They totally should.

Great post.
.-= sanabituranima´s last blog ..A murderer and a thief =-.

…if I said ‘women and men are both attractive to me’ instead of ‘I’m bi’. It’s still correct, but it seems more passive? Sort of? I don’t know, someone with a deeper knowledge of grammar can probably point out why it feels a bit off.

Well, it’s not particularly deep, but the reason is that the first formulation is passive and verbose, and the second is active and concise. That’s like Strunk-White 101.

It’s really a simple thing which people tediously overthink in search of a slippery excuse to be assholes. If someone whose mobility is impaired (like, I have a chronic hip injury and a cane) is cool with “lame”, fine. If they find that word offensive, that’s their legitimate reaction and right, so don’t use the word, genius. If you write for a broad audience, don’t be shocked that historically-loaded formulations offend, hurt, agitate, and anger people who read those words. If your knowledge is limited (say, you’re too young to understand a word’s history), don’t defend your limitations and ignorance, but rather, be humble enough to learn from those with bigger views and grow. If you make an honest mistake, apologize and adjust. If you insist on offending people, expect them to fight back. What exactly is so complicated about this? It ain’t advanced philosophy. It’s basic human interaction.

Anyway. Really great blog! Glad you found value in my “PC” essay. Looking forward to reading here often.

Peace.

@the nerd (and to some extent the people who have already responded to that post)

I agree that it can be difficult to decide at what point the old meaning is lost to a new one. I’m a strong believer in the idea that language is a living thing, and that it belongs to the people who speak it, not just the people who write dictionaries.

I had a similar struggle to the one you have, in that it was a word I heard only in relation to animals being lamed, and that as an archaic use, or in the modern context of “a bit crap”. Because I was raised without hearing it used in that context as well, so I just couldn’t understand why people would personally identify with the term. I think everyone here understands that using a term people identify with to say things are generically crap is hurtful, but the ‘language changes’ argument tends to be based NOT on not understanding that side, but on not getting why people would identify with it in the first place.

But here’s the thing. In my experience, people with extreme difficulty with their hearing or vision are more likely to describe themselves as blind or deaf than as vision or hearing impaired. And it’s not something you’d necessarily think about on our own, but it’s an important point. As someone who isn’t wheelchair bound, but still has difficulty, and may need assistance, walking, how would you identify? How would you describe yourself? ‘I need a cane/walker’ or ‘I’m mobility impaired’ are fine, sure, but they’re also a little more clunky than the way people tend to refer to themselves and their own experiences. Language is lazy. We shortcut all the time, especially when referring to our own experiences. Adn ‘mobility impaired’ is a very broad term, while ‘I need/use (insert assistive device)’ externalises it in a way that feels a bit…odd? Like if I said ‘women and men are both attractive to me’ instead of ‘I’m bi’. It’s still correct, but it seems more passive? Sort of? I don’t know, someone with a deeper knowledge of grammar can probably point out why it feels a bit off.

But anyway. I thought about it -I mean, a week of sitting there scribbling out pages and pages, trying to work out why it wasn’t working in my head, why it wasn’t clicking the way that all the other hurtful terms did, and I realised that we have two short, pointful, exact terms for that specific range of mobility issue -’lame’ and ‘crippled’. And I thought about it, and realised that in all honesty, if I ended up in a position where they applied to me, I’d probably identify with them too -because those are the only words that are really there.

I could be completely off-base. But it resonated for me emotionally in a way that none of the other explanations I’ve seen have. So I hope that’s helpful. I realise I meander a bit, but I didn’t want to write off what you were saying as not a legitimate concern or point because I was there too.

What we are trying to do is to raise awareness that these words are hurtful exclusionary and oppressive — and as we are advocates for social justice, we assert that persons who are hurt excluded and oppressed define harm exclusion and oppression, not persons doing harm the excluding and oppressing. We hope that people who wish to be less harmful exclusionary and oppressive to others, especially to marginalized persons, would use these words less knowing the effects they have.

This is basic stuff. Racists do not get to define what is racist bigotry; sexists do not get to define what is sexual harrassment. Similarly, those of us who live with physical and mental conditions that mark us as disabled because the societies and environments in which we live fail to provide us access on our terms get to define what is ableist language.

Well, okay, kaninchenzero, but as standards of hurtfulness differ for everyone, as you say, then anyone can be guilty at any time depending on how the hearer feels. That doesn’t give speakers much to go on, does it? And saying that “then you should just not use hurtful words” begs the question.

I think this is a useful and important site, and I wish it a long and productive life. I have a lot of questions about this whole area and I’ll be reading with interest.

It’s been said before but it seems to need repeating: Nothing in this post nor in our Ableist Word Profile series bans the use of any word in any context by any person. We don’t have that power over society, though here we will enforce our comments policy by whatever means we deem appropriate.

What we are trying to do is to raise awareness that these words are hurtful — and as we are advocates for social justice, we assert that persons who are hurt define harm, not persons doing harm. We hope that people who wish to be less harmful to others, especially to marginalized persons, would use these words less knowing the effects they have.

If that is policing then so is saying “You’re standing on my foot and it hurts; please move.”

Consider this a warning, mischiefmanager. Pointing out the use of exclusionary language by contributors and commentors is encouraged. Derailing will not be tolerated.

ETA: Although I would note that the etymological origins of the term in question actually appear to be related to the English penal system, in which convicts would wrap rags around their feet because they could not afford shoes. Which isn’t exactly a pleasant origin either, but I do feel it’s important to do my due diligence when challenged on language use, and I can’t find a source which references the word in a homeless context; could you provide a source?

Donning the language police uniform can result in a very tight fit.