Since this entire topic consists of people parsing subtle meanings out of language, I have to take issue with the phrase “places barriers”.
Suppose there’s a building with no wheelchair ramps. That makes it difficult for certain people to access that building. But to describe that as “society placing barriers” against those people strikes me as implying some active decision made with the intention of erecting a deliberate barrier. As in, the natural state would have been to have wheelchair ramps, but society nefariously chose not to do that.
What about a situation where there’s a completely natural environment, say part of the grand canyon which is easily climbable by healthy-non-wheelchair-users. Did “society place barriers” against the wheelchair bound which prevents them from enjoying that place/experience?
You can continue to say, MaxtheVool, yes but what about, or, continue to make many hypothetical questions with layers of complexity but it is all beside the point. At the end of the day you either have the desire to be respectful or you don’t. Try thinking about it in simple terms instead of treating it as an intellectual puzzle.
Most people who are depressed or bipolar don’t mind being labelled or called simply depressed or bipolar. This is, I think, because society is more or less ok with those titles, they are not that big of a stigma though they still are a label and a stigma to a small degree. Conditions like Aspergers or Schizophrenia have a considerable stigma. That is why a lot of people object to saying “Fred is Autistic” instead of “Fred has Autism” or some similar way of saying it.
Let’s make it even more simple.
People do not want to be thought of in a negative capacity. Suppose one has a condition called Exploding Bowel Movements. EBM. Which sounds better? Fred is EBM. Or, Fred has EBM.
It’s really not some great intellectual puzzle. I promise you, it’s really not that complicated.
To take your example to a greater extreme, most of us are incapable of reaching the peak of Everest. But we wouldn’t want to be considered ‘disabled’ because of that.
Some of us could reach the peak with a little assistance - sherpas, climbing gear designers and the companies that have made such stuff more and more readily available, and so on. So our ‘disability’ is lessened - we are enabled, by society as it happens. Now I doubt a group of very fit and very generous spirited people could drag a wheelchair user to the peak of Everest, but such groups do occasionally enable disabled people to reach less demanding goals - including arduous mountain trails and, no doubt, parts of the grand canyon.
But if the issue is simply the precision of words, of course you’re right - some natural barriers bar some people. Equally, some social barriers bar some people, without disabling them. When society instituted the Olympics, it didn’t disable anyone - even though most of us aren’t able to compete, that doesn’t make us disabled.
Frankly, I’m not quite sure what point you’re making.
My general principle is that I will use whatever terminology about an individual that that individual requests, within reason. If Joe prefers to be referred to as “wheelchair bound” while Fred prefers “disabled” and Jane prefers “person with a disability”, then I will do my best to so refer to them. What I will not do is feel that I can’t even discuss or debate the issue of language due to my privilege.
I’ve never, in talking with people in the disability community, felt that I couldn’t ask all of the questions I want. Obviously, I don’t say “That’s fucking stupid. Imma call you cripple! You got a problem with that?” But I do say, “Hey can you explain the reasoning here so I understand better and can internalize this?” I’ve always gotten a very warm reception and never any pushback on my privilege.
Umm, right. I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. I was saying that this:
Seems like a very limiting definition. Because, for instance, it is useless in situations like being out in nature where society hasn’t done anything at all.
So what do we now call those parking spaces with a sign with a symbol of the stick-figure in a wheel-chair facing right, normally white with a blue background?
What does one have to do with the other? If I meet someone in a wheelchair does the fact that I started a SDMB thread discussing the difference between “disabled person” and “person with disabilities” somehow mean that I’ll automatically be disrespectful?
If I interact with a person in a wheelchair, and they mention that they prefer to be referred to as “wheelchair-bound” or “disabled” or “a person with a disability”, I will do my best to so refer to them. I might also be curious as to why they prefer that term, and might ask them at some point (if I know them well enough), but I’m not going to suddenly stop everything and refuse to use the requested term until somehow they justified their preference, nor am I going to claim that their preference is invalid unless it is sufficiently logically supported and thus refuse to honor it.
That has nothing to do with whether I want to discuss the topic here on the SDMB.
I have a friend that is a regional director of rescue operations in caves and I have volunteered myself to be schlepped in and out of caves as a training dummy - I have no issue being strapped into a basket and dropped into a cave, not being claustrophobic and trusting Anmar with my life. Never thought of letting a bunch of people haul my ass up a mountain… though I could see maybe a basket lift to a helicopter might be fun, or slung across a bosun’s line.
Absolutely not. I’d say it shows you want to better understand the nuances and importance of language regarding disability. If only more people showed such a desire to learn.
Rather than you than me. That hits all my phobias, even if Anmar is most persuasive. But some body should be talking to some other body about pairing various training operations with disabled volunteers.
I think there is probably a trust issue, I know I can trust Anmar and his group, or one of the pilots and aircrew my friend ‘Gordon’ recommends, but I might not trust some reasonably random people that do whatever type of rescue that are on a general list. It took me a while to agree to tandem jump with the SEAL I lived with … and he had many hundreds to thousands of jumps in combat and recreatinally over his 20 year career.
I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t see any requirement in the Social Model of Disability for the barrier to be intentional or malicious per se. This resource explains that “The social model of disability says that disability is caused by the way society is organised, rather than by a person’s impairment or difference. It looks at ways of removing barriers that restrict life choices for disabled people. When barriers are removed, disabled people can be independent and equal in society, with choice and control over their own lives. Disabled people developed the social model of disability…”
In the “completely natural environment” that you mentioned, the barrier could consist of the fact that society as a whole (not necessarily any particular official) has not seen installing wheelchair ramps or other accommodations into the Grand Canyon as a sufficiently high priority. It’s the general “fault”, if you will, of society for not thinking of that and finding the time and resources to go ahead and accomplish that. No specific government official banged a gavel and said, “No ramps! I hate disabled people and want them to stay far away! Get me another beer, and no more of those ‘we give 5% of our profits to support people with disabilities’ crap beers!”
Well, I guess the proof is in the pudding. Any intellectual or linguistic model of that sort is worth using if it actually improves something, or makes something easier to communicate, or makes something easier to understand. Can someone suggest a situation in which the Social Model of Disability really shines?
Well… take colorblindness as an example. Usually it’s either minimally or not at all impairing but there are nations where any colorblindness at all disqualifies you from driving. Yet other nations do not do this and the colorblind have no greater tendency to drive badly or have accidents than those with normal color vision. In this instance, forbidding the colorblind to drive is a choice by society, not a choice dictated by actual ability or lack thereof - it’s a social disability, a disability created by social rules.
