4 ms·
One thing I would respectfully suggest here is to use language like 'atypical' rather than 'abnormal', as it avoids some of the unpleasant subtext of the latter
by crooked-v 6y ago
One thing I would respectfully suggest here is to use language like 'atypical' rather than 'abnormal', as it avoids some of the unpleasant subtext of the latter word. (At least so far - the euphemism treadmill makes for an unending race, but it's still worth putting in the effort.)
- odessacubbage 6y agomaybe it's an overly optimistic hill to die on but imo, the best thing we could do for divergent people is to normalize abnormality rather than codify softer language to avoid describing it as abnormal or creating 32 new checkboxes of 'normal'
- gowld 6y agoYou mean eliminate "abnormality" and "divergence" as a concept? Yes. Better to focus on needs difficulties and abilities, not irrelevant comparisons to population averages. And better to treat differences as something to accept appreciate, and not arbitrarily idealize the median. "Normality" is a factor in estimating public health costs, not relevant to individual care.
- notsureaboutpg 6y agoI am fluent in English and yet this doesn't make any sense to me. What is the unpleasant subtext of abnormal that is not found in atypical. If you are atypical you deviate from what is typical, aka the vast majority of cases. If you are abnormal you deviate from what is normal, aka the vast majority of cases. What's the difference?