I’m sometimes asked “Why do you say “disability” instead of “special needs”?
Here’s the most basic reason:
I’m an adult, and I want equal rights. For that reason, I’m going to keep using the language that has room for adulthood and power.
It’s important to have morally neutral language to describe actions. This is especially important for actions that are always, usually, or sometimes morally wrong.
For instance:
For instance (names randomly generated using https://www.fakenamegenerator.com/gen-random-us-us.php):
When it’s impossible to describe actions without condemning them, it can be impossible to describe what people are actually doing. This makes it hard to have an honest conversation, and even harder to hold people accountable.
Here’s a disability services example (randomly generated names):
In this example, Charles is blatantly and unambiguously controlling Patricia and telling her what to do. When Patrica says ‘telling me what to do’, she means it literally. When Charles says, ‘telling people what to do’ he really means ‘telling people what to do (without a good reason)’. He doesn’t realize that coercion is still coercion even if he thinks it’s justified coercion. Without a direct literal way to refer to the act of controlling people, it becomes nearly impossible to discuss when coercion is and isn’t justified.
This happens a lot, in any number of contexts, often following this kind of pattern:
Sometimes people who talk this way are lying — but not always. Sometimes it’s that they don’t understand that reasons don’t erase actions. Sometimes they think actions only count as The (Unacceptable) Thing when they consider the actions to be unjustified/unacceptable. If you point out that they are, in fact, literally doing The Thing, they think that means you’re accusing them of being bad — and that you couldn’t be right, because they have a good reason.
This language problem is breaking a lot of conversations that need to happen, particularly around privilege and misuse of power.
Short version: It needs to be possible to describe what people are doing in morally neutral terms. This is especially important for actions that are always, usually, or sometimes morally wrong. Scroll up for more about why and a concrete example.
Braille is not a language. Braille is a system for making printed words accessible to blind people.
All braille looks the same visually. Braille is always read left-to-right, even in languages that are printed right to left. Languages that are printed in different alphabets still look the same in Braille.
For example, even though Hebrew and English look dramatically different in print, they look the same in Braille. This can sometimes mislead sighted people into thinking that Braille is its own language, but it is not.
The only major difference between Braille and print is that Braille uses raised dots instead of visually distinct letters. (A minor difference: Braille uses a lot of contractions to make it less verbose.)
Braille is not translation, and putting something into Braille does not change the meaning.
If an English book is brailled, it’s still in English, and it still has all of the same words. It hasn’t changed languages; it’s just been encoded in a way that makes it possible to read by feeling rather than seeing.
Short version: Braille is not a language, and brailling books doesn’t change the meaning, Braille just makes it possible to read with your hands.
American Sign Language and other signed languages are languages. It’s important to respect them as languages.
ASL is not English. It is a completely different language. Similarly, signed languages aren’t all the same. British Sign Language is completely different from ASL.
Signs are not universal, any more than spoken words are universal. The meaning of a sign isn’t always obvious just by watching; many signs are completely arbitrary.
Sign is not pantomime, and it’s not ad hoc gesture. It’s also not like symbolic gestures that are sometimes made up to accompany kids songs either. It’s a language, with all the complexities of language. The difference is important, and it needs to be respected.
In order to know what signs mean, you have to learn them. (Just like in order to know what spoken words mean, you have to learn them.)
ASL is not just gestures, any more than spoken languages are just sounds. ASL has grammar, vocabulary, and culture. It’s important to respect this and not erase it.
I’ve been taught this trick for giving feedback by a couple of people recently, and I’ve been finding it really helpful:
Using “and” instead of “but” can make it much easier to give useable feedback. It also sometimes works in conflict situations:
Eg:
or:
If you say but, it’s often heard as “I know I’m supposed to say something nice, but I don’t really want to.” If you say and, it’s more often heard as “I believe both of these things.“
It’s worth considering erring on the side of saying and rather than but when you sincerely believe both things. It often makes a big difference, both in how you think about what you’re saying, and in how it’s perceived by other people.
Neutral-ish words like “Uh huh”, “ok”, and “sure” can sometimes sound like they mean “this is boring and I want you to stop talking about it”.
For example:
This could sound to Matilda like Shira means “I’m annoyed that you’re talking about your cats and would like you to stop.”
If Shira actually wants to listen to Matilda talk about the cats but isn’t sure what to say, repeating part of what Matilda said might be a better option, eg:
Another option is to say explicitly that you want to hear about it, eg:
This isn’t an exhaustive list; there are any number of other examples in both directions. But if you’re saying things that you think are neutral and it seems to result in other people ending the conversation a lot, it’s worth considering whether you’re inadvertently sending off linguistic signals that you’re bored.
all-women-kick-ass asked:
Is the word “stupid” ableist? I keep trying to explain to people that it’s a really important word for a really important concept but I can’t seem to put into words WHAT exactly that concept is.
realsocialskills said:
I don’t think “stupid” is an ableist word, and I’ve also been struggling to explain why. At some point I’ll write about that in more detail. I have not yet been able to do so, so this is not that post.
But I want to address something else that I see in your question. I think that, to an extent, what you are asking is more along the lines of:
And my answer here is:
I think that it is almost never a good idea to give up using a word that you feel like you need. I think you should probably keep using that word, unless you are able to find an alternative that still allows you to communicate the concept that is important to you.
Sometimes when people feel overly attached to a bad word because they are attached to expressing the bigotry associated with that word. If you’re worried that might be the case with you, work on addressing that. If that’s the problem, becoming less bigoted will probably make you less inclined to use the word anyway. If you stay bigoted, changing the word you use is unlikely to help.
You can’t avoid this issue by just saying that you don’t mean it that way. It has to actually be true. And, if you’re using a word that a lot of people object to, it’s worth considering whether you’re actually saying something worse than you think you’re saying.
That said, sometimes bigotry or hatred has nothing to do with why you feel like you need a word other people want you to stop saying. Sometimes you feel like you need the word *because you actually do*. Take that possibility seriously; don’t let people pressure you out of communicating.
And, as you consider these things, keep in mind the difference between basic morality and personal piety.
There may be worthwhile attempts to move away from certain words that you are not in a position to participate in, because you might not be able to give up those words without damaging your communication.
I think that people should use whatever words they need to use in order be able to communicate.
Words matter. But communication matters more. Don’t give up words you depend on to communicate clearly lightly.
Slurs have power because of how they’re used and what it evokes when someone says them. Not because groups have decided to be offended by them. Target groups don’t give slurs power; the weight of historical and current use gives them power.
Words mean things.
The n-word is a slur because it has always been used to say that black people aren’t really human and to incite violence. That is what that word means when it’s said by someone who isn’t black. You can’t say that word as a nonblack person without invoking that meaning to some extent or other, even if you don’t mean to. That’s not a meaning black people give the word. That’s a meaning that white people created.
Likewise the r-word, especially in noun form. (It’s not always a slur in adjective form, but it always evokes the slur a bit, so it’s better to use a different word if you can). It’s a slur because what it means is someone who isn’t really a whole person because their brain doesn’t work right. That’s not a meaning folks with disabilities are imagining in order to feel offended, and it’s not a meaning they can get away from by deciding not to be offended.
Calling someone a slur means something. It’s a threat. And an implied threat to other people in that group.
Other people can feel how they want about it, but how they feel won’t erase the fact that someone saying a slur is making a threat. Feelings don’t erase violence and threats of violence.