One more addition here that I’ve mentioned elsewhere.
According to my readings and experience, the term “disability” refers to the actual illness or condition that a person has. A “handicap” refers to an obstacle that prevents a person with a disability from performing some task. (The “handicapped” spots have been around long before the terminology changes).
“In other words, the person with a hearing disability was handicapped by the fact that no sign language interpreters were available.”
That’s the way both terms are being used now, anyway. I’m willing to cut BigSUV a break since I don’t know if he’s from the US. Perhaps terminology is different in other parts of the world?
Here is a page of info for anyone interested. It is from Ragged-Edge magazine (online edition) and is a press kit with prefered terminology. http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/mediacircus/styleguide.htm
(BigSUV-are you sorry you brought it up yet?? )
OK, here’s where I come in. The un-PC ignorant European. How’ya doin’.
I can certainly see why “cripled” would be derogatory. But how about “deaf” or “blind”? I can’t say I feel those terms are negative at all. Just descriptive. FWIW, if I were deaf, you could call me just that.
[Denis Leary]“I’m big-boned”. DINOSAURS are big-boned. You’re big-assed![/Denis Leary]
A dear friend of mine ever since high school is blind, and she prefers to be called blind. I remember once when we were in school together we were at a meeting where the school social worker used the term “differently abled”. My friend asked her what that term meant, and after a brief explanation the social worker asked my friend what her preferred term was. She said, “Blind, I’m just blind.”
Then again, my friend is completely blind. Both her eyes have been removed, so she has no sense of sight at all. This is relatively rare. Many blind people can at least sense light and motion; my friend could before she had her right eye removed. A person can be legally blind without being anywhere near completely blind. A legally blind person may be able to make out shapes and colors and read print with a magnifying device. If I were such a person I would be hesitant to seriously refer to myself as blind, because I would feel that it was misleading.
That seems to be the prevailing attitude of many people with disabilities. Saying someone is “deaf” immediately brings to mind someone who can’t hear anything at all. Many people have degrees of hearing impairment but have some hearing. Same for vision. I don’t believe those terms are seen as deragatory, but a better description (if one is needed) in many cases (not all) is “visual impairment”. When addressing a particular disability, the idea is to be as specific as possible to avoid confusion. Is the person deaf? (in the traditional sense of the word?) Or does he have a 60% hearing loss that requires hearing aids and sign language use? In one case, the person is deaf. In the other, the person has a hearing impairment.
Remember, too, that the words used between people with disabilities are often different then what others are requested to use. While my friend who uses a wheelchair refers to herself as a “gimp”, it’s not generally accepted to call her that yourself.
That was one of my favorites, too. When I saw it on the Onion.com, I about fell out of my chair laughing. I also liked “Differently pleasant to be around”. In my case, boy ain’t that the truth!
Ah, good points. Yes, the degree of the handicap is relevant. But calling someone who can’t hear a thing “hearing impaired” is still just silly, IMHO. Of course, if they which to be addressed as such, I’m not one to argue.
)