The Complexity of Language

I didn't think I'd be writing a newsletter about Disability language so early in the year.

But following conversations under my recent posts, and a lot of back and forth with people, I felt it only right to write this newsletter. Seriously, it's the first week of January. No one should ever have to defend or reason the language they used to self-identify, especially not at the start of a New Year. But alas here we are.

Before I go further, I want to say, this is my opinion. There are many different views on which language an individual should use when discussing Disability. What is right for one person won't necessarily be for another. We also have to remember that language evolves and so do people. Our feelings and views on certain language may change or might have already changed.

There's a lot of debate and conversation going on and has been going on for years. "Disabled Person is better," "No Person with Disability is better."

It's like a game of top trumps, only there is no winner.

We spend so long going back and forth on what is the right language and what is the wrong language, that it only allows ableist euphemisms to manifest and is a hindrance to progress because non-Disabled people are afraid to say the wrong thing or risk offending.

Disability is not a negative word.

Disabled is not a negative word.

I will scream this until I am blue in the face. But yet, many people will tell us otherwise. People who will tiptoe around using these words because of the stigma. A fear that leads to non-Disabled people using ableist euphemisms or belittling language rather than saying the dreaded D words.

We also have individuals challenging content creators on their own choice of language they use in their content.

I cannot tell you how disappointed this makes me feel. Not only because I experience it myself but also because I think, is this really what you're focusing on when a Disabled Person/Person with Disability creates content?

Why are you focusing on the language used and not the message they are sharing? You do not know what it took for that person to share that piece of content, or even how much time it took for a person to get to a place where they even feel comfortable to self-identify and talk about their experiences. I see this happening to friends, not only on LinkedIn but across all social media and online, even in person.

We've got to a place where we think it's appropriate to question an individual's language. Someone who has their own lived experiences of Disability or what it means to be Disabled. If your response is to question, belittle, or make a snide comment about the choice of language, then you are part of the problem and I say shame.

Shame on anyone who feels they have the privilege to police other Disabled People/ People with Disabilities on the language they use to self-identify.

It must be such a comforting feeling to know that you're impacting a person's internalized ableism. That's sarcasm. We do not know what a person has been through to even self-identify, so please, before you power play or play top trumps with language, take a step back and ask yourself, what makes your lived experience and choice of language more important than someone else's? Does that seem equal to you?

Does that seem like advocacy or allyship?

So what is the difference between Disabled Person and Person with Disability?

They are, of course, ways in which a person might self-identify, but they are exactly that. "The way a person might self-identify." A person's choice. Their preferred language. Their right to self-identify with their lived experience. But not every person feels the same way.

Person with Disability

Person before Disability. Typically referred to as Person first language.

This language seeks to encourage a person to recognise an individual before recognising their Disability. It is the language that we come across most often, especially within the corporate world.

Person-first language came about through a social movement. However, some will argue that this way of self-identifying is a medical model approach to Disability. The medical model of Disability tells us that it is the individual who needs fixing. They are Disabled by their condition or impairment. This only seeks to reinforce the complex relationships individuals have with certain words and the diversity of opinions. For many, Person with Disability is an empowering way of saying,

I am a person, respect me, and treat me as equal and equitable. See me as a person, and focus on the fact I am a person before my Disability/ Disabilities.

This language has long been seen as neutral or safe language to use when referencing a group of individuals who are Disabled.

When I first started to self-identify, used this language. It felt right. It made me feel like a person first. But as I said at the beginning, language evolves and so does a person's relationship with it. For me, I moved from Person-first language to Identity-first language.

Disabled Person

There are many interpretations of the word Disabled.

This type of language is called identity-first language. Recognising Disability as an integral piece of a person's identity and the multitude of disabling barriers we experience and systemic ableism we endure.

Some take meaning from the literal dictionary definition. The Oxford dictionary defines Disabled as, “having a condition that makes it difficult for you to do some things that most other people can do.”

I do not agree with this translation.

If I were to only understand the word Disabled to mean what the Oxford dictionary was telling me, I wouldn't use it myself to identify.

Social movements and social changes have transformed and evolved the word Disabled to mean more. The Social Model of Disability tells us that it is the barriers of society and the systemic ableism ingrained in attitudes, behaviours, beliefs, and language that Disable an individual. Not our conditions or impairments.

The social model of Disability was developed by Disabled People and reinforces the problem is society, not the individual.

There is also the debate on whether Disabled is actually reclaiming language. Language that was previously used to convey a negative meaning or has previously been used to oppress, for me this is open to an individual and their experiences.

For some, they feel the word Disabled is negative. They view it to mean Dis + able = Disabled. It is also the reason why so many people shy away from the term Disability. They view it as Dis + ability - Disability. However, whenever we look at the prefix “Dis,” it is easily understandable why we have such a negative connotation.

Disability Rights Center - NH sheds light on the conversation. They write that the prefix “dis” has long been viewed as a negative.

The opposite of honest is dishonest.

The opposite of respectful is disrespectful.

We view the prefix “Dis” as a negative, and so when we hear the word Disabled or Disability, we think of the negative connotation.

However, they go on to explain that: “Dis is also related to the Latin prefixes of bis and duo, both of which are related to the notion of twice or two ways.

When considered this way, the term Disability sheds its negative connotation and instead is reiminaged as:

Dis = Another Way of Doing

Disabled = An ability to do or be something in another way

Disability = An ability to do or be in another way.

When I speak about Disability, I speak as one person. No one person can speak for the majority. Each person with their own lived experience navigates the world in their own way. Their own way of doing things. Their own way of being Disabled. When I think of this spin on the words Disabled and Disability, I can't help but think the Disability Rights Centre New Hampshire, is onto something.

Reclaiming Language

There are many who view reclaiming language as a way of empowerment, using terms that society has historically used to oppress.

For many, this includes terms like "Able-Bodied," "Differently Abled," "Crippled," "Crazy," etc.

Words that could be considered slurs, but individuals are changing the narrative, making it something positive—an expression of pride.

Reclaiming language has always felt like a grey area for me personally due to my own experiences and feelings. However, it doesn't mean I don't support or understand it. It just means I'm not comfortable using language that was weaponised against me. I also feel that what one person views as reclaiming language, another individual might consider ableist.

I think of the Rosie Jones documentary that aired last year. The series title used the "R" word, the outdated offensive term ending in ard.

Many people were upset by this, myself included. I thought of the damage this word would inflict on young Disabled People or even adults. I am sure, for Rosie, this felt like a moment of reclaiming. However, the question for me then became:

Is one person's choice of language more important than the majority feelings of a community? Many people asked for this title to be changed. It was not.

Everyone is an individual. No one has the right to tell them they don't agree with how they self-identify with their lived experiences. I also feel individuals using reclaiming language have to consider the impact this has on ableist stereotyping and language, especially if referencing a group or community, not just oneself. We must also consider the education of non-Disabled People. If we are using reclaiming language collectively to define a community, then how are we asking non-Disabled People to check their ableism if we are using what could be perceived as ableist language?

It's important to remember that your empowering language might be a factor in someone else's internalised ableism. So, while I understand the need for others to use reclaiming language, for me, this will never be something I use myself or encourage clients to use.

It's the same feeling I have around the word queer. I understand people want to reclaim this language, but as someone who daily grew up with the bullying words of queer, I'll never be able to embrace it for myself or use it to collectively describe a community. However, if a person asks for me to refer to them as queer, I, of course, will, as it is an individual's right to identify.

We as a society are so tied to the literal meaning of a word. We don't acknowledge its evolution or the change of public opinion. I've had people tell me I should say Disabled Person. People telling me I shouldn't say Person with Disability.

People telling me I shouldn't use words because of a dictionary definition, most likely written by a non-Disabled Person.

So, who is right and who is wrong?

Honestly, the answer is nobody is.

People are individuals, and individuals make up communities. We cannot ostracise someone from the community for using their preferred language. If a person has their own lived experience of Disability or of being Disabled, who are we to tell them how they should use language? As mentioned earlier when I watched the Rosie Jones documentary, the question I was left with was, is one person's choice of language more important than the majority feelings of a community? The answer is, well, how do we know what the majority of communities want?

People can become Disabled at any given moment. Our thoughts and feelings change on the language we use and self-identify with. We also need to remember that the person using the language is also part of the community, whether we view it as harmful ableist language or whether this person views it as a way of empowerment. It is not our place to decide if they are right or wrong.

It is our place to create spaces that encourage individuals to use the language they self-identify with, whether it be the content they're creating, the training they have created, or simply talking about their experiences. It is that individual's right to self-identify.

What we should never do is disrespect an individual by ignoring their preferred language and instead opting for our own. Respect is a two-way street. To get respect, we must give respect. To me, respect is addressing me in my preferred way. If you aren't sure what way a person wishes to identify with lived experience, ask them.

The language and feelings of self-identifying language are complex.

It is a debate that has been going on for years and years, a conversation without end. Time wasted, which could have been better served to help reduce and remove the barriers in society that Disable us. Time and energy taken away from addressing the ableism so ingrained in our language that most people don't even realise they are doing it.

So, while we see many language guides on how to discuss Disability, the real guide should be the person you are addressing.

Taking their lead and asking their preference.

If you are writing about a collective group of Disabled People/ People with Disabilities and are not sure which langauge to use, opt for both. Opt for Person with Disabilities/ Disabled People.

What I would say is to avoid using reclaiming language to describe a collective group or community. Doing so not only risks offence, but it could also incite trauma and internalised ableism. While there is a debate if the term "Disabled Person" is reclaiming language, I would urge people to consider this language as it emphasises the Social Model of Disability and the multitude of barriers we experience in a disabling society, lets stop adding to the stimga.

You won't please everyone, but that's where the problem stems.

People fail to think beyond their own preferences and instead focus on the language used by others.

You shouldn't say Disabled Person. You shouldn't say Person with Disability. When in reality, we shouldn't be shying away from either term because both are just as acceptable. Yes, you heard that right.

There is no handbook on what it means to be Disabled.

We are not given instructions on how to be Disabled or how we should self-identify. It is that individual's journey and choice.

So, please, if your go-to is to correct another Disabled Person/ Person with Disability or tell them why you don't like their word choice, then I urge you to stop. Reconsider. And for the love of inclusion, don't be the reason another Disabled Person struggles to comprehend their identity. Don't be the person feeding into their internalised ableism and risking past trauma to resurface or fresh new traumas that they did not need to be subjected to.

Except for the simple fact you wanted to play top trumps with language.

Let's get to a place where an individual can use person-first language or identity-first language without fear. Support individuals who opt for reclaiming language, and let's use this energy and time to make change where it matters.

Until Next time......

Love from this Registered Blind AuDHD Rhino

#MondayMotivation #Ablesim #DiversityAndInclusion #DisabilityInclusion