'd go with the most obvious and egregious one.

It's plain stupid.

People are unique. If you pick any group of people, irregardless of your selection criteria you are very likely to find the members of said group to have less in common than they have different. Assuming you don't deliberately cheat to generate extreme niche examples. This is just the inevitable consequence of the fact that the human condition is so extremely complicated.

I don't even have to prove this to you. It's self evident.

And yet what discussions like this one do is directly ignore that self evident fact of reality and base their entire premise on the exact opposite. And they do so with a hand so heavy it would put the incredible Hulk to shame.
Not only do they start from the demonstratively false assumption that if you select any one category of the human condition and just pick people that belong to that category ignoring all other factors they will be sufficiently similar. But they concentrate on only one category at a time. And typically one so broad that it's essentially meaningless.

And at that point it does not matter if you are talking mental health, religion, disabilities, race, gender or what ever else you dream to think off. You are newer going to get any meaningful results because by self evident truth you are trying to shove all sorts of crazy odd shaped pegs into your neat round hole.


The only thing you are really going to achieve is exactly what you are trying to avoid. That being objectifying that entire group of people and treating them like they are all just instances of the same stereotype you think describes them. I mean, just think about this. You are starting a discussion on how not to insult a group of people with the words "All of you types don't like being called X".

---

Seriously. The answer to the OP is simple.
Treat them as individuals. Call them how ever you like. And if you run into one that is personally offended by how you call them respect that individual and call him personally something else.

But don't try and create rules for right and wrong language. Because it's stupid.

[Des-Bal]

It is becoming common for people to say "additional needs" rather than "special needs", at least here in the UK.

A group of people are standing in the snow. They notice, and are bothered by all the footprints muddling up their surroundings. They walk somewhere with no footprints and they're happy. After they get there, they notice, and are bothered by all the footprints muddling up their surroundings...

There is a binary here, either people haven't adopted the word or the word has developed a negative connotation.

[The New California Republic]

It is becoming common for people to say "additional needs" rather than "special needs", at least here in the UK.

A group of people are standing in the snow. They notice, and are bothered by all the footprints muddling up their surroundings. They walk somewhere with no footprints and they're happy. After they get there, they notice, and are bothered by all the footprints muddling up their surroundings...

There is a binary here, either people haven't adopted the word or the word has developed a negative connotation.

Don't worry, I am not defending it, I think it is absurd.

[Dytarma]

I mean, I always had an idea that if they wan to be equal, they're needs to be no special needs by name, or everyone' special needs by name.

[Des-Bal]

I mean, I always had an idea that if they wan to be equal, they're needs to be no special needs by name, or everyone' special needs by name.

Equality is a desirable thing but it is not a fundamental truth. A person in a wheelchair is not equal to someone who is not, they need an extra thing to function that would not be particularly useful to a person who did not have their handicap. Removing our ability to talk about a group of people doesn't make us more tolerant just less efficient.

[Cekoviu]

It's obfuscatory and makes far less sense than "disabled" or even "neurodiverse"/"physically atypical." That's the way the euphemism treadmill works, though. It'll be replaced by something else soon enough. We'll have to start taking words from other languages soon, you нохой.

[Trumptonium1]

Pointless. Any term you use will eventually take on a negative connotation.

This is very true when talking about those with special needs.

Idiot, moron, and retard were once medically defined and used terms, and the Internet has gone on a spout within the last few years in using "autistic" as an insult. Any term used to describe these people will inevitably be adopted by the mainstream as an insult, no matter how creative you get.

pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is unlikely to catch on among internet insults

[Valrifell]

This is very true when talking about those with special needs.

Idiot, moron, and retard were once medically defined and used terms, and the Internet has gone on a spout within the last few years in using "autistic" as an insult. Any term used to describe these people will inevitably be adopted by the mainstream as an insult, no matter how creative you get.

pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis is unlikely to catch on among internet insults

That's what you think

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm not sure how it could be offensive. People with disabilities do need certain forms of help in life that can be referred to as "special needs."