4 ms·

The tone is a bit dramatic, but the criticism isn’t. I bet the doctor doesn’t refer to a race as “they” along with a singular characteristic. Why would a disab

The tone is a bit dramatic, but the criticism isn’t. I bet the doctor doesn’t refer to a race as “they” along with a singular characteristic. Why would a disability be different? It’s the same as when people expect all people on the spectrum to be savants.

nate_meurer 8y ago
We need to talk about groups of people all the time. Yes, even racial groups, e.g., "Black American males have higher rates of heart disease than their white counterparts" That black American males are a "they" in this sentence is an unavoidable feature of the language. How are we supposed to make statements like these without being accused of othering? Would you feel differently if the doctor had said something like, "They have high rates of happiness"? How is that different?
- GordonS 8y ago
  > We need to talk about groups of people all the time. Yes, even racial groups Of course, but you wouldn't make ludicrous statements like "all black people are good at dancing", or "all black people are fast runners" - so why would it be OK to say that "Down's people are happy"? Nobody is claiming we can't talk about people with Down's, or other disabilities, as a group - but we can do it without predujice and discrimination.
  - anextomp 8y ago
    It's fairly clear that the doctor did not mean that all people with Down's syndrome are happy. When talking about large groups in that manner, the average is implied. "The dutch are tall" does not mean that all dutch people are tall, but that on average they are taller than ourselves. Yes, talking about large groups of people can devolve into prejudice and discrimination, but in this case we're dealing with a group of people who are substantially, physically different. It is rational to point out the impacts of those differences.
    - GordonS 8y ago
      > It's fairly clear that the doctor did not mean that all people with Down's syndrome are happy > When talking about large groups in that manner, the average is implied. No, this is actually a well-ingrained stereotype, and I've heard exactly the same words from dozens of people (including those in the medical profession) - it seems fairly clear that the doctor was indeed stereotyping. > "The dutch are tall" does not mean that all dutch people are tall, but that on average they are taller than ourselves. > in this case we're dealing with a group of people who are substantially, physically different. It is rational to point out the impacts of those differences. I'm sorry, but this is utterly absurd - you are talking about things that are factual; it is not a fact that people with Down's Syndrome are happier than other groups, neither do related physical differences (facial features, hypotonia, heart problems, whatever) them happy.
      - nate_meurer 8y ago
        > it is not a fact that people with Down's Syndrome are happier than other groups. This is a odd thing to assert so forcefully. Have you seen any studies supporting this? FWIW, [1] is a survey indicating that the Down's syndrome population (in America anyway) might be endowed with fantastically high levels of happiness, satisfaction, and self esteem. Here's a quote: Nearly 99% of people with Down syndrome indicated that they were happy with their lives; 97% liked who they are; and 96% liked how they look. Nearly 99% people with Down syndrome expressed love for their families, and 97% liked their brothers and sisters. While 86% of people with Down syndrome felt they could make friends easily, those with difficulties mostly had isolating living situations. A small percentage expressed sadness about their life. Call me crazy, but I suspect these numbers are far higher than what you'd get from a non-Downs population. It certainly seems like a reasonable and innocent bit of cheer for a doctor to offer to a new dad. 1 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3740159/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3740159/
        GordonS 8y ago
        From the paper you linked to: > Our results are also limited by the lack of diversity of our respondents, who did not include many black/African Americans, Asian, American Indian, or Alaska Native Americans > The results from the parent/guardian respondents (published separately) also showed that their median gross household income of $100,000 was significantly higher than the national median gross household income of $49,777 So, they surveyed people from affluent, white, American families - I suspect the numbers from this group would be rather high regardless of DS. > It certainly seems like a reasonable and innocent bit of cheer for a doctor to offer to a new dad I get where you're coming from with this, I do - the doctor wanted to offer some comfort to the father; but positive stereotypes are not helpful, and a doctor should know better. IMO, the doctor should have educated, rather than patronised (however well-meant) - for example, he could have explained how incredibly better outcomes are for those with DS nowadays. I think a comparison of this type of view to the 'casual racism' of the 70's is valid, where people think it's OK to think and say these kind of things, not necessarily out of malice, but simply out of ignorance.
  - aaron695 8y ago
    It's fake outrage. One sentence, by one doctor at a time the father could not possible remember correctly exactly what was said. And the reason blacks are faster runners and whites are faster swimmer is because they have a different center of mass, possibly.

nate_meurer 8y ago

We need to talk about groups of people all the time. Yes, even racial groups, e.g., "Black American males have higher rates of heart disease than their white counterparts" That black American males are a "they" in this sentence is an unavoidable feature of the language. How are we supposed to make statements like these without being accused of othering? Would you feel differently if the doctor had said something like, "They have high rates of happiness"? How is that different?

GordonS 8y ago
> We need to talk about groups of people all the time. Yes, even racial groups Of course, but you wouldn't make ludicrous statements like "all black people are good at dancing", or "all black people are fast runners" - so why would it be OK to say that "Down's people are happy"? Nobody is claiming we can't talk about people with Down's, or other disabilities, as a group - but we can do it without predujice and discrimination.
- anextomp 8y ago
  It's fairly clear that the doctor did not mean that all people with Down's syndrome are happy. When talking about large groups in that manner, the average is implied. "The dutch are tall" does not mean that all dutch people are tall, but that on average they are taller than ourselves. Yes, talking about large groups of people can devolve into prejudice and discrimination, but in this case we're dealing with a group of people who are substantially, physically different. It is rational to point out the impacts of those differences.
  - GordonS 8y ago
    > It's fairly clear that the doctor did not mean that all people with Down's syndrome are happy > When talking about large groups in that manner, the average is implied. No, this is actually a well-ingrained stereotype, and I've heard exactly the same words from dozens of people (including those in the medical profession) - it seems fairly clear that the doctor was indeed stereotyping. > "The dutch are tall" does not mean that all dutch people are tall, but that on average they are taller than ourselves. > in this case we're dealing with a group of people who are substantially, physically different. It is rational to point out the impacts of those differences. I'm sorry, but this is utterly absurd - you are talking about things that are factual; it is not a fact that people with Down's Syndrome are happier than other groups, neither do related physical differences (facial features, hypotonia, heart problems, whatever) them happy.
    - nate_meurer 8y ago
      > it is not a fact that people with Down's Syndrome are happier than other groups. This is a odd thing to assert so forcefully. Have you seen any studies supporting this? FWIW, [1] is a survey indicating that the Down's syndrome population (in America anyway) might be endowed with fantastically high levels of happiness, satisfaction, and self esteem. Here's a quote: Nearly 99% of people with Down syndrome indicated that they were happy with their lives; 97% liked who they are; and 96% liked how they look. Nearly 99% people with Down syndrome expressed love for their families, and 97% liked their brothers and sisters. While 86% of people with Down syndrome felt they could make friends easily, those with difficulties mostly had isolating living situations. A small percentage expressed sadness about their life. Call me crazy, but I suspect these numbers are far higher than what you'd get from a non-Downs population. It certainly seems like a reasonable and innocent bit of cheer for a doctor to offer to a new dad. 1 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3740159/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3740159/
      - GordonS 8y ago
        From the paper you linked to: > Our results are also limited by the lack of diversity of our respondents, who did not include many black/African Americans, Asian, American Indian, or Alaska Native Americans > The results from the parent/guardian respondents (published separately) also showed that their median gross household income of $100,000 was significantly higher than the national median gross household income of $49,777 So, they surveyed people from affluent, white, American families - I suspect the numbers from this group would be rather high regardless of DS. > It certainly seems like a reasonable and innocent bit of cheer for a doctor to offer to a new dad I get where you're coming from with this, I do - the doctor wanted to offer some comfort to the father; but positive stereotypes are not helpful, and a doctor should know better. IMO, the doctor should have educated, rather than patronised (however well-meant) - for example, he could have explained how incredibly better outcomes are for those with DS nowadays. I think a comparison of this type of view to the 'casual racism' of the 70's is valid, where people think it's OK to think and say these kind of things, not necessarily out of malice, but simply out of ignorance.
- aaron695 8y ago
  It's fake outrage. One sentence, by one doctor at a time the father could not possible remember correctly exactly what was said. And the reason blacks are faster runners and whites are faster swimmer is because they have a different center of mass, possibly.