More than just semantics
language is safety
If you've read my posts on social media and articles before, you'll know by now how important language and its use is to me. In this article, I explore two aspects of the use of language and its implications.
Did they refuse help or was the help offered not accessible?
How many times have we heard “They refused help"? It has quite a finality to it, doesn't it? Help was offered and it was declined. End of story. The implied conclusion? The person’s problem lies in their unwillingness, stubbornness and inability to accept support.
But experience has taught me that this is hardly the full story...
The phrase “they refused help” carries an assumption that the help was offered in a fair, neutral, reasonable way and that the refusal is the main problem. I really do believe that what we should be asking is : “Was the help offered in an accessible way?”
This way we are not focusing solely on the individual’s acceptance or refusal but we examine the quality, delivery and appropriateness of the support itself. And that changes everything.
People rarely reject support for no reason. When someone turns down help, there is usually a story, a history or an immediate context that explains why. It might be that they have been burned before by help that came with strings attached, conditions, judgment... Or maybe they don’t trust the person, system or institution offering it. Maybe they feel too overwhelmed and dysregulated to process what’s being proposed. Perhaps they experience shame, fear or pressure around accepting support. Or maybe, most importantly, they are being offered something that doesn’t actually match their real needs.
If one of these is the underlying reason, the refusal means self-protection rather than not having a need for it.
If support is designed without collaboration, consent and flexibility, it can feel more like intrusion than care. This perceived refusal can be a sign that the offer was misaligned, inaccessible or delivered at the completely wrong time.
Most offers of support come from a genuine desire to help and we have to remember that support is not just about giving but about connecting. It is, or at least should be, relational, not transactional. That means it has to be built on attunement, trust and the willingness to ask these questions:
Did the person fully understand what was being offered?
Was it culturally, emotionally and physically safe for them to accept it?
Did it come without urgency, pressure and hidden expectations?
Were they given real choices?
What made the offer feel unsafe and unhelpful?
How can we co-create support that honours their autonomy?
What would accessible, consent-based support look like in this situation?
These questions help us really understand why a well-meaning offer didn’t land as intended. This approach doesn’t guarantee instant solutions but it ensures we’re not mistaking self-protection for resistance or calling someone difficult when what they really needed was a different kind of help.
SENDwise Hub is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
From “What’s your excuse?” to “What got in the way?”
“What’s your excuse?” is a phrase most of us have heard or said ourselves at some point, especially when temper gets the better of us.
It’s delivered with frustration and exasperation and it comes when something hasn’t been done, hasn’t been done right or hasn’t been done on time. Essentially, what we're saying is that there is no good reason for this problem and whatever comes out of their mouth next had better prove otherwise.
The problem is, that if the goal is accountability, “what’s your excuse?” isn’t really about accountability at all. It’s about justification. It’s about catching someone out, pressing them to defend themselves, placing them automatically in a corner. The power is with the asker and the shame lands on the person answering. Besides, shame never leads to better outcomes. It leads to hiding, to masking, to silence, to trying harder in ways that only burn us out.
Now imagine instead being asked “What got in the way?”
This is a radically different invitation. It assumes there was something in the way. It assumes effort was present, but barriers were too. It invites honesty rather than defence and most importantly, it positions the other person as someone worth understanding not judged.
It gives us the chance to look at context which can surface things that are invisible:
Executive function differences — difficulty starting, sequencing, or remembering steps.
Fatigue or burnout — when the body and brain are simply depleted.
Miscommunication — where instructions weren’t clear or were interpreted differently.
Anxiety, overwhelm or shutdown — the freeze response mistaken for laziness.
Unclear expectations — where the target was moving or never stated plainly.
Competing demands — multiple priorities colliding, all urgent at once.
Health challenges or sensory overload — factors others may never see.
Being at capacity — the simple truth that the person had no more to give.
We have to look at it as accountability vs. accuracy.
Accountability is easily confused with blame whereas it should mean honesty about what happened and not punishment for what didn’t. “What’s your excuse?” chases blame. “What got in the way?” seeks accuracy.
If we focus on accuracy, we stop assuming lack of effort and start noticing lack of access, lack of clarity, lack of capacity or lack of support.
That shift changes everything.
If someone missed a deadline, instead of jumping to believing they were careless we ask: Did they have the tools? Were the instructions accessible? Was the timeline realistic?
If a student didn’t hand in work, we ask: Did they understand what was expected? Was the environment supportive and accessible?
If a friend didn’t show up, we ask: Were they overwhelmed, anxious or out of social energy?
The questions don’t excuse behaviour, they explain it. And with explanation comes the chance to actually respond to the real barrier, not just the visible outcome.
This shift in language is so much more than semantics - it’s safety, because “What’s your excuse?” lands on brains already carrying shame for not meeting expectations. It reinforces the idea that if we just tried harder, we wouldn’t stumble. On the other hand, “What got in the way?” recognises that stumbling are signals.
These signals point us toward what needs support, scaffolding and adjustment. Signals highlight unmet needs, invisible load and environmental mismatches. And when we follow those signals we create conditions where trust and actual accountability can exist.
The bottom line is that we can’t respond effectively to what we don’t fully understand. We need to get the full picture before we decide how to respond. “What got in the way?” opens the door to that understanding. It gives space for self-reflection, honest conversations and collaborative problem-solving.
Sometimes you just have to clear the path, rather than blaming the person walking it.
⭐ Be part of The Unasked Collection and read this month's exclusive article written by Dr. Joanna Grace.
⭐ If you’re looking for digital and affordable resources, you can browse them here.
⭐ If you wish to support the neurodivergent community, come for a browse here.
⭐ If you’re on any social media, come join me on Facebook, Instagram or LinkedIn
