1/15
This is a long post. Triggered. Our son is 24 years old. He has autism (diagnosed at the age of 19 months, and NOT by Google). Among others, his ability to speak is limited. When he's happy, he jumps up & down & claps his hands, laughing out loudly & like a ball of energy..

2/15
..imagine a supersized energizer bunny. Because he's inarticulate, he uses alternative communication. However, it happens that he just runs out of what he could form out as words in his mouth or utilize a way to communicate his intent. He can grow frustrated at not being
3/15
able to get his meaning across. So, he yells and yells. At times, it isn't easy to stop it even though we have established key words that ought to help him simmer down. If not, I just let him blow that steam off until he cries. He cries like someone has died...howling even
4/15
He cries out of that frustration until he gets tired and stops. It is upsetting and breaks my heart each time.
5/15
I admit that when he was younger, we didn't bring him out as much because we didn't want him to make others uncomfortable. But now, I take the view that this is just wrong. This behavior does not define who he is. He is obedient (the most out of my three kids),
6/15
has a ready smile & smooch, considerate & hearty. I'll not deny my son his pursuit of happiness (he loves the mall & eating out). He's already limited, why would I set more boundaries? As his family, we do our best to protect him. We do this out of love, not because of pride
7/15
Please allow me to just debunk what has been said that "one word from a responsible parent is enough to make a child quiet down". This statement rolled off someone's tongue who either has no kids or likely was indifferent to his own.
8/15
Even a "normal" child, in certain situations, would be hard to quiet down. As for our son, since he was diagnosed, to the best of our abilities, we have not stopped in tapping resources to optimize his ability to communicate (both ways, to be on the giving and receiving end)
9/15
How could we not? Any parent would give anything to have lucid conversation with their child. But the reality is, there are cases in which this is not attainable in the conventional way. So we adjust, we accommodate.
10/15
Our society is governed by rules of convention, how this and that should be done. If one acts outside of these, knowing glances and snide comments abound. The result: intolerance, bias, discrimination, even hate. This happens in a non-inclusive environment, meaning,
11/15
there is no consideration, no empathy for those who may be differently abled or situated. I wonder, did even-handedness in applying policy mean exercising equality or equity? That difference is huge. This is what #PlantationBay does not get. Call a spade a spade.
12/15
#PlantationBay is NOT supportive of the community of parents with children who have special needs. But in the off chance they really want to be supportive, learn more about the differently abled. Huwag lang Gu-gelin. Katamaran yan and most insincere.
13/15
Sit down and consult with experts, with the families. See and appreciate our situation by trying to even stand in our own shoes. Then talk to us about equitable application of policies. That is real even-handedness.
14/15
Lastly, what happened here was not an isolated case at all. It happens everyday and everywhere. I am not glad at all that Fin and his mom got to experience this and what should have been a fun memorable time made forgettable.
15/15
But since it has happened, let's take the conversation further towards opening more participation and productive channels, policies for tolerance and acceptance. I live in hope that these would translate into action.

More from Life

It doesn't happen because you want it to happen.

It doesn't happen because you made it happen.

It happens because you allow it to happen.

https://t.co/j5hPyw9m9m

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?