Thank you, Audrey,

Speaking as someone who must use a cane and sometimes
a wheelchair, I *personally* will take 'handicapped',
'disabled', or 'physically challenged' as terms to
describe me.  More specific terms are also
welcome...there's no need to dance around the term
'wheelchair' when that's what's stuck in an
insufficiently accessible doorway.  On the other hand,
I find 'differabled' to be annoying at best, and
insultive at worst.  It implies (to me) that I have
gained a different ability or set of abilities to
compensate for what I lost, and what most people still
have.  It cheapens what I've been and am able to
accomplish, by implying that it shouldn't be any more
difficult for me to reach a final goal than it is for
someone who isn't 'differabled'.

Again, this is personal opinion from someone who lives
with a disability in everyday life, and will hopefully
emphasize how much term choice is a matter of personal
preference.

--Gwen

--- Audrey Gorman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Karen,
>
> This is a topic of great interest among people with
> disabilities and people who work with and for them.
> It is also occasionally the focus of rather heated
> discussions!  Your assessment that it is frequently
> a personal preference is right on target!
>
> The first thing to do is to "put people first."
> It's not "the disabled."  It's "people with (or who
> have) disabilities (or mental retardation or visual
> impairments or mental illness or whatever the
> specific condition is).  Along with this, some of us
> prefer "people with disabilities" to "persons with
> disabilities."  "People" seems more human, more
> inclusive, more personal and individual.  "Persons"
> sounds like dehumanizing, objectifying legalese ¯
> and usually is being borrowed from legal excerpts.
> Do real people talk that way about each other?!
>
> The second is that if you deal with an individual on
> a regular basis, find out what terminology
> preference she or he has.  Most people with
> disabilities will tolerate a lapse here and there if
> you come across as sincere and willing to learn.
> You will encounter people for whom use of particular
> terminology (or not using other terminology) is a
> very deeply felt personal conviction.  Such
> convictions should be honored, just like our other
> differences.
>
> The third thing to understand is that, in our
> society, the word "disability" is the one most
> generally understood.  Even if we think there's a
> lot of misunderstanding of the people about whom the
> word is used, using a common term is frequently
> better than having to explain what you mean each
> time or derailing action with a discussion of words.
>  A corollary is that a "person with a disability"
> has certain explicit rights under federal and state
> law, but a person who is described as "differently
> abled" doesn't.  While these should be issues of
> moral right or wrong, we too frequently have to
> resort to legal mandates to get htings done.
>
> As a person with a disability, I don't mind the use
> of that word.  I wish there was a quick way to break
> down the barriers and misunderstandings of centuries
> with a few changes of wording.  I don't think there
> is.  I would rather work on the underlying issues,
> behaviors, and mutually beneficial outcomes than
> spend my time arguing choice of words.  As I've said
> on more than one occasion, to numerour people, I
> simply refuse to be objectified or neutered or
> rendered otherwise a pitied victim by simple words.
> Still, I'd be happiest if everyone thought as I do:
> we were all just people, with individual strengths,
> weaknesses and differences of all kinds.
>
> One last thing: other struggles for civil rights
> have also endured tension among the advocates who
> wanted to change the words used to describe their
> group, the ones who wanted to work harder at
> changing behaviors and perceptions, and the ones who
> wanted to change everything at once.  The discussion
> and the tension are good, actually.  They keep us
> fresh and honest.
>
> Hope this helps.  It will be interesting to see what
> other comments there are.
>
> In the spirit on open discussion!
> Audrey
> >>> [log in to unmask] 03/05/01 10:05AM >>>
> It has come up on another list, as a question by
> someone who had never heard
> the term "differently abled" before, as to what the
> preferred or acceptable
> terms are to the differently abled community?  As
> there was a recent
> discussion on the rudeness of the use of the term
> "disabled", I would like
> to know what words describing the visual impaired,
> physically challenged
> (formerly know as handicapped) or learning disabled
> might be used as a
> non-demeaning alternative?
>
> I am aware of these terms being in current use:
> differently abled,
> physically challenged, also spectrum disorder (type
> of learning disability,
> but who would know it), visually impaired, and
> handicapped.  Just wondering,
> and I suppose it is sometimes a personal preference,
> which are considered
> non-offensive?  From what I'm hearing the terms
> disabled, handicapped and
> impaired are offensive and shouldn't be used.  Thus
> how would a blind or
> visually impaired person like the matter to be
> discussed in a community
> forum or accessibility for example, so that all
> would know what we are
> talking about.  To me it appears to be an issue of
> educating the public.
>
>
>            -Karen
> McCandlish
>
>            Monroe
> Community College
>
>            Leroy V Good
> Library
>
> [log in to unmask]
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/