
English: 
Hello lovely people,
Welcome back to a new video, I’ve missed
you while I was on holiday- but it did give
me an idea for a new video so… let’s talk
about why the word ‘special’ is problematic!
We could also talk about why the word ‘problematic’
is ‘problematic’
but that’s for another day.
In the meantime, if you’re new here remember
to click the subscribe button and if you’re
not new still check that the bell notification
is switched on to be notified when I release
new videos.
Also, exciting news, this Friday is International
Day against Homophobia, Biphobia and Transphobia
and to celebrate I’ll be bringing back the
‘Because: Gay’ merch by popular demand!
I know some of you weren’t able to pick
up anything when it was available last time
so I’m going to keep it going until after
Pride season.
But today we’re talking about my other marginalised
identity!
[ding]
Spoiler: the title is ironic
Whenever I travel by air I use something called
‘special assistance’: in the EU if you’re
a passenger with a disability or reduced mobility
you are legally entitled to support when travelling,

English: 
Hello, lovely people! Welcome back to a new video!
I've missed you while I was on holiday, but it did give me an idea for a new video.
So let's talk about why the word "special" is problematic.
You should probably also talk about why the word problematic is problematic, but that's for another day.
In the meantime, if you're new here remember to please click the subscribe button,
and if you're not new, still check that the bell notification is actually switched on
to be notified when I post new videos.
Also, exciting news, this Friday is International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia,
and Transphobia, and to celebrate
I will be bringing back the "Because Gay" merch by popular demand!
I know some of you weren't able to pick up anything when it was available last time,
so I'm going to keep it going until after Pride season. But today we are going to be talking about my other
marginalized identity!
Spoiler: the title is ironic. Whenever I travel by air, I use something called
"Special Assistance." In the EU, if you're a passenger with a disability or reduced mobility

English: 
for free!
You don’t have to be disabled,
lots of older people use it or people who
have issues with interaction and 
communicating with the general public.
If you can’t walk far they’ll bring a
wheelchair, if you can’t hear well they
will provide either a little device that flashes
when an announcement about your plane goes
out or they’ll have a person to help guide
you around.
It’s amazingly helpful and means you have
a less stressful journey.
It’s part of EU law but similar passenger
rights apply in other countries including
the United States. However… we did have
some troubles with it while we were flying
between countries in Asia as they either didn’t
have the service or wanted a fee or needed
some kind of verification of disability which…
They don’t give you a badge when you get
diagnosed! My doctor didn’t staple a letter
to my forehead!
It made me think about the word ‘special’
though- particularly the term ‘special needs’.
I'm gonna do a lot of air quoting and I'm really sorry about that.
Is a phrase that a lot of disabled people
take issue with. Think about it:

English: 
you are legally entitled to support when traveling for free. You don't have to be disabled
lots of older people use it, or people who have issues
interacting and communicating with the general public. If you can't walk far, they'll bring you a wheelchair.
If you can't hear well, they'll provide either a little device that flashes when an announcement about your plane goes out,
or they'll have a person to help guide you around.
It's really amazingly helpful, and it means you'll have a less stressful journey.
It's part of EU law, but similar passenger rights apply in other countries that I have been to, including the United States.
However,
we did have some troubles with it while we were flying between countries in Asia, as they either
didn't have the service, or wanted a fee, or needed some kind of verification of disability,
which... no! They don't give you a badge when you get diagnosed. My doctor didn't staple a letter to my forehead
It made me think about the word "special," though, particularly the term "special needs."
I'm going to do a lot of air quoting and I'm really sorry about that.
It's a phrase that a lot of disabled people take issue with. Think about it: when I say

English: 
When I say ‘special needs student’ we
tend to think of a child with a disability.
When I say ‘special needs teacher’ we
tend to think of an adult who teaches children
with disabilities. Rather than
a disabled teacher.
“Special Kids find Special Parents” is
the same thing- the idea that you need to
be a superhuman to care for a person with
a disability
is… uh… is… not great.
People say my wife is ‘special’ for looking
loving a disabled person as if that’s something
that 99.9% of humanity just wouldn’t be
able to do.
Thanks(!) That’s a real ego boost(!)
When we think about it, ‘special’ is a
very othering word in any sense. To say that
a person has ‘special needs’ implies that
you have to go above and beyond for them-
that they’re just as much bother as a celebrity
guest who requests you pick out all the green
sweets, provide a basket of puppies and sprinkle
glitter in their path.
okay, that actually sounds amazing!
Please do that for me.
Thanks
But ‘special’ might just reveal a rather
tragic view of people who have disabilities…

English: 
"special needs student," we tend to think of a child with a disability. When I say
"special needs teacher," we tend to think of an adult who teaches children with disabilities, rather than a disabled teacher.
"Special kids find special parents" is the same thing: the idea that you need to be a
amazing superhuman to care for a person with a disability.
It's not great. People say my wife is special for loving a disabled person, as if that's something that
99.9% of humanity just wouldn't be able to do.
Thanks. It's a real ego boost. When we think about it, "special" is a very othering word in any sense
To say that a person has "special needs" implies that you have to go above and beyond for them,
that they're just as much bother as a
celebrity guest who requests that you pick out all the green sweets, provide a basket of puppies, and sprinkle glitter in their path.
Okay, that actually sounds amazing. Please do that for me.
But "special" might just reveal a rather tragic view of people with disabilities.

English: 
when we call someone ‘special’ we disassociate
from them as much as we do from the celebrity
- “I’m normal, and you’re special”
But unlike the celebrity:
- “not special in a good way”
Are these needs really so special though?
Is needing a ramp really any different to
the vegetarian asking for no meat on their
plate?
Well… yes. In some ways: Disabled people
did not make an active choice and they cannot
pop out to the local shop to buy a replacement.
‘Special people’ or even the ‘superhumans’
of the Paralympics advertising subtly dehumanises
those with disabilities. I’m not saying
it’s intentional but inevitably the othering
language creates a form of ranking. People
with disabilities are often seen as less valuable
than those who aren’t disabled and language
reflects that- even if that isn’t the intention.
Of course we can also see it in the way language
is used: for example speaking to a person
in a wheelchair as if they are a child.
But! Hang on!

English: 
I mean, when we call someone "special," we dissociate from them as much as we do from that celebrity.
It's just, "I'm normal, but you're special!"
I'm like, "the celebrity is not special in a good way." Are these needs really so special, though? Is needing a ramp any
different to the vegetarian asking for no meat on their plate?
Well, okay, yes. In some ways; disabled people did not make an active choice, and they cannot pop out to the [?] shop to buy
a replacement. "Special" people - or even the "superhumans" of the Paralympics - advertising subtly
dehumanizes those disabilities. And I'm not saying that it's intentional, but inevitably
authoring language creates a form of ranking. People with disabilities are often seen as less valuable
than those who aren't disabled, and language reflects that, even if that isn't the intention.
Of course, we can also see it in the way that language is used: for example, speaking to a person in a wheelchair
as if they are a child.
But hang on!

English: 
I’m the last person to say that we should
be ignoring the extra needs of people with
disabilities and pretending that we’re all
the same because we’re definitely not.
Yes, we say a child has “special needs”
because they are not the same things that
every child will face and yes the intention
is to be kind but we need to reconsider how
we’re classifying things.
And boy does ‘classifying’ never sound
good when it’s in the context of people!
Language is deeply, deeply confusing, I get
it. I mean, you may be yelling “am I even
allowed to say ‘disabled person’ anymore?”
Or “Why is ‘person with a disability’
offensive? What am I meant to say?!”
Again: minefield.
Yes, ‘disabled people’ is considered offensive
to some, who prefer ‘person with a disability’,
but some prefer it, along with ‘the disabled’-
which to my mind is completely different and
also: awful. ‘The [identity]’ never sounds
good. Oh sure, we reclaimed ‘the gays’
thanks to irony but ‘the blacks’ is…
no, no, no, no… don’t do that.
That's never coming back.

English: 
I am the last person to say that we should be ignoring the extra needs of people with disabilities, and pretending that we're all
the same! Because... we're definitely not.
Yes, we say a child has "special needs" because they are not the same things that every child will face.
And yes, the intention is to be kind. But we need to reconsider how we're classifying things.
Why does "classify" never sound good when it's in the context of people? Look, language is deeply deeply confusing. I get it.
I mean, you may be yelling "Am I even allowed to say 'disabled person' anymore?"
or "Why is 'person with a disability' offensive? What am I meant to say?"
Again, it's a minefield, and yes, "disabled people" is considered offensive to some, who prefer "person with a disability."
But some prefer it along with "the disabled," which, to my mind, is completely different and also *awful.*
"The [identity]" never sounds good. Oh, sure, we reclaimed "the gays," thanks to irony,
but "the blacks?" No, no, no, no, no, don't do that!
No.
That's never coming back.

English: 
The main argument when it comes to terminology around disability centers on identity-first versus person-first language.
Quick explainer: Identity-first language is where a part of a person's identity - a descriptor - is used as a noun.
For example, "redhead" or "lesbian." this frames
This frames the identity as being an important part of who the person is.
Person-first language puts the identity or descriptor second after their personhood.
For example, "girl with red hair," or "girl who is a homosexual."
This frames the identity as being
just part of who that person is. When we're talking about these two types of language in the framework of disability,
we're discussing whether disability is something that you have, or something that is at the core of your identity.
Okay. So the last one which will come out, person-first language, is the terminology many in North America will have heard of.
Person with a disability. Person of color. Person with diabetes. Person who is homeless.
It was formed as part of a shift away from outdated terms, like handicapped or retarded.
Which, yes, is still offensive, even if you think it's funny.

English: 
The main argument when it comes to terminology
around disability centres on identity-first
versus people-first language.
Quick explainer:
IDENTITY FIRST LANGUAGE is where a part of
a person’s identity- a descriptor- is used
as a noun. For example: redhead or lesbian.
This frames the identity as being an important
part of who the person is.
PERSON FIRST LANGUAGE puts the identity or
descriptor second after their personhood.
For example: girl with red hair, girl who
is homosexual. This frames the identity as
being just part of who that person is.
When we’re talking about these two types
of language in the framework of disability
we’re discussing whether disability is something
that you have or something that is at the
core of your identity.
The later, person-first language, is the terminology
many in North America will have heard of:
‘person with a disability’, ‘person
of colour’, ‘person with diabetes’,
‘person who is homeless’. It was formed
as part of a shift away from outdated terms
like “handicapped” or “retarded.”
Which, yes, is still offensive even if you
think it’s funny.

English: 
Equally, "spaz" and "mong." Shut your face.
These older terms were once part of disability organization and government agency names, awkwardly.
For example, in 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was passed by Congress
to mandate the inclusion of disabled children in public schools.
Good thing, bad name.
In 1990, however,
it was renamed the
individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The same year, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed.
The ADA provides broad civil rights to the disability community, and mechanisms to fight discrimination
against people with disabilities. Thanks.
This prominent disability rights legislation helped to promote the change to people-first language.
It was a shift in terminology that came from the government and many North American disability organizations.
However, it was not universally liked. Disabled people do not engage in groupthink,
Or, if we do, no one's invited me yet, and I'm actually gonna be quite hurt about it.
Geography also affects the debate, as in Britain

English: 
Equally: ‘spaz’ and ‘mong’.
Shut. Your. Face.
These older terms were once part of disability
organization and government agency names.
Awkwardly.
For example, in 1975, the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act was passed by Congress
to mandate the inclusion of disabled children
in public schools.
In 1990 however it was renamed the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the
same year the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) was passed. The ADA provides broad
civil rights to the disability community and
mechanisms to fight discrimination against
people with disabilities.
Good things.
These prominent disability rights legislation
both helped promote the change to people-first
language. It was a shift in terminology that
came from the government and many North American
disability organizations.
HOWEVER it was not universally liked. Disabled
people do not engage in group-think.
...or if we do no one has invited me yet and
I’m actually going to be quite hurt about
it.

English: 
Geography also affects the debate as in Britain
our preference has always been for identity-first
language: ‘disabled person’, ‘diabetic’,
‘autistic person’. And broadening that:
‘black person’ or ‘short person’.
Obviously ‘deaf person’ is kind of it’s
own little section of this argument as ‘Deaf’
with a big D isn’t just a descriptor it’s
also a culture.
People who prefer identity-first language-
- Hi. That’s me.
- like it as they consider their disabilities
to be inseparable parts of who they are.
Many in the British Disability Studies academic
world and disability activists there say the
term people with disabilities doesn’t fit
with the social model of disability- the idea
that society’s barriers and negative attitudes
are what actually disable people.
Which is a thing I personally don’t agree
with because while, yes, there are some disabilities
that when you are alone in your house are
not necessarily disabling there are many that
are. Crippling migraines for example: I’m
not disabled by how society treats my pain,
I’m disabled by my pain.

English: 
our preference has always been for identity-first language.
Disabled person. Diabetic. Autistic person. And broadening that, "black person" or "short person." Description!
Obviously, "deaf person" is kind of its own little section of this argument, as deaf-with-a-big-D isn't just a descriptor,
it's also a culture. People who prefer identity-first language -
Hi, that's me!
- like it, as they consider their disabilities to be inseparable parts of who they are.
Many in the British disability studies academic world, and disability
activists here, say that the term "people with disabilities" doesn't fit with the social model of disability,
the idea that society's barriers and negative attitudes are what actually disable people - sidenote, it's a thing
I don't personally agree with because while, yes,
there are some disabilities that when you are alone in your house are not necessarily disabling,
there are many that are. Crippling migraines, for example; I'm not disabled by how society treats my pain. I'm disabled by my pain.

English: 
So I personally prefer terminology such as "disabled" and "deaf,"
because those are inherent parts of my identity, much like I am gay, a Quaker, or chatty.
Identity-first language is particularly popular in the autistic community,
because for many autistic people, they feel that their brain wiring is just part of who they are, rather than being a defect.
Thus, when you say "autistic person," you're actually recognizing, affirming, and validating that person's identity!
We're saying that being autistic is not in some way irreconcilable with being a valuable human being!
When someone calls me a "person with disabilities," I do cringe a bit inside.
It kind of feels like they're taking all of the bits of me that they consider to be good and putting them at the start, and then following it up with the bad bit.
[sarcastically] Don't worry, I see you for the amazing person you *really* are.
No, you don't, then.
There are obviously many other disabled people who disagree with me on this, and I am sure many of you watching will as well.

English: 
I personally prefer terminology such as ‘disabled’
and ‘deaf’ because those are inherent
parts of my identity, much like I am gay,
a Quaker or chatty.
Identity-first language is particularly popular
in the autistic community because for many
autistic people they feel that their brain
wiring is just part of who they are rather
than being a ‘defect’. Thus when you say
‘autistic person’ you’re actually recognising,
affirming and validating that person’s identity.
We’re saying that being autistic is not
in some way irreconcilable with being a valuable
human being.
When someone calls me a ‘person with disabilities’
I do cringe a bit inside. It feels to me like
they’re taking all of the bits they consider
to be ‘good’ and putting them at the start
and then following up with the ‘bad’ bit:
“Don’t worry, I see you for the amazing
person you really are.”
“Well… no. You don’t then.”
There are obviously many other disabled people
who disagree with me on this and I’m sure
many of you watching do as well but ultimately…

English: 
Ultimately, "disabled person" is, for me, an acceptance that an individual is different from a non-disabled person, but that it isn't a tragedy.
I don't want someone to be afraid or ashamed
to recognize that difference, because I don't want to put "disabled" into the "bad" or "other" category.
It isn't negative to say I'm disabled.
It's a statement of fact. Equally, acting like I'm an alien from another planet
who needs "special measures" that other people have to get out of their way to provide
doesn't exactly make me feel welcome.
So what would I like to see at the airport rather than "special assistance?"
How about just "assistance?" They're assisting me. They're not assisting the person sitting next to me on the flight. So why is mine "special?"
If you're gonna call it that, it should at least come with a free upgrade.
Please? I'm flying to LA in two weeks time. Thanks.
The debate about "disabled person," "person with disabilities," and "special needs" isn't just semantics, okay?
Language and how we use it affects those around us, both those immediately around us and our wider society.

English: 
‘Disabled person’ is an acceptance that
an individual is different from a non-disabled
person but that it isn’t a tragedy. I don’t
want someone to be afraid or ashamed to recognise
that difference because I don’t want to
put ‘disabled’ into the ‘bad’ or ‘other’
category. It isn’t negative to say I’m
disabled; it’s a statement of fact.
Equally, acting like I’m an alien from another
planet who needs ‘special’ measures that
other people have to go out of their way to
provide doesn’t exactly make me feel welcome.
What would I like to see at the airport rather
than ‘special assistance’...? How about
just ‘assistance’?
They are assisting
me. They are not assisting the person sitting
next to me on the flight. So why is mine ‘special’?
I mean, if you’re going to call it that,
it should at least come with a free upgrade!
Please
I’m flying to LA in 2 weeks time and thanks.
The debate about ‘disabled person’, ‘person
with disabilities’ and ‘special needs’
isn’t just semantics. Language and how we
use it affects those around us- both those

English: 
Language can transform ideas and attitude. It's so important!
but most importantly, the "100% needs to be taken into consideration fact"
is, however, that disabled people have different feelings on the matter, and those need to be taken into consideration.
I'm not gonna tell another disabled person how they should feel
or how they should want to be referred to. If you tell me to use person-first language when talking about you,
that's what I'm going to do. "Special" is, in a disability context, to me, pretty othering.
But if you want me to call you "special," then I am more than happy to. I mean, we're all special in our own way.
Please let's not start using "handi-capable" or "differently-abled," because then I will have to vomit on you. I mean, could anything be more patronizing?
What do you feel? If you have a disability,  do you prefer person-first language or
identity-first language, and would you say you're influenced by British English or American English?
And if you don't have a disability, do you get really concerned about using the wrong language? I mean, I do, and I'm disabled!
Oh, it's a minefield, I tell you.

English: 
immediately around us and our wider society.
Language can transform ideas and attitudes.
It’s important.
But most importantly, the ‘100% needs to
be taken into consideration’ fact is however:
that disabled people have different feelings
on the matter and that those need to be taken
into consideration.
I’m not going to tell another person how
they should feel or how they should want to
be referred to. If you tell me to use person-first
language when talking about you then that
is what I'm going to do.
‘Special’ is, in a disability context,
to me pretty othering but if you want me to
call you ‘special’ then I am more than
happy to.
I mean… we’re all special in our own way…
Just… please let’s not start using ‘handi-capable’
or ‘differently abled’ because I will
VOMIT on you. Could anything be more patronising?
What do you feel?
If you have a disability: do you prefer person-first
language or identity-first language and would
you say you’re influenced by British English
or American English?
And if you don’t have a disability: do you
get concerned about using the ‘wrong’ language?
I mean I do and I'm disabled!
It's a minefield I tell you.

English: 
Thank you so much for watching! I hope you've enjoyed this video!
Please do let me know your thoughts in the comments, and I will see you on Friday!
[outro music]

English: 
Thank you so much for watching I
hope you've enjoyed this video
Please do let me know your thoughts in 
the comments and I will see you on Friday!
