4 ms·

Can we swap "disabled people" for "people with disabilities" please?

sterlind 8y ago
I'm okay calling myself a disabled person, personally. I have some pretty severe disabilities, in spite of which I stay employed and productive. I find identifying as disabled empowering, since it acknowledges the constant effort I put into my health and mobility. I respect that others don't like the phrase "disabled people," since it's something they have rather than something they are. But there's not a consensus on what phrase to use.
- stordoff 8y ago
  Ditto. "People with disabilities" feels, to me, very forced and as a result stands out, whereas "disabled people" feels like a natural way to phrase it.
- thomasfedb 8y ago
  I think it's entirety valid to be happy with the label "disabled" and to embrace that. My background is as a carer for children with intellectual disabilities, and I'm always disappointed when the first thing somebody wants to know about a kid is their diagnosis. I'd much rather tell you that Terry likes Football than tell you he has Autism. People often get fixated on the disability however. Person-first language, in my experience, encourages people to see and think about the person before they see the disability. It encourages then to consider that perhaps John is stroppy because he's a moody teenager, rather than adding it's being he has Autism.
therobotking 8y ago
This is why Trump won!!!
hungerstrike 8y ago
The original title says “people with a broad range of disabilities” so I agree with you, but only for that reason. I can’t stand the way that HN changes titles. Otherwise, I’m not going to tiptoe around people and change my speech patterns because they might be offended by something that meant no offense to them.
M_Bakhtiari 8y ago
No, passive voice is poor style. And there's no guarantee it will last long before someone decides to be offended by that too.
- MartinCron 8y ago
  It looks like the passive voice is not something that is well understood by you.
  - bitwize 8y ago
    What was done by you there has been seen by me.
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
I don't feel that's actually more politically correct though. Grammatically different, maybe.
gowld 8y ago
"people with disabilities" was ~1990s "people-centered-language" linguistic trend. The current trend is "disability pride", not being ashamed of being called "disabled"
- thomasfedb 8y ago
  That's roughly when the idea started, but I think it's untrue to say it's a trend that has been replaced. The CDC and AMA for example have policy in favour of person-first language. There is some, perhaps splotchy, evidence that person-first language reduces stigma (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01899.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01899.x) consistent with the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity).

I'm okay calling myself a disabled person, personally. I have some pretty severe disabilities, in spite of which I stay employed and productive. I find identifying as disabled empowering, since it acknowledges the constant effort I put into my health and mobility. I respect that others don't like the phrase "disabled people," since it's something they have rather than something they are. But there's not a consensus on what phrase to use.

stordoff 8y ago
Ditto. "People with disabilities" feels, to me, very forced and as a result stands out, whereas "disabled people" feels like a natural way to phrase it.
thomasfedb 8y ago
I think it's entirety valid to be happy with the label "disabled" and to embrace that. My background is as a carer for children with intellectual disabilities, and I'm always disappointed when the first thing somebody wants to know about a kid is their diagnosis. I'd much rather tell you that Terry likes Football than tell you he has Autism. People often get fixated on the disability however. Person-first language, in my experience, encourages people to see and think about the person before they see the disability. It encourages then to consider that perhaps John is stroppy because he's a moody teenager, rather than adding it's being he has Autism.

therobotking 8y ago

This is why Trump won!!!

hungerstrike 8y ago

The original title says “people with a broad range of disabilities” so I agree with you, but only for that reason. I can’t stand the way that HN changes titles. Otherwise, I’m not going to tiptoe around people and change my speech patterns because they might be offended by something that meant no offense to them.

M_Bakhtiari 8y ago

No, passive voice is poor style. And there's no guarantee it will last long before someone decides to be offended by that too.

MartinCron 8y ago
It looks like the passive voice is not something that is well understood by you.
- bitwize 8y ago
  What was done by you there has been seen by me.

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

I don't feel that's actually more politically correct though. Grammatically different, maybe.

gowld 8y ago

"people with disabilities" was ~1990s "people-centered-language" linguistic trend. The current trend is "disability pride", not being ashamed of being called "disabled"

thomasfedb 8y ago
That's roughly when the idea started, but I think it's untrue to say it's a trend that has been replaced. The CDC and AMA for example have policy in favour of person-first language. There is some, perhaps splotchy, evidence that person-first language reduces stigma (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01899.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-1167.2008.01899.x) consistent with the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity).