Hi Pam, thanks for your thought-provoking video. You raise some interesting points. On the one hand, I think that in our community, no topic surrounding stuttering and communication should be off limits. Taboos prevent the free and open discussion of differing ideas and viewpoints that potentially can help us understand one another better, cooperate more, and solve shared problems. The pink elephants are fair game.

On the other hand, I would urge care in the way that we approach conversations surrounding the mild-to-profound continuum. Based on what we know about stuttering, people who stutter, and conversations, it is entirely predictable that people who stutter more “mildly” may tend to speak up more often, and say more, than people who stutter more “severely.” At our local NSA chapter, we account for this by trying to make certain that everyone has plenty of opportunity to talk, if they wish. However, in our current climate of heightened sensitivities (in America), I could easily imagine “milder” stutterers being blamed for monopolizing conversations, and more “severe” stutterers being labeled as victims who get interrupted or prevented from talking. I do not think these kinds of us/them binaries, which often seem to emerge these days, are helpful. Just something to think about.

Perhaps an even pinker elephant in the room is the idea of acceptance, which is not unrelated to the mild-to-severe continuum. I’ll give describing the acceptance continuum a go – from acceptance (full-stop); to acceptance as a means toward improvement or “recovery”; to nonacceptance. The single term “acceptance” is asked to do a lot of heavy lifting in our community. In our conversations surrounding acceptance, I think it is important to operationally define what we mean by the term, so we can all be on the same page, and avoid talking past one another. Arguments about stuttering “acceptance” often seem to be rooted in a failure to clarify which meaning of “acceptance” we are talking about.

At our recent NSA meeting, we had a productive discussion about acceptance. As might be expected, opinions were mixed. They seemed to range from skepticism about the utility of accepting stuttering, to the simple acknowledgement that one stutters, to developing a sense of identity and pride as a person who stutters and even recognizing some of stuttering’s gifts. For me personally, “acceptance” has expanded over the years from a simple, reluctant acquiescence to the plain fact that I stutter, to becoming more tolerant, to consciously making room for stuttering to exist, right alongside my efforts to make it go away. I find that I can simultaneously “accept” stuttering while working to become a more competent communicator across many domains, including consciously speaking with greater ease. “Acceptance” can become quite nuanced for many of us. Knowing what we mean by “acceptance” can help us understand ourselves and each other better and have more productive conversations. It is a real privilege for me to hear people describe what “acceptance” has come to mean for them, personally. Always food for thought.

I fear I might have excessively expanded the topic. At any rate, here’s to successfully navigating the minefield, one conversation at a time.