> After genetic testing confirmed the diagnosis, one doctor assured us that “they’re such happy people.” They. Them. Those people.
Damn, give the doctor a break. There appears to be no way to talk about people with Down's syndrome as a group without offending this guy's rules.
How is it acceptable in any way to make sweeping statements like that?
> There appears to be no way to talk about people with Down's syndrome as a group without offending this guy's rule
Yes there is - talk about people with Down's syndrome as you would about people. It's also perfectly possible to talk about the often related physical/health/mental conditions that affected people with Down's without making 60's throwbacks such as saying "they are all happy".
It feels like we've come forward leaps and bound on racial equality, but it honestly still feels like a lot people treat those with disabilities as an invisible subclass of inhuman monsters.
Disclaimer: I'm the father of a daughter with Down's
Leaping to judge someone’s entire mental landscape by comparison to racism, based on a single statement and possibly poor choice of words is so harsh as to be without value.
That's not the issue. The issue is thinking it's OK to make ludicrous, stereotypically comments about a huge group of people.
> Leaping to judge someone’s entire mental landscape by comparison to racism, based on a single statement and possibly poor choice of words is so harsh as to be without value.
I wholeheartedly disagree.
While my comment was in reply to a stereotyping comment, it was aimed at the wider group of people who still today spout such nonsense - I should have made that clearer tho. In particular, the doctor in the OP is a doctor, and should know better than to say such ridiculous things.
I also think the comparison to racism is valid. Many of the discriminating comments against those with disabilities are made out of ignorance. We've come a long way legislating and educating people about race, and it's made an incredible difference (at least in the UK; I realise the situation in the US is complex to say the least), and I think it's high time people stopping thinking it was OK to make comments like "all Down's are happy".
So, dare I ask, how should our apocryphal doctor rephrase his encouragement so as to not run afoul of these rules against sweeping or outdated expressions?
From the article:
"they’re such happy people."
So no, I'm absolutely not twisting anything - this statement cannot be interpreted as anything other than stereotyping. He obviously meant well, but the fact he would say this shows his own ignorance of people with Down's Syndrome.
This isn't just about my life experiences, it's about the rights of people with disabilities.
The way I see it, you are twisting my offence at your words, in an attempt to justify your discrimination (perhaps to yourself).
The real risk to you is that you end up alienating people who are otherwise completely on your side (and your daughter's side), and whose help or support you (and she) may benefit from. For no good reason.
I notice you didn't answer my question.
Not directly no: 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. (another posted here commented on this too).
> The real risk to you is that you end up alienating people who are otherwise completely on your side (and your daughter's side), and whose help or support you (and she) may benefit from. For no good reason.
So, I am normally careful not to do this, and favour educating people over attacking them, precisely because they mean no malice with the stereotypes they help to enforce. Before I became a father, I knew little of DS, or indeed the lives of those with disabilities, and undoubtedly harboured some of the same stereotypes, simply out of ignorance.
I may have let my emotions run away a bit in this thread (sorry, it's been a difficult week...), but I still believe we need to stop thinking it's OK to to enforce false stereotypes of large groups of people. We've made huge progress on gender equality, racial equality, religious equality, sexual equality and gender identity - I think it's time we did some of the same for the rights of people with disabilities.
This is a difficult problem to solve, but I believe a good start would be to better integrate children with disabilities into mainstream schooling. Of course, there are some children that are not going to thrive in mainstream education, and better prosper in a specialised setting - but there is a large group who can thrive in mainstream education with only a minimum of accomodations being made. This would help to make those with disabilities less invisible, and typical kids would learn from a very young age that we are all just people, and not so different.
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.
"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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
> 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.