The Transcontinental Disability Choir: What is Ableist Language and Why Should You Care?

The article author does not ban the use of "lame" or "Crazy" (or even "Bitch"), but instead pokes at all of us to THINK about what we mean when we say it. Such words are, as she very carefully describes, verbal shortcuts, lazy ways of insulting people or things we do not like. The Chris Brown example is pretty clear.

In fact, the author in particular says no one is (or really can be) prevented from using a particular word in a particular context. She's just asking us to be aware of what we say, to think before we speak not just about what we want to say or how to get the last word, but about how our words affect other people, which is good advice in all cases. You CAN hurt someone with casual, unthinking words, whether you are using "lame" to mean you don't like something or blurting out an unintended comment to a friend. If you chose to use the word, use it with FULL KNOWLEDGE of what it means and how it might be taken by those around you.

Words do hurt. That old rhyme about sticks and stones is a big lie.

Thank you so much for this article. It's so interesting how people are perfectly comfortable extracting some words from their vocabulary but not others. People who have no problem not saying the N word will defend to their death their right to say "pussy" or "slut," completely unaware of the fact that all these words serve to marginalize human beings and allow others to treat them as less-than-human.

I also wanted to add to: But I (or Someone I Know With a Disability) Don't Find it Offensive!

Sometimes people DO find things offensive but are afraid to say so because they don't want to stir up trouble. OR they have already spoken up amongst a certain group and were ignored. Someone might tell you they don't find something offensive because they are so tired of being the only one speaking up every time the offensive thing is said. Sometimes women get tired of being treated like they're over-sensitive psychos every time they speak out against the word "pussy". Same with, "That's so gay!" And, likewise, I'm sure PWD get tired of having to speak up every time someone says "lame" or "crazy". That doesn't mean they're not offended. It just means that oppressed and/or marginalized people are made to feel like they're overreacting if they speak out against the many offensive, thoughtless things people say, and sometimes they find it easier to just let certain comments go.

Yes, yes yes!

I have Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome. I've got trouble walking, and my joints get injured from stupid things that wouldn't hurt anyone else.

It is HIGHLY offensive when my family teases me that I'm 'lame' or 'a gimp' because I get injured or I'm limping because of an injury. I think they've gotten it now, because I've gone off on them a few times about how damn offensive it is.

But my own family, people who've watched my struggles and injuries, thought it was funny to say shit like that.

I get that people don't think about it, because it's so embedded in our culture. But you're right, they damn well ought to! I make mistakes with it too, though, because it does take a lot of thought to remove this sort of language from your day-to-day speech. I've called myself a spaz, without thinking about the fact that it's a reference to spasticity, a derogatory reference to someone else's body. I'm not perfect and I don't expect other people to be, but I expect them to be willing to think about it and work on it when they've been called on it.

I don't think there's a response more offensive to me than the 'but I know someone who doesn't mind it!' I always think yeah, and abuse victims pretend that what their abuser does is nothing, too.

~Kali
www.brilliantmindbrokenbody.wordpress.com

So should doctors stop trying to find a cure for disabilities because that implies it's better not to have the disability? it's not like they're trying to make a pill to *make* you blind, because being blind is so awesome and empowering, right? They only want to cure it. That's so ableist.

There are lots of preconceived notions about the way dictionaries work that aren't necessarily true. For example:<blockquote>A lot of people argue that while these words may have been associated with disabilities in the past, modern usage has diverged so dramatically from those past uses that the words no longer have any relation to disability. This is usually just not true. For instance, the Mirriam-Webster definition of "lame" lists the primary definition as "having a body part and especially a limb so disabled as to impair freedom of movement."</blockquote>You seem to be under the impression that if a sense is listed first in a dictionary entry, then it's the most important or most common. But <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/dictnotes/def.htm">here</a>'s what Merriam-Webster has to say about how they ordered their dictionary:<blockquote>The order of senses within an entry is historical: the sense known to have been first used in English is entered first.</blockquote>So in noting that this is the "primary" definition is simply saying that it is the oldest sense of the word.

This doesn't diminish your general point, but you'll need to find a better way to argue this point. For example, I <em>think</em> that American Heritage does try to order their senses by usage (and their first sense is "<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lame">Disabled so that movement, especially walking, is difficult or impossible</a>"), but Dictionary.com doesn't include explanatory notes, so one can't be certain without checking a physical copy.

"But regardless of whether the term is currently used in a disability context, the current meanings of the word to mean flawed, weaker, irrational, or otherwise lesser than an expected standard."

Uh, actually, that's what those words are supposed to mean even in a disability context. They mean, in a medical sense (in an accurately generalized and abridged format), that one's function is somehow hindered by some aspect of their biology.

While a "crazy" or mentally ill person might be ABLE to function reasonably, their ability to function actually IS less than that of a person who isn't classified as mentally ill, or "an expected standard," and they often ARE irrational in certain aspects of their thinking, regardless of the severity of their illness. Even "crazy" patients with mild depression tend to display disordered or irrational thinking, if to a significantly lesser extent than a patient diagnosed with schizophrenia. As a neuroscientist, who both studies mental illnesses and HAS a mental illness, I can with good faith say that these words are still being used accurately when applied to non-medical contexts for means of comparison between the nature of an idea or statement and the NATURE of one of various types of disability, NOT disabled people in particular.

As a "crazy" person, hearing the word "crazy" used in these sorts of "offensive" contexts does make me sad. However, I'm not really offended because that definition DOES in fact apply to me (loosely, of course, since it really is no longer used in a serious medical sense) and the comparison to the nature of the condition indicated often is fairly accurate. I'm not sad because part of my biology has been insulted, but because I am reminded that I DO deal with this condition, and it does make my life harder, for both functional reasons and reasons based on the social stigma attached to being actually made less capable of success in certain areas. I am not saying that these conditions eliminate one's chances of success, but it does decrease the probability that one will succeed under many different external conditions. Although other words exist to describe something similarly, the "offensive" words in question are often more suited to the tone of an argument or conversation, or in fact be the most accurate descriptor. And as an advocate of accuracy, I don't really mind being reminded of the problems I deal with daily for the sake of effective conversation, especially since I am reminded of them daily when I take my medication, or when I am confronted with an obstacle that is made more difficult for me than it is for others by my condition.

Hello it's me, I am also visiting this web page daily, this website is truly fastidious and the visitors are truly sharing pleasant thoughts.

I don't think this subject is being represented for how complicated it truly is. What we're talking about here are larger issues of insulting and swearing. Almost every single insult or swear in the English language has a root in disparaging a group, whether it is women, disabled people, or animals. (And yes, I am being serious about animals and speciesism here. If you do not understand why this is important to the conversation about oppression and intersectionality, please educate yourself before having a knee-jerk response by reading Carol Adams, Joan Dunayer, and others who study women, animals, oppression and language.)

First off, there are many words like idiot, imbecile, moron which have similar histories to the word "retard" but are taken for granted. "Dumb" is another, and even "stupid"-- the idea that someone's allegedly lesser intelligence makes them lesser person-- is problematic from an abelist perspective. We do not tend to talk about these words when we talk about abelist language. Lately the conversation has been focused instead on "lame", a focus which I think really waters down the larger conversation because lots of people who cry foul at "lame" also use "stupid", "idiot", "dumb", "moron" etc all the time.

Even "ass" is problematic. Actually, this is a speciesist insult originating from asiunus, or the animal called the ass, but even if we ignore that, it's still an insult to a human body part. Same with "shit", which is a bad word because it is insulting a basic bodily function.

Let's move on to other insults that I hear all kinds of folks, disability rights activists included, say a lot. In fact let's talk about the word "fuck". This is perhaps the most unchecked offender of all. Fuck is literally a rape insult. Fuck you means literally, well, I am going to dominate you sexually. There's a reason the middle finger, the longest finger, is used here. It's the most violent of all words (fuck) yet we all use it ALL THE TIME.... plenty of people who call out "lame" included.

I won't get started on the whole host of other words that refer to women, animals, or some combination of both, creating an intersection.

Here's the point: the largest, most honest conversation we could be having about this, is a conversation about insults and swearing. I'm thinking about how in Ursula K Le Guin's The Disposessed, on her anarchist planet there aren't swears, not because people are uptight, but because swears are metaphorical disparagements of Others, and to engage in that is not a part of anybody's psyche. It is virtually impossibly to effectively swear without insulting a group or body. This fact would naturally lead to a conversation about whether, in general, it's ethical to even swear. Nobody wants to have that conversation. I don't want to have that conversation, frankly. I like to swear. I like language. I think swearing makes language and expression fun, colorful, interesting, and it connects me to some of my specific cultural roots. So I don't know what the answer to this problem is. But I think we're all being a bit disingenuous and frankly really irritating when we focus so much on a handful of words like "lame" and "crazy" while so flagrantly not checking ourselves on the rest of our language.

Another way to say this is, if I hear one more person say "don't fucking say lame!" next time I slip (a spirited indictment which I've heard over and over, including in punk rock songs and manifestos about the subject), do I get to say "don't fucking throw a rape word at me?" and be taken seriously, or will I be poo-pooed as I usually am? Where do we begin and end this conversation? Why do we continually find new words to get upset about and then refuse to check ourselves on others, as if our personal pet peeve word is the most important and not saying it means we've fixed oppression? I'm including myself in this problem. I'm asking yall to include yourselves with me and take a deep breath.

I was with Abbyjean until the second to last paragraph. My memory of Michael Jackson does not include anything that resembled values or legitimacy. Poor example.