It’s right there in black & white (or on this page, black & blue). The term “birth defect” is literally calling human beings defective. In this age, I’m shocked that it’s still a common and acceptable practice.
We can’t, and don’t want to, say “retarded” or “handicapped” or so many other things, because we consider ourselves more evolved than all that, but “defect” is ok.
Why is that?
I don’t think anyone sees the term “birth defect” and thinks “defective human.”
Humans have parts. Sometimes one of those parts, at birth, is defective and doesn’t function as it should. Like the pyloric muscle in my kid’s abdomen. The term isn’t offensive; it’s descriptive.
Speak for yourself. Still, it’s a curious question: why hasn’t birth defect run on the same euphemism treadmill that other terms have? My answer is that babies don’t get offended at descriptions. There’s no one to fight the term.
Because “retard” isn’t.
This thread is lame.
Because somebody who is intellectually or physically disabled may have been born perfectly ‘normal’. Things happen sometimes. Describing it as a birth defect, or congenital abnormality indicates that the symptoms have been present since birth, nothing more, nothing less.
Anything else you’d like to get your panties in a twist about?
Oh, and to add, birth defect is actually referring to the defect, not the person. IOW, it you can call spina bifida or cerebral palsy a birth defect, but you don’t call a person any of those words…a person has spina bifida or cerebral palsy.
Don’t you mean ‘motion challenged’?
The OP does have a valid question, though. After all, “retarded” is (or at least was originally) just a shortened form of “mentally retarded”, simply meaning that one’s mental functions were slowed (retarded). But over the years, the phrase has acquired a negative connotation. So why has “retarded” fallen into such disfavor, while “birth defect” remains acceptable?
I suspect the answer is simply “because that’s the way our language and society have evolved”, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with asking the question.
“A person with a birth defect” is like saying “a person with a disability”. Few people find either of those offensive. “Disabled person” is offensive to some, and so would be “birth defective person” if that was a thing.
Right. People say “You are retarded” or “he is retarded”, but we say “She has a birth defect”, not “She was defective at birth”.
Also, “birth defect” is used to describe undesirable physical abnormalities. We tend to associate those less with a person’s inherent worth than their mental capability.
We also don’t describe people as ‘mental defectives’ any more (though I think it makes an excellent insult).
Maybe with mental differences - which can sometimes be considered variations in the rich tapestry of human character, or whatever - we have become more kind/euphemistic, while remaining more blunt about a heart or a foot which doesn’t work properly.
Plus, “birth defect” really does roll off the tongue better than, say, “genetic aberration.”
The hunt for euphemisms in modern society is growing tiresome.
Yeah, that’s my question. Something about the word “defect” always hits me the wrong way, as in and of itself it’s much stronger and more negative a word than “retarded.”
“Genetic aberration” would be much less accurate since many birth defects are in no way genetic and can not be inherited.
Actually, “birth defect” is on the “don’t use” side of pc list that my work hands out. The replacement phrase is “congenital” something or other. So there is a movement to get the phrase out of the language, though I’m not sure how widespread it is.
I think the OP raises an interesting question. In this PC world of ours, one would think that ‘birth defect’ should have evolved into ‘congenital anomaly’. Sure, the latter is longer and harder to say, but ‘mentally challenged’ is also longer and harder to say than ‘retarded’.
Along similiar lines I wonder why “handicapped” has been replaced by “disabled.” In normal speech a car, boat, airplane that is disabled is totally unable to function. I think disabled is much more disrespectful than handicapped.
I don’t think you’re supposed to say “normal” anymore. For mental
eurological qualities you’re supposed to say neurotypical. Not sure about purely physical qualities.
I’m ok with this one because, while I am technically neurotypical, I’ve never been normal.
And because I just like the word neurotypical. Sounds so technical. 
And yet again I didn’t get the memo.
[QUOTE= svd678]
Along similiar lines I wonder why “handicapped” has been replaced by “disabled.” In normal speech a car, boat, airplane that is disabled is totally unable to function. I think disabled is much more disrespectful than handicapped.
[/QUOTE]
There’s been a bit of a kerfuffle over here about using the term ‘differently-abled’ to describe someone living with a disability, but it’s never really taken off.
I totally understand and respect the wishes of those who are physically, intellectually or mentally disabled, but there comes a point where the language used is just meaningless. Yet I’m very happy that words like retarded, spastic and feeble-minded (which were commonplace in my earlier years) have disappeared.
Currently the ‘norm’ (am I allowed to use that word??) is that you refer to someone as Jeff, the guy who has cerebral palsy, or Lisa, the lady with learning difficulties or whatever. Ignoring the disabilities is sort of like pretending there’s no elephant in the room. For many, it DOES define the person’s life: past, present and future. For equally many, the disability doesn’t prevent them living a full and vibrant life, studying, working, having a family, skydiving…(add your own example here)
But refusing to acknowledge someone’s disability is refusing to acknowledge something that is unique to them. And IMHO, that is more disrespectful than anything.
Differently-birthed.