Quick and Dirty Tips Podcasts

Episode Transcript

What to Call People With Disabilities.
Episode 155: January 30, 2009

Grammar Girl here. Today's topic is the language of disability and disease. When I was a technical writer, questions came up all the time about how to write about people with medical conditions. So today, guest-writer Bonnie Trenga will educate us.

When tackling how to refer to people who have disabilities or who suffer from illnesses, the bottom line is that we need to be sensitive to the feelings of others.

The Two Extremes

I’m glad to report that times have changed. It’s no longer acceptable to say a sentence such as “Hey, I saw a deaf and dumb cripple today.” That would be extremely offensive (1, 2). Here is a list of words you need to wipe from your vocabulary unless you’re writing a character who likes to be offensive: “crippled,” “mute,” “deaf-mute,” and “deaf and dumb” (3).

On the other end of the spectrum, some people have been too eager to create euphemisms for diseases or conditions in an effort to make such conditions seem less of a big deal, but euphemisms such as “differently abled” and “handicapable” are now considered condescending (4). There’s no reason to try to be too nice about it.

The Middle Road

So how do people who can’t walk or people who can’t hear wish to be referred to? The preferred terms to use these days are “disability” and “disabled.” These words have replaced “handicap” and “handicapped.” It’s no longer OK to call someone “handicapped” (5), but it is acceptable to use “handicapped” in common phrases such as “handicapped parking.”

If you must refer to someone with a disability, it’s a good idea to put the person first. So it’s better to say, “He is a person with disabilities” than “He is disabled” or “He is a disabled person.” The phrase “a person with cerebral palsy” might sound a bit awkward, but since people with disabilities and the organizations that serve them might prefer this phrasing, we should respect their wishes (4).

Now that society is more sensitive to all its members, we need to follow disability etiquette. The United Spinal Association, for example, offers online a 36-page PDF on how to be sensitive to people with all kinds of disabilities. The Association reminds us, “People with disabilities are individuals with families, jobs, hobbies, likes and dislikes, and problems and joys. While the disability is an integral part of who they are, it alone does not define them. Don’t make them into disability heroes or victims. Treat them as individuals” (6).

Specific Conditions

You might be wondering how to refer to people with vision, hearing, and mobility problems or specific diseases. It’s OK to refer to someone as “blind,” but it’s better to say, “a person who is blind” than “a blind person” (2), although organizations that serve people who are blind have names that reflect the old way of thinking, for example The American Council of the Blind. On the site for the Perkins School of the Blind, for instance, people who are blind are referred to as “people with visual impairments” and “people who are visually impaired” (7).

You can refer to a person who can’t hear or who has partial hearing loss as “hard of hearing” or “deaf.” There’s no need to avoid the term “deaf.” In fact, there is a Deaf culture, where Deaf has a capital D. Members of the Deaf culture “belong to the community that has formed around the use of American Sign Language as the preferred means of communication” (8).

As for someone who is in a wheelchair, you can just say, “wheelchair user.” It’s considered inappropriate to say, “confined to a wheelchair” (6).

And as for people who suffer from any number of illnesses, from asthma to diabetes to cancer, you could just say something like “a person who suffers from asthma” or “a person who has diabetes.” Sure the people might be asthmatic or diabetic, but that’s not who the people are. Their disease doesn't define them.

Summary

In summary, no matter what disability someone has, you need to be polite and sensitive to that person and use an appropriate term.

Administrative

This podcast was written by Bonnie Trenga, author of The Curious Case of the Misplaced Modifier, who blogs at sentencesleuth.blogspot.com, and I'm Mignon Fogarty, the author of the paperback book Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing. That's all. Thanks for listening.

References

1. American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005, p. 132.

2. American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005, pp. 62-3.

3. American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005, p. 310.

4. American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005, pp. 142-3.

5. American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005, p. 213.

6. "Disability Etiquette," United Spinal Association, http://www.unitedspinal.org/pdf/DisabilityEtiquette.pdf. (accessed Oct. 19, 2008).

7. Perkins School for the Blind. http://www.perkins.org/perkinsvision/. (accessed Oct. 19, 2008).

8. American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage and Style. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2005, p. 131.

Comments (37) for What to Call People With Disabilities. | Subscribe to Comment

josh c Says:
11/6/2009 2:22:44 PM

im wetarted

michael Says:
11/6/2009 2:20:24 PM

i think dat we ned to aint call dem peple bad nams

Kelly Says:
10/18/2009 6:24:35 PM

To answer some other comments about "PC" language not being concise--we've seen these changes for other minority groups already. It would be completely unacceptable to say "a Negro" instead of "a black man," despite the extra few letters. I think we can make room for language that does not discard people with disabilities. GG, I think you're incorrect about "handicapped parking," which is generally referred to as "accessible parking" these days. I also think we should excise the phrase "suffers from" as much as we can, since only an individual person can know whether he or she actually suffers because of his or her condition. "Wheelchair user" or "a person who uses a wheelchair" is a lot better than "in a wheelchair," since the person is certainly not always "in" the wheelchair. It really isn't all that awkward to use this sort of language once you get used to it, and I look at it as a chance to re-examine sentences and make them tighter and better, rather than a requirement to make things longer and more awkward. Language around cognitive disabilities is not uniform yet, however. In the U.S., we might use "developmental disability," "mental disability," or "cognitive disability," whereas in the U.K. they tend to use "learning disability." "Mental retardation" is no longer acceptable in general use.

mike Says:
9/15/2009 3:16:18 PM

seriously there retarded they cant understand you so just say retard!!!!

Jamie Says:
6/3/2009 3:58:17 PM

Unlike rules such as whether to use all right or alright, this topic has a significant impact on people's lives. While it may seem PC and wordy to say "a person with cerebral palsy," part of the point is putting into action what we say. So by not saying disabled and saying a person with a disability, it is a reminder to us that there is more to this individual than their given diagnosis. No one is going to start yelling wildly if you say disabled. For someone with diabetes who is not going to be discriminated against because of their illness, maybe it's not such a big deal. But for people who have intellectual or physical disabilities that may cause people to see them as inferior, it's just a good practice. Words become reality.

June Kailes Says:
6/1/2009 3:23:55 AM

Nice job on episode 155. You got it all right except for one detail: It is not “handicapped parking” just like it is not a “handicapped entrance”. There is nothing handicapped about the parking or the entrance, both facilitate access and do not create barriers, both are usable and accessible. Use • handicap” to describe an obstacle or barrier imposed by the environment or society. • accessible parking spaces, accessible bathrooms, accessible guest room, accessible entrance. Avoid • handicapped as an adjective when describing accessible features. • handicapped parking, handicapped bathroom, handicapped guest room. June Isaacson Kailes, Disability Policy Consultant jik@pacbell.net || www.jik.com Author of Language is More Than a Trivial Concern, Edition 9, Revised 1999. KAILES – Publications.

Admin Day Says:
4/27/2009 7:30:33 PM

Political correctness is as confusing as it is annoying. For instance, we just had Administrative Assistant's Day. Now, it used to be just Secretary Day, but now it's Administrative Assistant's Day, Admin Day, Administrative Professionals Day, and I am now exhausted. Granted, I do not mean to in any way disparage the fine people that work in that field. They do frequently go woefully underappreciated, and contrasted with the function that they fulfill, just as much underpaid. They certainly deserve a little better, and more and more people that fill said role have bachelor's degrees or higher. There's even a lot of talk of practicing attorneys, members of the bar and the whole shebang, returning to work as paralegals just to be able to work in the field after hundreds, indeed thousands of lawyers are being laid off. (Granted, not too many hearts weep for them.) Still, as what a title means as the PC culture expands and insinuates itself even further into the popular lexicon, I wonder what we'll call secretary day next year.

Gunner K. Says:
4/25/2009 12:46:41 AM

Due to severe financial crisis, some could not able to send their children in school. It affects intellectual capacity as well as the employment possibility of the person due to the competitiveness of his fellow applicants. Thus, allowing him to sometimes be involved in illegal activities. Payday loan store robbery is becoming an epidemic. Payday loan store robbery has occurred from coast to coast, and the number of them has been on the rise over the last two years. In 2007, an employee of a payday cash advance loan store was shot and killed while she worked alone. Another payday loan store was robbed in Indiana on April 17th. The number of violent robberies at payday loan stores keeps going up. Lenders, customers, and employees should all do all in their power to repair credit of the security in loan shops if it curbed the occurrences of payday loan store robbery.

Hudson Says:
3/24/2009 11:28:04 AM

I normally enjoy you episodes but not this. I am not trying to bash you in anyway. You are my role model, but this was not my favorite one....

Kate French Says:
3/14/2009 4:33:04 PM

I found it offensive and puzzling that you completely avoided the mentally disabled. The stigma we face on a daily bases is so thick in our society that I feel I need to mention this oversight. I lived a "normal" life until the age of 31, when PTSD grasped my world. I faced it head on and refused to feel a moment of shame, regardless of the enormous social pressure to feel shame. I evolved through the battle I was faced with because of the woman I was in my core. I hope these words help those that don't receive acceptance, feel there is hope for all of us that struggle with mental illness. kaml

Hellen Says:
3/9/2009 12:37:24 AM

Dear people with grammar obsessions, I am so interested in how you throw away all your views about concise writing to placate political intest groups. What happens to those people who are hearing unimpaired, people with abilities, people with hearing but not part of the DEAF COMMUNITY, who might want to write a direct sentence? I guess we can't refer to them as individuals. So, apparently Grammar Girl thinks that we can never describe a group of people, only individuals. Welcome to the 1984 style of PC writing.

Greg Says:
2/27/2009 6:28:49 PM

I am all for sensitivity wherever there's room for it. For the most part, I agree with the article. But making up new ways of naming things just because the existing term has been used as a negative is really annoying and ultimately serves no one. Some circumstances and subjects may be unfortunate or unpleasant to speak of. So care should be taken to only speak of it when appropriate. Calling something by a new and longer name doesn't change what it is and does not inherently make it more sensitive either. Then there's the idea that everyone everywhere is somehow expected to know this new term, as if a mass memo has been shuffled around. I use my tone and mannerism to show sensitivity. I do not think anything else will do.

Nikki Says:
2/10/2009 11:58:29 AM

If you want some truly quick & dirty tips for referring to people with disabilities, here's a "Don't Say/Do Say" poster from the Research and Training Center on Independent Living: http://www.rtcil.org/products/Your%20Words,%20Our%20Image%20poster.pdf Unfortunately, a .pdf of their "Guidelines for Reporting and Writing about people with disabilities" is not available online. Most of the above article is in line with their latest guidelines. However, as Harriett mentioned, writers should avoid "suffers from". Other no-no's according to the RTCIL include "afflicted with", "crippled with", and "victim of". These phrases sensationalize and negatively label individuals with disabilities. Keep up the good work. I enjoy this blog!

Jan Thomas Says:
2/5/2009 3:07:41 PM

As a journalist, my only comment is that the preferred phrases used in the article are longer and more awkward and so fail to meet the criteria of clear, concise journalistic writing. Some may have a preference for “a person who is blind” rather than “a blind person”, but the reality is that in the fight for media space and simplifying every phrase, this would get blue-penciled before my asthmatic lungs even had time to inhale.

Jess Says:
2/5/2009 12:48:14 PM

The wonderful thing about language is it is a living thing that grows and changes. The American Academy on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities has an excellent op-ed piece on why they dropped "mental retardation" from the organization and journal titles. It has less to do with the political correctness of the newer terms than with a more accurate description of these disabilities. I would encourage readers to check out the Research and Training Center on Independent Living's Guidelines for Reporting and Writing About People with Disabilities, 7th Edition. It was developed *with* people with disabilities, their families, and the health and education professionals who serve them. http://www.rtcil.org/

Kim Marsaglia Says:
2/5/2009 12:28:18 AM

As an instructor of Survey of Exceptional Children, I completely appreciate this information. This is "RIGHT ON" as to what is considered socially acceptable or politically correct in the world of those with exceptionality.

Kalena Says:
2/3/2009 11:53:28 PM

Drew Kime, your mom sounds great. I worked for 25 years in the Medical industry, most of them as a provider of specialty wheelchairs. I have many friends on crutches, walkers, and in chairs, and just want to say that regardless of what we call persons with disabilities, the most important thing to ANY person is that they are treated as a person. One of my favorite friends has a framed poster up in his house. It reads: "How do you treat a person with disabilities?" 1. Like a person. 2. Like a person. 3. Like a person. On through 50, with each one the same. Just as you would with any other person, when you meet someone who is a wheelchair rider, look them in the eye, extend your hand, and for heaven's sake don't be afraid to touch them! That is far more important than any label we as a society could ever come up with.

Tim Says:
2/3/2009 5:57:13 PM

The voluminous commentary here does a good job of showing just how sensitive of a subject this is. The cliche is true. You cannot please all of the people all of the time. I have to feel that trying to please people as much as you can is a laudable goal, and should not be derided. I think most people are also intelligent enough to distinguish between a person whose choice of wording is intended to offend, and those who do not intend to offend. Please try to react to intentions before you react to details.

Mike Says:
2/3/2009 11:06:32 AM

Don't we all have "disabilities" in the grammatical sense? I, for one, have a terrible sense of direction and am totally useless when it comes to household repairs. However, I don't have a condition that is recognized by law or society as a "disability." So, I submit, any discussion of proper terminology should begin with a frank acknowledgment of the subject matter, i.e., conditions recognized by law or society as warranting assigment of status to a person based thereon. So recognized, the the reason for the awkwardness in the "people with" formulation becomes apaprent - it is an attempt to avoid assignment of status, when the existence of a status-warranting condition is the premise behind the whole exercise. I do not submit that this acknowledgment answers the question, but merely that it is a necessary consideration in any discussion of the topic.

Russell Findlay Says:
2/3/2009 9:11:42 AM

I believe that we have impact terms just as we have impact topics. The truth is that many of us who live with handicaps have special needs. Additionally, some others who are not classified as handicapped also have special needs. What am I trying to say...if we use the term Special Needs then we understand that individual needs somespecial consideration, without endeavoring to make them a second class citizen

Randy Farnsworth Says:
2/2/2009 12:46:09 PM

One that wasn't addressed specifically in the article is Down Syndrome. Again, use the "people first" rule: "My sister has a daughter with Down Syndrome." Don't say, "My sister has a Down's daughter," or "There's a Down's kid in my class." I'm not offended when people see my son and ask "Does he have Downs?" But I correct them by replying, "Yes, my son has Down Syndrome."

Shari Says:
2/1/2009 11:00:08 PM

I agree with the article that a person should not be defined by their situation, medical or otherwise. I would much rather be referred to as a person with diabetes than a diabetic. But I do not find either to be offensive or disrespectful whether it's in person or in writing. What does annoy me are published articles and ads that assign the disease to products such as "diabetic socks" or "diabetic vitamins". I'm sure these objects are not suffering from a medical condition. Thank you, GG, for finally giving me a place and an opportunity to air that grievance.

Harriett Says:
2/1/2009 5:21:06 PM

Good topic to delve into. I agreed with most of the article. Individuals have their various opinions, so you won't please all of the people, no matter what terms you use. If I may put in my 2 cents worth, I would like to mention that I currently walk with a limp caused by arthritis in my hip (replacement surgery coming soon.) I don't know what, if any, label people would want to hang on me because of this. But no matter how severe my problem might be, I surely wouldn't like to be called a "cripple". "Physical disability" sounds a lot better to me. Also, I'd prefer to hear "wheelchair user" or "uses a wheelchair" to "confined to a wheelchair" (sounds like you're not allowed out of it.) Another term that bugs me is "suffers from__". My darling husband has asthma, but hasn't suffered from it for many years (since the meds improved). It's often better to just say, He/she has ____, if it seems relevent to the conversation.

Jessica Says:
2/1/2009 4:24:51 PM

A lot of commenters are talking about using the term that "the person" prefers, or talking about using particular terms while having a conversation with someone. I think what we need to remember is that Grammar Girl's podcasts are typically given as advice on writing and editing, so this advice is most appropriate when you are writing or editing a piece in which, for whatever reason, it is NECESSARY to identify the particular ability or condition of a person (possibly fictional) or a group of people. In that case, there may not be any one person to contact to ask for his or her particular preference, so following these guidelines seems to me to be appropriate.

unitacx Says:
2/1/2009 8:58:51 AM

The preference for "people first" approach depends on whether the person identifies with the disability or condition. Since Deaf and Autistic describe cultures, one would preferably describe the individuals according to that identity. This distinction is one can easily point out, "Most adult Autistics prefer to be called 'Autistic'." As Drew indicated, this of course carries the same caveats as describing anyone according their cultural or ethnic identities.

Judy Vorfeld Says:
1/31/2009 7:24:08 PM

Er, I'm not deaf: I just have a hearing loss. Really. To me, deaf and blind people are totally deaf and blind. But otherwise, lots of good pointers. I do a lot of writing and editing for the disability community, and have to watch my Ps and Qs. I'm so grateful that I don't get a lot of criticism, because I'm criticism impaired. Big time.

Sheila Boyd Says:
1/31/2009 6:11:26 PM

Well put Drew Kime! I was born with spina bifida and scoliosis but I have always accepted it as a part of my life and have tried to avoid being defined by my disability. I grew up with terms like "handicapped, lame and crippled" but I also hate PC terms like "handicapable" We are people first and foremost.

Laurentius-rex Says:
1/31/2009 3:03:44 PM

In the UK people with disabilities is regarded a half way measure, a euphemism used by those who mostly administer the system of controls that disables people who have impairments. Essentially the preferred usage by the disability movement, is disabled people, because the problem is not located in the body or the mind, it is located in the society that constructs impairment in the way it does and disenables people. As for me I am Autistic, with a capital A (and a metaphorical R in the middle) many in our movement despise people first language too, as a political fudge. A forage around the archive of articles held by the Leeds University Centre for Disability Studies. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/ will give the definitive history of why and how we come to use the term "disabled people"

Lisa Jacobson Says:
1/31/2009 1:39:15 PM

Actually, dear Grammar Girl, and I write this as a fan, an editor, and a person who uses a wheelchair, I dislike being described as a person "in a wheelchair." I sometimes use a wheelchair, but I am not 'in' it. I do take this column in the generous spirit in which it was meant, and I do not mean to scold. Thank you.

John from Lorain Says:
1/31/2009 9:55:45 AM

As usual, GG, you get things partly right and partly wrong. In future, you could work harder to get things as fully correct as possible in your broadcasts/articles, perhaps by allowing several people (who are of different age groups and sexes, who have different life experiences, and who have different points of view [sociologically, politically, religiously, etc.]) to review them in advance, instead of relying on your youthful, liberal, feminine, not very experienced slant. You were right to say this at the end: "In summary, no matter what disability someone has, you need to be polite and sensitive to that person and use an appropriate term." The problem that caused you to veer into error, however, is found within this comment of yours: "The phrase 'a person with cerebral palsy' might sound a bit awkward, but since people with disabilities and the organizations that serve them might prefer this phrasing, we should respect their wishes." GG, you have fallen, time and again, for the "vocabulary engineering" that is being perpetrated by "organizations" that serve the HANDICAPPED [stress intended], sometimes contrary to the will of those whom they serve. Are you aware of the fact that the vast majority of American Indians want to be called by that term, rather than by "Native Americans?" Probably you are not aware of that, because certain "organizations" push for the new and unjustifiable term, against the will of the Indians. Similarly, "organizations" have fooled you into believing that majorities of disabled people want us able-bodied folks to refer to them by all kinds of overly "sensitive," mustn't-hurt-their-feelings, politically correct euphemisms. In some cases, they do NOT want us to re-engineer our vocabularies. You need to go to the people themselves, NOT to the organizations. Moreover, even when the majority of a certain handicapped group desire that a specific NEW term be used, each of us should use the OLD term when speaking by or about a handicapped person who prefers the old term. I speak from experience, and I urge readers here to continue to use the following words and phrases, despite your desire to ban them: crippled by [x (e.g., an accident, a disease)], handicapped, disabled person, [x (e.g., visual)] handicap, blind man/woman/girl/boy/person, confined to a wheelchair, a diabetic. PS: The following words of yours are misleading, GG, if not just plain wrong: "On the site for the Perkins School of the Blind, for instance, people who are blind are referred to as 'people with visual impairments' and 'people who are visually impaired.'" The term, "visually impaired," is being used in order to show that there is a desire to refer not just to the blind, but also to people with limited vision. When speaking only of people with no vision at all, the term, "blind," is used. Fully blind people are not visually "impaired," but visually "deprived." The word, "impaired," means, "damaged or diminished," and thus it is applied inaccurately to people who are fully blind.

Ryan Sayles Says:
1/31/2009 12:01:41 AM

A lot of this seems a tad too P.C. I come from an entire family of diabetics and not a single one of them ask to be referred to as a 'person who is diabetic' or 'a person with diabetes'. I myself am AA, but I don't ask to be called 'a man who is a recovering alcoholic'. Life deals a hand of cards and some people get betters ones than others. I understand someone being upset over a malicious, intentional label, but sensativity to a label that was OK last year and now has somehow become inapproiate... that's silly. If it's somehow offensive to the person hearing it (and, as I stated before, there is no malicious intent) a friendly correction never hurt anyone. If it bothers a 'person who is blind/visually impaired/whatever' to be called a 'blind person', they can state they prefer to be called something else. I would wager most well-intentioned people will be more upset that they offended the disabled person than they will be upset that they were corrected on their terminolgy. Most people don't think about calling someone a '__________ person' as putting the disability first; so it's in the hands of the person being called that to correct the other in an appropriate manner. It might be a bit extra, but again, in my opinion, it just comes with the diability. I can't drink ever again but I do not ask the rest of the world or the the people I hang out with not to drink. It just comes with the disability. And yes, it's a disability.

Laura Says:
1/30/2009 5:31:15 PM

Ya know having had my disability all my life the only term I have issue with is crippled. That makes me cringe but the others I think are not to be demeaning. some of them actually make me giggle. Physically challenged always makes me think of that kids game show. I try not to be over react. But I will admit I have higher standards for people that I consider to be close friends or family. For instance I love my Dad but I have never been able to get my dad to stop calling me handicapped. It used to make me really angry and then I realized he doesn't think of me that way it's just how he classifies me like my blue eyes or being the oldest. I think I'd rather have honesty then someone who is trying so hard to be PC that it gets in the way of having a meaningful conversation.

R. Francis Smith Says:
1/30/2009 4:53:41 PM

I found the last bit interesting, as I've watched the diabetes community (of which I am, I suppose, a part) debate the terminology thing. Many people definitely dislike being called "a diabetic," you are correct about that. (It doesn't overly bother me, but that's just me.) People differ a lot more on whether they are "diabetic" or "have diabetes" (I probably say both interchangeably, I guess.) Most to the point, I think something missed by some commenters above is this: you don't get to define how other people wish to be called. (You can do it if you want, but don't be surprised when you're called out on it.) I think all of the suggestions in the article are reasonable enough to stay within most comfort zones, and they don't hurt anyone to learn them.

Lydia Ramsey Says:
1/30/2009 3:25:06 PM

As a business etiquette expert and the author of Manners That Sell, I found this to be one of the best articles that I have seen on the correct terms to use when speaking about people with disabilities. We have come along way in defining people by who they are rather than what disabilities or illnesses they have. Old habits are hard to break, but articles such as this bring an awareness of and sensitivity to an issue that has long been overlooked.

Aimee Says:
1/30/2009 3:24:22 PM

This article is a little too over the top. There isn't anything wrong with saying someone is "diabetic." If someone really thought you were trying to define them by saying that rather than just trying to save your breath saying, "you're a person with diabetes," they're likely way too sensitive. I've also never heard anyone say "wheelchair user" before. And I don't really get why we still call it "handicapped parking" if it's not acceptable to refer to a disabled person as "handicapped." Why not refer to the parking as "disabled parking" then as well? Some people take offense at being called disabled and insist that you call them "differently abled". Where do we draw the line on being logical and just being really nitpicky and sensitive to everything?

melanie miller Says:
1/30/2009 2:30:57 PM

I agree with this article. I think when you are refering to someone who does not fit the social "norm"(in the U.S.): middle-aged, caucasian,heterosexual,male then you will read in the newspaper or magazine, "A young black child..." because it does not fit the "norm" that has been established. It is not racist or prejudice to do so either. I have asthma and I definitely don't want to be called asthmatic. I am interesting,intelligent, empathetic young woman not an "asthmatic." Good Article!!

Drew Kime Says:
1/30/2009 1:23:11 PM

I disagree with parts of this. While I don't have any disabilities, I was raised by someone who does. My mother had polio when she was a child and has used crutches ever since. Through her I have seen extremes of behavior and preference among other disabled people that, unsurprisingly, mirror the extremes of behavior among the population at large. Some of her acquaintances have *chosen* to define themselves by their disability, and become activists for rights for the disabled. Others try as much as possible to ignore and disguise the fact that they have a disability. Some, like my mother, accept it as a fact of life, like height and left- or right-handedness. For me it comes down to intent. As an example: "The store was robbed by a black teenager." Is race relevant to a story about a robbery? Probably not. To include that piece of information is prejudicial. But: "Police are looking for a black teenager, 5-feet 4-inches tall, wearing a blue sweatshirt." Now the description is a vital part of the story. The same is true of disabilities. If the disability is not vital to the story, there is no point in mentioning it. If it is vital, as in a story about someone without use of their legs climbing Mt. Everest, then you talk about *that individual* in whatever way they ask you to. If you are talking about a group in the abstract, then simply be descriptive: blind people, deaf people, people who use wheelchairs. There is no single spokesperson for any of these groups with authority to decide what terms are acceptable and what ones aren't. I believe it's people's discomfort around disability that leads to ridiculous terms like "handicapable". It is the same as whispering and glancing away when someone comes into the room in a wheelchair and telling your children not to look. My mother has always preferred the honest curiosity of children to the obsequiousness of do-gooder adults.