that's the thing isn't it? In a discussion between non-stutterers they are constantly interrupting one another. but from what I’ve read in comments here, stutterers don’t like being interrupted, and it can feel offensive pretty quickly. there are so many similar examples of why we want to be treated differently.. in other words, why our listeners should treat "stuttering" as a disability. Technically and officially stuttering is considered a disability when it significantly impacts our ability to communicate effectively and participate fully in society. For example, can you get a job and do your job with your level of fluency despite the random variability in stuttering? in a youtube [video ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaqT7cZdWSw&ab_channel=SchneiderSpeech)that said the less someone stutters, the more negative implications they will face compared to someone who is severely stuttering. why is that? perhaps maybe it’s because when we appear more “fluent” people stop seeing our stuttering as a disability. And ironically, that can lead to more problems since they don’t adjust their behavior or attitude. The point is, I think that on the one hand, we don’t want to label stuttering as a disability.. but on the other hand, we also want others to acknowledge it in a way that means treating us differently. So basically treating it like it *is* a disability. Anyway. this is the paradox. So if stutterers send these mixed messages to the governments in each country. What stance should they take? What should their final decision be whether stuttering should be considered as a disability or not? The best answer is probably: it depends