I was going to write a brief article about Graham Stringer's comments about the 'myth' of dyslexia. I then started to read more about it and realised there was more to the whole thing than I'd thought. Those who criticise him for ignorance are just pots criticising kettles, since it is difficult to find any agreement in the information available about the condition: if it is a condition as such. For instance, for every website like the Wikipedia one, which focusses on the many and varied causes, the physiology, the biochemistry etc, there is a site such as Dyslexics which promotes the need for effective teaching for what is primarily a specific learning disability.

Having read all of this, I was reminded of my problems with psychiatric diagnoses. Here are people with vastly differing problems, all branded under one label ('dyslexia' or 'depression'). This label then leads into a medicalisation of their condition. It also removes the 'problem' from their own hands, and places it in the hands of the 'experts'.

Reading the comments on Stringer's views from those with dsylexia, it is obvious that it is a popular diagnosis, in that it is welcomed by those who have it. After all, who wants to think they are a bit thick at reading, when they could have an 'ia'? I recognise that feeling so well: the relief I felt when the GP diagnosed my depression: 'thank goddess, I'm not just crap at dealing with life ; I've got Depression and IT'S NOT MY FAULT!'

Yet 'recovery' only came when I realised that this was a lie: that even if depression had a biochemical component, that was within my control too (since I could learn to activate different brain cells by changing my own thoughts, thus changing my own chemistry).

It's taken years, but I no longer define myself as having depression. I recognise it early and act, because the one thing I've learned is that when I feel the black dog lurking in the corners of my vision, then it's a signal that something is wrong in my life or my thoughts.

Like depression, it would seem there are as many types of dyslexia as there are sufferers - and a way to treat it. There is much advocacy of synthetic phonics (which to me seems to be a reheating of old teaching techniques with a fancy name). A way that wouldn't involve specialist teaching or removal from the normal classroom, and a way that would help non-dyslexic children to read and write too. So Stringer's comments make sense on that level. Not having to identify an 'illness' would also mean that children retained responsibility for their weaknesses: and doing so would create a strength long-term.

On a side note, it's interesting how expressing an opinion that flies in the face of the 'approved view' on certain subjects is almost forbidden. Stringer has, despite accusations to the contrary, obviously done a lot of research. It's easy to toe the party line and bow to the altar of 'received wisdom'. It's a tribute to him that he felt strongly enough about this issue to speak out.