Comments | elettaria: Disability and language

elettaria

Disability and language

Nov 04, 2009 10:24

I just updated ColorfulTabs, and found myself rather irritated by the language being used, which was no doubt meant well but comes off as condescending. I'm curious to know what other folks think. Please do talk about this further in the comments.

( Poll )

disability, visual issues

Comments 19

elettaria November 4 2009, 10:30:15 UTC

I've noticed that I've left "blind (used about groups)" unticked in both questions, as I put it somewhere in the middle between ideal and to be avoided. Visual impairment covers a wide range and while "blind" doesn't apply to everyone on the spectrum, sometimes the alternatives are just too clunky and it will have to do. There are areas where every term you use creates some problem or other and when that's the case, you may have to prioritise clarity over scrupulous inclusiveness.

littlemissalien November 4 2009, 11:53:51 UTC

Im right on the borderline of being declared legally 'partially sighted' but with my glasses on I'm still a functionally useful member of society and rarely need any adjustments or adaptations.

Just as I tend to say I'm 'hearing impaired' (I hate 'hard of hearing' as it makes no sense to me) I also say I am 'visually impaired' because my sight problems go much deeper than the usual, but I am not 'blind' and would be offended to be called that seriously (although jokes about my 'blindness' are long running and plenty). Hence I also left that option unticked.

I gave up on colourful tabs because it didn't work with my theme and I prefer an overall theme where I can pick colours which work well with my vision - as I have scotopic sensitivity some colours render text unreadable and I found colourful tabs did that (and I couldn't be bothered faffing around setting which colours would work for me, as I'm a lazy bint).

littlemissalien November 4 2009, 11:55:56 UTC

Oh and don't get me started on 'specially abled'. I do not need to be told I'm special, I have enough self-worth thank-you! Not to mention the term 'special' being used mockingly as well.

If someone is offended by 'disabled' I will often substitute 'differently abled' which hasn't caused me problems before, but it's all so subjective really.

elettaria November 4 2009, 13:03:28 UTC

I have to say that "differently abled" puts my hackles up as well, it just sounds to me like it's one step away from "specially abled". OK, several steps, that last one is ghastly, but my main point is that disabilities do not magically confer other abilities. There isn't really any term that even approaches being perfect. All the ones which lay emphasis on "special" or "challenged" or "different" further position people with disabilities as Other, and I think contribute towards the stereotype of the brave little crip making a big effort to be a valuable member of society, which in turn conjures up its partner stereotype of us all as lazy scroungers. It's so difficult to avoid highly charged language, and neutrality is something we really need here ( ... )

Thread 10

ephemera November 4 2009, 13:01:36 UTC

I'm twitchy around 'the blind' as a group term, mostly because of the transferred ick of having people refer to services for my aunt as 'for Downs' rather than 'for people with Downs'.

elettaria November 4 2009, 13:28:57 UTC

"The anything" is indeed dodgy. For some reason it's terribly dehumanising and completely disempowering. "The blind" seems to come up the most, although "the disabled" comes up a fair bit as well. RNIB used to stand for "Royal National Institute for the Blind" and is now "for Blind people".

altglas November 4 2009, 20:25:26 UTC

'special' is completely unacceptable. People use it with the same sort of mockery, like when someone has been clumsy, as 'spaz'. Usually pronounced 'thpeeeshuuuul' with plenty grimacing and pretending to have a facial twitch.

elettaria November 5 2009, 09:23:40 UTC

YES! I am going to drop a line to the guy who wrote that page linking him back here and pointing out that however good his intentions, what he's written is appallingly phrased and he's really not going to win any more users by insulting them.

finnygan November 4 2009, 21:34:54 UTC

I'm sorry, but "specially abled" just makes me think of Daredevil [that's very silly, I know, but ... I couldn't help it]. And even though you could point out that the term "disabled access" doesn't actually make very much sense at all, apart from anything else, I do also think that it's as short and easily understandable a term as I can think of. Finally, I think "visual difficulties" might just cover too wide a range, the way I understand it? I mean - I'm very myopic and I will throw up and/or pass out if I see strobe lights, so I guess those are visual difficulties of a sort, but I do think that's slightly different from being visually impaired, the way I understand that term. [And I don't think I actually ticked "blind" as a basically good term - if you're accurately describing the visual impairment of one person who is indeed blind, it makes a lot of sense to just say so.]

... This is all very random, isn't it? Sorry?

elettaria November 5 2009, 09:21:22 UTC

Not really! The situation you describe is where "visual difficulties" is a useful term: after all, being effectively disabled by a form of lighting is pretty damn significant. I think that's the sort of situation where I've used it the most. It's handy for people with epilepsy or people who respond really badly to fluorescent lighting (conditions which cause said bad reaction include dyslexia, migraine, autism spectrum disorders, ME, and I think epilepsy again). I hadn't heard that severe myopia could cause that reaction to strobe lighting: are your doctors sure it's the myopia causing it? What's your prescription? D's about -17 and he says he's more or less OK with strobe lighting, though he doesn't like it. I'm about -6 and while I don't think I've been near strobe lighting in over a decade, I don't recall having any problems with it ( ... )

Update elettaria November 6 2009, 09:45:22 UTC

I got a response from the developer, who did at least take the offending sentence out but strenuously denied that there was anything wrong with it. I'd reply but the forum won't accept Open ID and it didn't ask me for a password during the registration process (how it logged me in that time is a mystery), so now that it wants a password I can't respond.

I'm not trying to be a lawyer or a preacher here. No definition can differentiate a deed as good or bad. It's only the intention that matters. My intention was to indicate users having certain difficulties, and as you said, it's conveyed right. Offensive? No, and I didn't mean it. Languages, words specifically have different implicit meanings depending on the context of usage and the sense varies largely based on the users' culture. So what you may find as offensive needn't be as offensive as you believe it is. I ensure it meant no offense and I'm sure you didn't take any ( ... )