3 ms·
As I participate in this thread and think more about this, I'm conflicted. On the one hand, saying "disabled" instead of "with a disability" carries the implic
by mwcampbell 10y ago
As I participate in this thread and think more about this, I'm conflicted.
On the one hand, saying "disabled" instead of "with a disability" carries the implication that the disability makes you completely unable to do anything useful, like a disabled widget in a UI toolkit. In our language, the best way to avoid that implication, when talking about disabilities in general, is to say "with a disability" rather than "disabled".
But when talking about a specific disability, language like "people who are blind", instead of "blind people", is just too damn clunky, without accomplishing anything, at least in my mind. I know plenty of blind people, and none of us use people-first language to refer to ourselves or each other.
- costcopizza 10y agoInteresting that you mention blindness. The National Federation of the Blind first condemned people-first language in 1993. It really does depend on the group, however in my area of intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) there is a push for it.