Comments on: What is in a word? The evolution of disability language continues

By: Let’s talk about disability, seriously « Mamaterapeuta goes bilingual!

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:57:03 +0000

[...] Further reading and interesting comments in Glenda Watson-Hyatt’s reply to this post: “What’s in a word? The evolution of disability language continues“. [...]

By: Adelaide Dupont

Adelaide Dupont — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:39:09 +0000

In some countries “illegally blind” is implied by not being on a registered list.

Some countries have a “registered blind” list, and it is probably going to be more likely for more disabilities (and more services) in the time of genetic testing.

By: Glenda

Glenda — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:55:10 +0000

Bob, I hear ya on “legally accessible”. That begs the question: what is “illegally accessible”? Or, “illegally blind”?

By: Glenda

Glenda — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 19:52:07 +0000

Richard, I agree about the term “disabled parking space”. To me, that means the parking space is disabled, which, in some cases, is true!

By: Bob Easton

Bob Easton — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:55:31 +0000

Before I retired from IBM’s Accessibility Center, I heard “differently abled” used widely in conferences where technologists gathered to share accessibility techniques.

“Universal accessibility” was also a heavily used phrase that sets a tough, but simply stated goal.

Personally, I prefer either of those to anything that says “ADA” or “legally…” Both of those sound like “We’re doing this because the law made us do it.” Tragically wrong!

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:19:28 +0000

Obviously dis-abled is a negative term but trying to turn it around into a positive is unlikely to work, the term differently-abled has become a symbol of political correctness gone mad, along the lines of vertically-challenged or follically-challenged (I’m not saying I agree with that).
As you say, the term disabled requires a norm to measure against. Although that it difficult to define in some circumstances, in many cases it is just a statistical test. It is fair to say that the vast majority of people in the world are sighted, or have two legs, or don’t have cerebral palsy, so harsh as it sounds, those are norms.
I don’t think there are any easy answers to this but I do think that a two word term is far less likely to catch on than a one word term.
“functional diversity” to me has little or no meaning. Every human, animal and plant on the planet is functionally diverse. I can play piano which makes me functionally diverse from many people.
One area where the term disabled could be used much less is in accessibility. Rather than disabled-friendly just say accessible (or as one other commenter put it universally accessible if that helps). There is no need for a “disabled parking space”, if it needs a label just call it an “accessible parking space”

By: Adelaide Dupont

Adelaide Dupont — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 04:03:01 +0000

We already talk about ‘universal design’. Especially on the web, and also in real life.

I like “Welcome everyone” too.

Whether “everyone” is “everyone”.

Donna Williams talked about “anybodies anywhere”.

By: Glenda

Glenda — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:44:21 +0000

Or Jo, why not “Welcome Everyone!”?

By: Jo Holzer

Jo Holzer — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 03:30:59 +0000

I hope I live to see the day when … among other things … public services, restaurants, etc., no longer use the term “handicap accessible”, but rather use “ADA accessible”or “legally accessible” or “universally accessible”.

What do you think?

By: Barbara

Barbara — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 22:10:51 +0000

Not sure if my vote counts as I don’t have a label on my abilities.

For what it’s worth, I’m going to point you in the direction of starrlife:
http://starrlife.wordpress.com/2010/01/05/removing-the-essence/

We are not all equal in our abilities. But there are huge commonalities among all people. A very small portion of all people have specific inabilities – which for communication purposes really need a name or word. When that word becomes a slur – I am not sure how or if that can be controlled.