i worked in mobility devices for a long time and this is a common theme among differently able people. lots of companies will fight tooth and nail to avoid paying for things like wheelchairs because they are visibly 'gimpy' whereas they will spend thousands more for prosthetics and other things that make people look "normal".
not a dig on you, just pointing out a common viewpoint.
I'm not sure what you think you're correcting, but it sounds like you're missing the point of the comment you're replying to and pithily (and unsuccessfully) trying to make an unrelated point yourself.
Perhaps use more words so we know what point are you actually trying to make? Perhaps why you consider a term that is common and accepted by the community is not acceptable to you?
I have, often. Might be that in other countries the terms are more flexible.
At any rate, this was better: Be clear if you want to be understood. You assume a term is universal so you correct it when it’s not used in the way you’re familiar with. It’s clear to you but not to others.
The people I interact with from the disability community / the content I consume from
The disability community are from a lot of different countries, so no. And ironically I can’t type very long bc disability.
You don't have to type long. Just to be succint. No context ends up wasting your time, since it will be ignored.
As for your interactions with disability communities, I'm not questioning them, yet I can tell you terms are not universal across cultures and languages. They can probably confirm that too, although it the main language is English it's likely they'll tend to adjust the concepts to the discussion and use the common language.
As before, not attacking nor complaining. Just clarifying.
Your original request asked to turn a specific term referring to different types of abilities (not of "disability" as an umbrella term) into a generic one, which would've lost its meaning and context.
no. like i said, i worked in mobility devices for a long time. implying these kids are disabled is an insult to them. my job was to find ways to adapt their abilities in a manner that least hindered them.
take, for example, your inability to type for very long (as you stated in your arguments below). it's not a DISABILITY as there are adaptive technologies you could use that would enable you to input characters some other way. when we find it, you're no longer limited and therefore no LONGER disabled. hell, you could probably "type" longer than most folks with those technologies.
what i'm talking about is adaptability (exactly what the lady in the video is expressing. she is literally telling you how she's not disabled). people who don't make it their personalities are differently abled.
I understand the reasoning, but is it up to non disabled /differently abled people to put that label on someone who is?
Like, looking at someone who has something like this and saying 'oh you're fine it just takes you longer to tie your shoes' but maybe they have more challenges we don't know about and they wouldn't consider it merely a hindrance. Like if someone had no limbs.
Idk, are you supposed to ask them what description they prefer this trait to be called?
Haven't spent much time around a variety of differently abled people so I don't know what the polite protocol is.
Or is 'differently abled' just the correct terminology that encompasses all people who would normally be called 'disabled'.
I understand the issues with being labeled as disabled off the bat, but I'm also wondering if blanket calling them differently abled is somewhat dismissing the struggles they may face.
Disabilities (I don't know what the correct term to call it is) come in all forms and some may not be directly visible.
I know you mean well, but I kinda hate how we jump to the assumption that a deformity requires some kind of prosthetic. She's already taken to painting her nails and is comfortable with what functions her natural hand has. How much of this reaction is rooted in our personal discomfort vs actual concern for her quality of life? See, for example, the Krukenberg procedure.
The prosthetic is not merely for visual effect, a prosthetic could grip, twist, and hold onto things. Society and it's conveniences are made, for lack of a better term, for able bodied inputs. Having the ability to do those things with a 2nd hand is undeniably a positive.
We've made tremendous strides in accessibility in the US, but still it's undeniable 2 hands are better than 1.
As for being comfortable with it, she seems very comfortable with it. But confidence changes day by day and sometimes it's easier to just have a prosthetic than deal with people's stares, looks of pity, or children pointing and saying something that could be hurtful.
I don't know her so im not going to lie and say I'm legitimately concerned about her daily challenges without a prosthesis, but at the same time I care more about her well being than I cared about her covering up her hand bc it made me uncomfortable.
A prosthetic is no more a crutch than prescription eyeglasses to someone with poor vision. It's not something to be ashamed of.
Her two fingers, one has decent function and mobility, the straight one, and the other has some usability. Which means tactile feedback and speed superior to any prosthetic. There would be advantages to a prosthetic, but it's not clear if it would be an improvement overall in day to day life - there are also downsides, like costs, time putting on and off, wear and tear on the body (inevitably there are issues around this), and training time.
I find prosthetics very interesting and especially at the innovations were seeing in them I wouldn't doubt they could be made to be a total net positive here.
14
u/jim9162 5d ago
Since she has tactile control of her appendages I wonder if a prosthetic arm of sorts has been tried.
She theoretically could control grip and articulation since she has the ability to input.