I am not bothered by the term “birth defect”, but I could see how it would be problematic to replace it with something like “congenital atypical feature”
And “euphemism” has been replaced by “political correctness.” :mad:
Never say in three syllables what you can say in seven. “Brevity is the soul of wit.”–Shakespeare. (A really cutting rermark when you consider Shakespeare’s meaning for the word “wit.”)
I meant to add this to my earlier posting but I ran out of time.
Apparently the very idea of description, of any kind, is offensive these days. I have a book titled Very Special People which, in an earlier age, might have been titled Freaks. I guess these days that would be considered an offensive term; but if you see the title “Very Special People” on a book spine, you have no clue as to the content. Maybe that’s the leftists’ goal: to hide meanings behind unfamiliar words or behind familiar words’ unfamiliar meanings–despite the very purpose of language, which is to communicate ideas directly. I prefer the single word to the circumlocution.
It never in a million years occurred to me that “birth defect” could be offensive.
If it ever comes up that my left eye is significantly more near-sighted than my right eye and can’t truly be corrected to 20/20, I’ll just say “birth defect. It’s shaped a little funny.”
Maybe I’ll switch to “my left eye is differently abled due to a congenital atypical feature.” Or maybe “it be wack, yo.” What do you all think?
“Birth defect” isn’t used judgmentally or as a criticism. My mom walked with a cane most of my life. She didn’t like “crippled” and preferred “handicapped”. “Degenerative joint disease” just had too many syllables. She was okay with “walks with a cane” too.