I was reading a free local French paper (Metro) earlier on this month. There was an article about how blind people get around in my city. But most of the article used the term “non-voyants” (non-seeing or non-sighted people) instead of “aveugle” (blind.)
Is “blind” now a politically-incorrect term? Or maybe “non-sighted” is used more often in French. I don’t know.
I’m not aware of the niceties in either Montreal or the Francophone world at-large. Being blind, however, isn’t the same as being sight-impaired, though for public transit the two groups use many of the same amenities.
That’s true. Maybe “non-voyant” is a more all-encompassing word meaning anyone with sight impairment.
In the US there has been a general movement towards “person-centered language”, meaning, you know, “people with ______”. As opposed to identifying a person solely by one trait or disability. Perhaps that’s the French end of it?
I am blind.
Or, at least, legally blind. Or severely visually impaired, if you like. I usually say “mostly” blind (if only Miracle Max had a chocolate covered pill for that).
I don’t care much which term is used to describe me. On the other hand, “blind” all by itself does tend to be insufficiently descriptive of the range of impairments out there. Also, “blind” can be used as an insult to those who aren’t, but are perceived to be willfully ignoring what they see (“What’re you blind, Ump?”), whereas “visually impaired” or “non-sighted” are more clearly neutral descriptors of a physical problem.
I’m not seeing it, myself.
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
Actually comparatively few people are completely blind. Most people considered blind can sense, visually, whether they are in light or darkness, and many have some limited perception of shapes, at least if the shapes are in high visual contrast to their environment. Some may also be “blindsighted”. (Although people who have lost their entire primary visual cortex often suffer from Anton’s syndrome, which leads them to imagine or pretend they can see when they really can’t, and to make up stuff about what they think they are seeing.)
As for a data point from yet a third language environment, in Puerto Rican Spanish I’ve been hearing “no videntes” (= non-voyants, non-sighted) in formal contexts for over 30 years to refer to the blind and the severely sight-impaired a.k.a. “legally blind”, but “ciego” or “ceguera” are still used in casual conversation; this however is itself a subset of the larger and now more used category “impedimento visual” (visual impairment). In different locations that use one same language there may be different usages depending on the local culture and experiences.
We have a lot of visually impared patrons who use our library. That’s the term I prefer, simply because it’s a better description of their condition. My son lost his left field of vision in both eyes, so he is visually impared, though you wouldn’t realize it upon first meeting him, because he can read and get around without much difficulty.
I don’t care much for changing terms willy nilly, but thinking about it visually impaired might actually be better than legally blind, if only because legally blind implies the existence of illegally blind, which is an absurd notion. I know, that’s not what legally blind means, don’t feel you have to explain it.
But for more fully blindeded individuals, just say blind.
The charitable organization “Reading For The Blind” is now “Learning Ally,” but that is largely because so much of their work is now directed at people with dyslexia.
I’ve never heard of that word being offensive to anyone.
It is a very offensive term that sends me into a blind rage.
How lame. PC people are dumb.
Sounds to me like it was chosen for accuracy and correctly encompassing the wider group they’re referring to, not for being “PC” (how I hate that phrase).
Maybe, but in my experience you don’t hear person-centered language with deafness and blindness as much as you do a lot of other conditions. I hear “a child who has autism” (not “autistic”), “a person who uses a wheelchair” (not “confined to a wheelchair”) and “a person with an intellectual disability” (not “retarded”) *a lot *more often than “a person with a visual impairment” and “a person who has experienced a loss of hearing.” Blind and deaf seem to feel less denigrating than the other terms, so they don’t seem to get people-first’d as much.
The mother of a friend of mine is blind, though to what degree I am not sure, but she has a guide dog and red-tipped cane. She uses normal public transit regularly to commute. She describes herself as “blind” but others as “visually impaired” depending on the severity of their vision loss. To hear her explain it, “visually impaired” (and, I’d assume, its non-English cognates) includes a wider array of people beyond those who are just blind, including the colourblind or those with progressive vision loss. I believe Metro probably used it because it is not simply those who are “100% legally blind” or whatever who have issues getting around, but it includes those who may have any range of loss of vision and still be affected.