Let's stop saying "Special", shall we?

I'm Peter Clark, and I'm autistic. I founded the Autism Info Center to make a practical difference to real people like you and me. That's what makes this message both heartfelt and urgent. I've been a social care worker for over a decade, and I'm getting tired of hearing the word "Special" used as if it's a bad thing - a stigma for every disabled person to bear. I'm calling for an end to using "special" to describe people who simply have different needs. Just as "neurodiverse" doesn't mean we're some kind of outcasts who society merely tolerates - it just means we're wired differently from "neurotypical" people.

A few years ago I was in a professional social care meeting where other so-called carers treated the phrase "special needs" with what I view as outright contempt, by simply doing the air-quotes thing when saying the word "special". In recent years I've been getting more tired of the entire social care system calling it "Special Needs" or "Special Educational Needs" (SEN) when what they mean is "Different Needs" or, better still, "Alternative Needs". Somebody who has ADHD, or an autistic person, or someone with OCD, or ... this list goes on and on ... they're actually just ordinary people who have different needs in some areas. To be honest, there's nothing "special" about us. What we're fighting for with The Autism Manifesto, and what hundreds of other disability rights groups are fighting for, is to be accepted for who we are, not what we are.

The case against 'Special'

So why, all of a sudden, am I making a fuss about "Special Needs" and "Special Educational Needs" as a way of describing the various adjustments and support we might need in some areas of our lives? In short, it stigmatises us by setting us apart from everybody else. It's widely seen throughout society as a 'label' that others often think means we're defective in some way. We're not defective, we're just different. The same way Fred might wear a red woollen jumper today while Janet wears a summer dress. Fred might need to take his jumper off it the weather gets hotter, while Janet might need to put a jacket on if the weather turns colder. They're wearing different clothes but they're both people on the inside.

My core argument against these unhelpful labels is that they are vague, patronising, and deficit-based. They do not promote an inclusive or empowering perspective. While often used with good intentions (for example, to help governments define support and funding policies), their impact can be exactly the opposite. Let me illustrate what I mean:

• The word "special" is a euphemism

  The term "special" is often used to avoid saying "disability". This implies that "disability" is a negative or shameful word that must be avoided. In fact, many people within the disability community prefer the term "disabled person" or "person with a disability" because it is a clear and honest descriptor, and using it helps to remove the stigma. By using "special needs", we are inadvertently telling people that their needs are somehow different or abnormal, rather than a natural part of human diversity. For example, a person may need a ramp, but this is an accessibility need, not a "special" one.

• The focus is on the deficit, not the person

  The terms focus on what a person "lacks" or "needs" in a special way, rather than acknowledging their strengths and their inherent value. This can contribute to a sense of "otherness" and can negatively impact self-esteem, especially in children and young people. The language reinforces a "medical model" of disability, where the focus is on a problem within the person that needs to be "fixed", rather than a "social model" where barriers are created by society and need to be removed.

• They are imprecise and often confusing

  The terms are a broad umbrella that can refer to a vast range of conditions and circumstances, from physical disabilities to learning differences, and even social or emotional difficulties. This lack of specificity makes the language unhelpful in providing targeted support. As an example, a person with dyslexia has very different support requirements from a person with a physical impairment, yet both could be labelled as having "Special Educational Needs".

• They reinforce negative stereotypes

  Research has shown that people are often viewed more negatively when described as having "special needs" compared to having a "disability". The word "special" can be used in a derogatory way and can make people feel singled out or less capable.

More suitable alternatives

So what am I proposing we use instead? Well, there are a range of options that don't have the problems we just looked at. Choosing alternative language shifts the focus from a person's perceived deficiencies to their rights, their identity, and the support they require to participate fully in society. I'm suggesting that social care as an industry, as well as medical and mental health, and governments and law makers, should consider possible alternatives. But also think that looking for a "one size fits all" replacement for these terms is exactly where the problem started! You simply can't group everybody with any kind of disability under one huge label - it's not respectful, it's not helpful, and it's not fair. I'm suggesting that different language needs to be used in different circumstances, and that the choice of language should be relevant to (a) the people concerned and (b) the specific circumstances and adjustments or accommodations being considered. Let me show you what I mean, with a few alternatives to the blanket "Special Needs" or "Special Educational Needs" labels:

• Alternative Needs/Alternative Support Needs

  This is still a label but it's one that describes a need for adjustments or accommodations rather than setting people with disabilities to one side and making them seem completely different from neurotypical people (I've even been thinking about the term "neurotypical" recently, but that's another debate entirely). The word alternative is already in use in mainstream society - we have "alternative lifestyles", "alternative comedy", "alternative politics" and even "alternative news sources", among many others. Those who are described as "alternative" meet with less stigma because most people tend to think things like "it's good to have a balanced debate" or "everyone has their own point of view" rather than thinking of them as some kind of sub-species that needs to be "dealt with" or "cured" in some way.

• Additional Needs/Additional Support Needs

  This is a widely used and preferred alternative, particularly in educational and social care contexts. The word "additional" is less loaded than "special" and more accurately reflects the situation. It suggests that a person has the same basic needs as everyone else but may require some extra, or "additional", support to meet them. It is a neutral and non-judgmental term.

• Access Needs/Access Requirements

  This language is rooted in the social model of disability. It focuses on what is needed to remove barriers and create an inclusive environment, rather than on the person's condition. For example, instead of saying "a student with a physical disability has special needs", you could say "the student has different access needs, and requires a lift to access the second floor". This puts the emphasis on the environment's limitations, not the person's.

• Or perhaps just use the specific term for the condition

  When appropriate (and not when it reveals personal information without consent), using specific language can be more accurate, respectful, and helpful. This is the most precise option. For example, instead of "a person with special needs", it would be much clearer and more respectful for a care plan or educational plan to say "this autist person" or "this dyslexic student". This acknowledges their identity and provides a clearer picture of the support that might be needed.

It's only when we move away from the existing unhelpful and stigmatising labels that we can adopt language that is more accurate, precise and empowering, and that aligns with the over-arching principles of human rights and inclusion.

Although the Autism Info Center will have to keep referring to these divisive terms for as long as the governments, medical sector, social care sector, and education sector continues insisting on their use, we commit to always choosing more accurate, inclusive and empowering language in our own writing.

So let me be really clear... This shift we're calling for is not about being "politically correct" but about showing thoughtful respect and dignity to all people throughout society, regardless of their abilities, talents, qualities, preferences and appearance. Come on folks, let's start changing the way we talk about disability and start being truly inclusive.