# "Person with disabilities" vs "Disabled person", etc. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 27, 2015, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356 "2015-07-27T21:46:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/1 "2015-07-27T21:46:28Z")
Over in [this pit thread about political correctness](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=762817) a poster named **Jack of Words** made some comments about the language used to describe the group that I would previously have referred to as “disabled people” that I found interesting, and I thought I’d start a GD thread to explore them. (1) He claimed that “people with disabilities” is the preferred term, over “disabled people”. (a) What is the rationale behind this position? (b) Is this a common/consensus view among the disabled community? Or would there be lots of other people/groups in that community who would be perfectly happy with “disabled person” or with some other term entirely? (c) If this is in fact the consensus agreed-upon view, how offensive is “disabled people”? How doe it compare to, say, “crippled” or “handicapped”? (2) He posted the following: > [@](#): > > I spend too much of my life saying “I don’t have Aspergers, I am aspergian”. Similarly, I don’t ‘have’ maleness, I don’t ‘have’ homosexuality, I don’t ‘have’ left-handedness and so on (though I do ‘have’ grey hair, I do ‘have’ big feet etc…I’m not sure can I draw a clear line between the cases). > > … > > You just don’t get it. In fact, for a lot of disabilities it’s neither…it’s that society has steps. Actual stairs, rather than ramps, I mean - someone whose illness, injury or condition requires a wheelchair often isn’t disabled until they reach the stairs. Assuming I’m reading that correctly, I believe he’s making two distinct points: (1) It’s preferred to (and/or insulting NOT to) use language involving “have” rather than “is”. That is, you wouldn’t say someone “has missing limbs”, you would say that person “IS an amputee”. You wouldn’t say they “have deafness” you would say they “ARE deaf”. Again, what’s the rationale here? And how common a viewpoint is this? (2) “someone whose illness, injury or condition requires a wheelchair often isn’t disabled until they reach the stairs” seems to be saying that being a paraplegic isn’t “being disabled”, rather, being a paraplegic _in a situation where being a paralegic actually stops you from doing what you’re trying to do_ is “being disabled”. (a) So (I suppose this is directly primarily at **Jack of Words** himself) is this an accurate summation of what you’re trying to say? (b) This seems like a definition that is odd. So if we lived in a society in which there were absolutely perfect wheelchair ramps and so forth EVERYWHERE then suddenly no one in a wheel chair would be disabled? And if a short person can’t reach things on a tall shelf they and can’t find the footstool that person is, for the duration, disabled? I think I can see the mindset behind that definition, but it just seems likely to result in frequent misunderstanding and miscommunication. But I’m willing to be convinced that I’m wrong. Thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/2 "2015-07-27T22:14:55Z")
Just for the record, I was the person in the thread who stated that in my experiences at work in our relationship with the disability community, person-first language such as “person with a disability” is generally preferred to identity-first language such as “disabled person” or identity-only language such as “the disabled.” (I work tangentially with the disability community. Most of my work is done with the elder community. Perhaps strangely, person-first language is rarely used when referring to members of the elder community, though such usage is not proscribed.) This has two big caveats: the Autistic community has some dispute about this but I believe identity-first language is more preferred at this time, e.g. “Autistic person” or “the Autistic.” I also believe identity-first language is more preferred in the Deaf community, e.g. “Deaf person” or “the Deaf.” I am not remotely as familiar with the Deaf community, so I welcome correction. (Individuals being individual, this does not in any way mean that any person cannot and does not have his or her own preferences for how they should be addressed or referred to.) ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/3 "2015-07-27T22:21:37Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (b) Is this a common/consensus view among the disabled community? Or would there be lots of other people/groups in that community who would be perfectly happy with “disabled person” or with some other term entirely? I’m not aware that any there is any such thing as the “disabled community”. I’ve know many disabled persons during my life; my grandfather was confined to a wheelchair for the last ten years of his life. None of these people ever notified me that they were members of the “disabled community”, and I doubt any ever thought of themself that way. The group of disabled people does not act or speak as one. If I saw any evidence that disabled people as a group wanted to change the English language in a reasonable way I’d do my best to adopt those changes. If I only see evidence of a small fraction wanting that, I don’t see why I should care. For all I know, the majority of disabled people may think the English language is fine as it is. They may even be embarrassed by the parade of PC gadflies claiming to be outraged on their behalf. (And the same could be said for numerous other groups, not just the disabled.) ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/4 "2015-07-27T22:21:50Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Just for the record, I was the person in the thread who stated that in my experiences at work in our relationship with the disability community, person-first language such as “person with a disability” is generally preferred to identity-first language such as “disabled person” or identity-only language such as “the disabled.” (I work tangentially with the disability community. My apologies, sorry for the confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/5 "2015-07-27T22:43:36Z")
Perhaps the most relevant part of that post is here (with emphasis added): > [@Jack of Words](#): > > You’re not even right about not being right. Well, no, there’s quite a bit of truth in there, but it’s a tad condescending to tell disabled people what they should be concerned about. Currently, I’m most concerned about people who talk of ‘people with disabilities’ as though we were an homogenous group; those who think that they can best help by perpetuating a victim narrative; and those who dismiss actual concerns about the language used to frame others’ experience as not ‘actual’ difficulties. I think the biggest take-away here is that _different people are different_, and that “the disabled” is not a homogeneous group. The offense occurs not just among the able-bodied but also those dealing with disabilities. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (1) He claimed that “people with disabilities” is the preferred term, over “disabled people”. That is preferred _by some people_. Frankly, the term preferred by my disabled spouse many would find offensive, whether able-bodied or otherwise but honestly, 90% of the time the two phrasings are going to be interchangeable. Yes, some people have a chip on their shoulder and there are a few situations where it matters. My opinion is that if we can stop people from causally using words starting with G, C, and R in reference to the “differently abled” it would be a better use of outrage and effort but as I said, that’s strictly my opinion. I don’t expect everyone to agree with that. > [@](#): > > (a) What is the rationale behind this position? It has to do with language and custom. There are some subtle things that change depending on the wording and, as I said, there are times that it is significant. Most of the time, though, it’s not as big an issue as some make it out to be. > [@](#): > > (b) Is this a common/consensus view among the disabled community? Or would there be lots of other people/groups in that community who would be perfectly happy with “disabled person” or with some other term entirely? As people with disabilities/disabled people are not homogeneous no, there is NOT some overall consensus. It’s not like they all voted on the matter. How much it matters to a particular person in the referred to group is also going to vary. > [@](#): > > (c) If this is in fact the consensus agreed-upon view, how offensive is “disabled people”? How doe it compare to, say, “crippled” or “handicapped”? Handicapped can have a defined legal meaning - see “handicapped parking”, for example - and certainly in context it’s a perfectly legitimate and proper term to use. Note, though, that not everyone with a disability is going to qualify as “handicapped” under legal definitions. My nephew disabled from a traumatic brain injury does not qualify for a handicapped parking placard as his disability does not affect his ability to walk from a vehicle into a building. “Crippled” is _usually_ offensive, particularly when used by someone who isn’t. It’s probably a good idea for the able-bodied to avoid using the word in the same way that white people shouldn’t use the n-word. It’s not quite as bad, but yes, it’s usually considered offensive. > [@](#): > > Assuming I’m reading that correctly, I believe he’s making two distinct points: > (1) It’s preferred to (and/or insulting NOT to) use language involving “have” rather than “is”. That is, you wouldn’t say someone “has missing limbs”, you would say that person “IS an amputee”. You wouldn’t say they “have deafness” you would say they “ARE deaf”. This is getting into subtle language stuff. I’ve yet to meet someone who would get offended if someone observed they are missing a limb or part of one, and yes, such a person is an amputee. Then again, I don’t spend a lot of time around people with that particular issue so there may be something I’m missing there. You either say someone is deaf or they have a hearing problem, “have deafness” may be real English in a sense but it’s not something I’ve heard expressed in that manner. Likewise, you may say someone is blind, or that they have low vision or a vision problem. Some of this is just simply tradition, and arguably idiomatic to English. > [@](#): > > (2) “someone whose illness, injury or condition requires a wheelchair often isn’t disabled until they reach the stairs” seems to be saying that being a paraplegic isn’t “being disabled”, rather, being a paraplegic _in a situation where being a paralegic actually stops you from doing what you’re trying to do_ is “being disabled”. Yes. That is what he is saying. In many ways he is correct. Often, the biggest obstacle to the disabled is not the disability they have (note that _both_ constructions were used there) but rather how _other people_ react to that disability. The rationale here is that a person is not _just_ his or her disability. If your disability doesn’t interfere with what you’re doing then no, you’re not disabled in that context, even if you’re wearing an artificial limb, using a wheelchair, have a cochlear implant, or whatever. That is probably the most important point of that post, and the one item the vast majority of people with a disability will agree on. > [@](#): > > (b) This seems like a definition that is odd. So if we lived in a society in which there were absolutely perfect wheelchair ramps and so forth EVERYWHERE then suddenly no one in a wheel chair would be disabled? From the standpoint of getting in and out of buildings, no, but presumably even such a world as that would still have people with hearing problems, vision problems, neurological issues, etc. People use wheelchairs for a variety of reasons. Quite a few wheelchair users actually are able to stand up and take a few steps, so stairs are much less an obstacle for them than for people who can’t stand/walk at all. This gets back to people not being homogeneous. Just because you see a person in a wheelchair doesn’t mean you can safely make assumptions about what they can and can’t do. Even in such a perfect world, being a respirator-dependent quadriplegic would no doubt be a disability, even if there were no longer problems with stairs. > [@](#): > > And if a short person can’t reach things on a tall shelf they and can’t find the footstool that person is, for the duration, disabled? Yes. Of course, we aren’t trained to think in those terms. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/6 "2015-07-27T22:47:12Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > My apologies, sorry for the confusion. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen people shot for less! 😃 My big concern was that I did not want someone being called to answer for positions he may not hold. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2015, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/7 "2015-07-27T23:13:02Z")
One concern I have is that the word “disability” has so many different meanings. As used in the ADA it is entirely different than used by the VA, by SSA, … I usually think in terms of “impairment” or “impaired,” as opposed to “disability” which - to me - generally connotes a legal determination. ---
**Author:** ![elfkin477](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a9a28c/32.png) [@elfkin477](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elfkin477)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/8 "2015-07-28T00:02:10Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Just for the record, I was the person in the thread who stated that in my experiences at work in our relationship with the disability community, person-first language such as “person with a disability” is generally preferred to identity-first language such as “disabled person” or identity-only language such as “the disabled.” (I work tangentially with the disability community. Most of my work is done with the elder community. Perhaps strangely, person-first language is rarely used when referring to members of the elder community, though such usage is not proscribed.) > > This has two big caveats: the Autistic community has some dispute about this but I believe identity-first language is more preferred at this time, e.g. “Autistic person” or “the Autistic.” > > I also believe identity-first language is more preferred in the Deaf community, e.g. “Deaf person” or “the Deaf.” I am not remotely as familiar with the Deaf community, so I welcome correction. > > (Individuals being individual, this does not in any way mean that any person cannot and does not have his or her own preferences for how they should be addressed or referred to.) I don’t know anyone in the deaf community but the rest of this rings true. We used to host a summer autism event and the brochures would carefully explain that while many people prefer people-first language there are others on the spectrum that prefer identity-first language so they would likely hear both depending on which workshops they attended. I do know a lot more people who prefer people-first language, but not all disabilities have strong proponents of it - I myself have ADHD and I can’t imagine referring to myself as “a person with ADHD” and have read it very rarely outside of extremely formal writing. Perhaps the speaker we had who spoke of a “person who experiences Down syndrome” _would_ use “a person who experiences ADHD” or a “person who experiences dyslexia” though. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/9 "2015-07-28T01:16:38Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > I think the biggest take-away here is that _different people are different_, and that “the disabled” is not a homogeneous group. The offense occurs not just among the able-bodied but also those dealing with disabilities. Well, clearly that’s true. On the other hand, if every single individual is totally and fully different, then I might as well just ignore everything that anyone ever tells me, because even if the speaker is a long-time thoughtful advocate for disabled issues, well, every other person is different, so why bother taking any advice on anything other than how to interact with that one specific person? In other words, if “don’t use the word ‘cripple’, it’s offensive” is valid and meaningful advice, the "don’t use the phrase ‘disabled person’, use ‘person who is disabled’ " also is at least potentially valid and meaningful. And it’s to determine the validity and meaningfulness of that statement that I started this thread. > [@](#): > > Yes, some people have a chip on their shoulder and there are a few situations where it matters. Can you provide an example of such a situation? > [@](#): > > The rationale here is that a person is not _just_ his or her disability. If your disability doesn’t interfere with what you’re doing then no, you’re not disabled in that context, even if you’re wearing an artificial limb, using a wheelchair, have a cochlear implant, or whatever. > > That is probably the most important point of that post, and the one item the vast majority of people with a disability will agree on. Can you give me an example of how this plays out in the real world? That is, what people do wrong that they would do better if they understood this better? (Not meaning to imply that I doubt such things exist, rather that I’m curious what kinds of things you actually have in mind.) ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/10 "2015-07-28T03:22:32Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > In other words, if “don’t use the word ‘cripple’, it’s offensive” is valid and meaningful advice, the "don’t use the phrase ‘disabled person’, use ‘person who is disabled’ " also is at least potentially valid and meaningful. And it’s to determine the validity and meaningfulness of that statement that I started this thread. The word “cripple” is definitely more offensive than either “disabled person” or “person with a disability”. > [@](#): > > Can you provide an example of such a situation? You might want to use “Sally is a paraplegic” when her disability is central to a situation, such as necessary accommodations when being admitted as an inpatient for surgery or medical treatment, although some would argue that we don’t say “Sally is a cancer” or “Sally is a heart attack”… except that medical personnel _do_ sometimes do that, but usually in a context where the medical issue is the reason the person is in hospital or other treatment setting and thus is central to what’s happening. On the other hand, you might want to use “Sally is a person with paraplegia” when you want to emphasize the _person_. “Sally is a highly skilled engineer with many awards in the industrial workshop design field, who is fluent Spanish and German, and uses a wheelchair to get around because she has paraplegia.” The disability becomes just one trait among many that describe the person and not the primary trait. This is why I say it’s a subtle language thing. How you construct the description changes the focus. That’s why a significant number of people, particularly activists, use the person-emphasizing construction, they’re emphasizing the person. People who are less politically active might not have a preference. > [@](#): > > Can you give me an example of how this plays out in the real world? That is, what people do wrong that they would do better if they understood this better? (Not meaning to imply that I doubt such things exist, rather that I’m curious what kinds of things you actually have in mind.) For the most part the focus should be on what people can do, not what they can’t. Rather than try to pull an example out of my backside when I’m tired and make a hash of it let me think about that a bit and see if I can actually come up with a good example. ---
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/11 "2015-07-28T07:38:46Z")
As a member of the “disabled community” it cracks me up to see you all tripping over yourselves here. I have been an amputee for 29 years. I didn’t “lose” my leg, it got CHOPPED OFF in an accident. To be honest, most of us “disabled” people don’t give a flying fuck what you call us, it’s the tiptoeing around, condescending PC bullshit like in this thread that is fucking irritating. So fight amongst yourselves, we don’t give a shit, we make of life what we can. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/12 "2015-07-28T08:26:08Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Over in [this pit thread about political correctness](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=762817) a poster named **Jack of Words** made some comments about the language used to describe the group that I would previously have referred to as “disabled people” that I found interesting, and I thought I’d start a GD thread to explore them. > > (1) He claimed that “people with disabilities” is the preferred term, over “disabled people”. I did not. I did draw a distinction between ‘having’ autism/Aspergers and _being_ autistic/aspergian. > [@jsgoddess](#): > > Just for the record, I was the person in the thread who stated that in my experiences at work in our relationship with the disability community, person-first language such as “person with a disability” is generally preferred to identity-first language such as “disabled person” or identity-only language such as “the disabled.” You see? > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (2) He posted the following: Now that, I did do. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Assuming I’m reading that correctly, I believe he’s making two distinct points: I think we’ll find you’re not… > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (1) It’s preferred to (and/or insulting NOT to) use language involving “have” rather than “is”. That is, you wouldn’t say someone “has missing limbs”, you would say that person “IS an amputee”. You wouldn’t say they “have deafness” you would say they “ARE deaf”. I don’t speak for amputees or deaf people. Personally, I _would_ say someone has missing limbs (well, possibly - saying they have an absence of something seems strained. I’m perhaps more likely to say “Ms X, who is a very talented poet and one of the kindest and most noble people I know, is missing 3 of the 4 limbs most overly-limb-privileged and above-averagely-limbed people have.” Well, OK, maybe not that last bit… 😛 ) But yes, I wouldn’t say someone ‘had’ deafness. I don’t know how any particular deaf person might feel about that though. I did ask a couple, but they rudely ignored me… > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (2) “someone whose illness, injury or condition requires a wheelchair often isn’t disabled until they reach the stairs” seems to be saying that being a paraplegic isn’t “being disabled”, rather, being a paraplegic _in a situation where being a paralegic actually stops you from doing what you’re trying to do_ is “being disabled”. More or less - it’s called ‘the social model of disability’. You’ll note my use of the word ‘often’. It’s entirely possible that an illness, injury or condition could create a situation where a person is wholly and permanently dis-abled - that is, made unable to do those things that non-disabled\* people do. \*(‘able bodied’, if you wish, though barring another thread on whether the mind is part of the body I’ll settle for saying some people don’t like that term) > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (a) So (I suppose this is directly primarily at **Jack of Words** himself) is this an accurate summation of what you’re trying to say? Not really, no. It’s good in parts, though. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > (b) This seems like a definition that is odd. So if we lived in a society in which there were absolutely perfect wheelchair ramps and so forth EVERYWHERE then suddenly no one in a wheel chair would be disabled? And if a short person can’t reach things on a tall shelf they and can’t find the footstool that person is, for the duration, disabled? As noted, there and here, not every one in a wheelchair is…self-propellant, for want of a better word. But yes, anyone can be dis-abled under conditions which dis-able them. It’s right there in the word. It doesn’t mean ‘not normal’, it doesn’t mean ‘broken and worthless’. It means dis-abled. It’s often a simple matter to en-able. > [@MaxTheVool](#): > > I think I can see the mindset behind that definition, but it just seems likely to result in frequent misunderstanding and miscommunication. But I’m willing to be convinced that I’m wrong. You’re certainly doing a good job of evidencing your argument… 😉 I’m not sure that inconveniencing anyone else is sufficient reason to retain a view that disabled people are all abnormal, broken and worthless, distinct from real people who should get to define how the poor brave wee darlings are discussed, nor to demand that their only input into the discussion is compliant gratitude\*\* [\*\*not necessarily a summation of _your_ position] ---
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/13 "2015-07-28T08:56:41Z")
You are waay overthinking/intellectualizing this. You are playing a game of semantics. And stop with the hyphen in disabled. “poor brave wee darlings”? “Compliant gratitude”? You obviously have no clue about that which you are posting about, and frankly your posts are insulting as hell to any “dis-abled” person. It’s the people without disabilities that try to force labels on the disabled that irritate the disabled. Your pseudo-intellectual sounding posts just make you look bad. ---
**Author:** ![Klaatu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Klaatu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Klaatu)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/14 "2015-07-28T09:21:37Z")
To the mods. I apologize for the tone of my posts, and to Jack of Words, I thought I was in the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_of\_Words](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f6c823/32.png) [@Jack\_of\_Words](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_of_Words)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/15 "2015-07-28T10:15:23Z")
> [@Klaatu](#): > > You are waay overthinking/intellectualizing this. You are playing a game of semantics. And stop with the hyphen in disabled. > > “poor brave wee darlings”? “Compliant gratitude”? > > You obviously have no clue about that which you are posting about, and frankly your posts are insulting as hell to any “dis-abled” person. > > It’s the people without disabilities that try to force labels on the disabled that irritate the disabled. > > Your pseudo-intellectual sounding posts just make you look bad. Hello. Have you followed me over from somewhere, but missed the posts where I admit/confess or perhaps proudly proclaim my own disability? You’ve certainly missed much of what I’ve actually posted here, to wit, the bits that stressed that I don’t claim to speak for whole classes of dis-ability of which I have no direct experience (though I can speak for a a significant group of people with and for whom I’ve worked). As for the hyphenation, it was used earlier in this thread to help Max understand what ‘disabled’ really means. As to why it was used earlier in this _post_, well…the devil made me do it 😛 The comments you’ve noted in quotes are broadly representative of attitudes still relatively common among the normal, un-broken, worthy, able-bodied etc. I am certainly guilty of over-estimating the ability of _some_ of my audience to read those comments in that context. I’m sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/16 "2015-07-28T11:40:23Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Just for the record, I was the person in the thread who stated that in my experiences at work in our relationship with the disability community, person-first language such as “person with a disability” is generally preferred to identity-first language such as “disabled person” or identity-only language such as “the disabled.” (I work tangentially with the disability community. Most of my work is done with the elder community. Perhaps strangely, person-first language is rarely used when referring to members of the elder community, though such usage is not proscribed.) > > This has two big caveats: the Autistic community has some dispute about this but I believe identity-first language is more preferred at this time, e.g. “Autistic person” or “the Autistic.” > > I also believe identity-first language is more preferred in the Deaf community, e.g. “Deaf person” or “the Deaf.” I am not remotely as familiar with the Deaf community, so I welcome correction. > > (Individuals being individual, this does not in any way mean that any person cannot and does not have his or her own preferences for how they should be addressed or referred to.) Lots of communities there. You are certainly a very communitish people in the USA. Personally I’m member of the blue eyes community. And the community of people who use shampoo once in a while. Here’s why “people with disabilities” is sillier than "disabled people” which is sillier than “handicapped” : it’s longer. “Gay” and “lesbian” caught on because they were shorter and niftier than the original homosexual – also fun words. “people with disabilities” will never catch on because it’s more cumbersome than the original handicapped, and it’s ugly. ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 12:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/17 "2015-07-28T12:03:04Z")
Problem is, “handicapped” spewed forth the abortion that is “handicapable”, which is nausea inducing. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/18 "2015-07-28T13:02:30Z")
> [@Broomstick](#): > > Problem is, “handicapped” spewed forth the abortion that is “handicapable”, which is nausea inducing. Never heard it, but it goes without saying that people using the abnormination “handicapable” must be shot at dawn. “Handicapped” is also a pretty ugly word, better than the three sentence alternative, but they should invent a short and fun alternative if they really want to have a new designation. I’ve heard short chicks refer to themselves as “fun sized” (doesn’t work with short guys for some reason) Perhaps something like that. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/19 "2015-07-28T13:49:42Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Never heard it, but it goes without saying that people using the abnormination “handicapable” must be shot at dawn. Really? When asked to describe myself, the first thought that comes to mind is: I am a handicapable, cisgendered male. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2015, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356/20 "2015-07-28T15:12:20Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > “people with disabilities” will never catch on because it’s more cumbersome than the original handicapped, and it’s ugly. It’s already caught on. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/person-with-disabilities-vs-disabled-person-etc/726356.md?page=2)