Opinion The Harmful Ableist Language You Unknowingly Use - "Dumb" and "Lame" are slurs now.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
(Article)

The Harmful Ableist Language You Unknowingly Use​

Some of our most common, ingrained expressions have damaging effects on millions of people – and many of us don’t know we’re hurting others when we speak.

I like being deaf. I like the silence as well as the rich culture and language deafness affords me. When I see the word ‘deaf’ on the page, it evokes a feeling of pride for my community, and calls to me as if I’m being addressed directly, as if it were my name.

So, it always stings when I’m reminded that for many, the word ‘deaf’ has little to do with what I love most – in fact, its connotations are almost exclusively negative. For example, in headlines across the world – Nevada’s proposed gun safety laws, pleas from Ontario’s elderly and weather safety warnings in Queensland – have all “fallen on deaf ears”.

This kind of ‘ableist’ language is omnipresent in conversation: making a “dumb” choice, turning a “blind eye” to a problem, acting “crazy”, calling a boss “psychopathic”, having a “bipolar” day. And, for the most part, people who utter these phrases aren’t intending to hurt anyone – more commonly, they don’t have any idea they’re engaging in anything hurtful at all.

However, for disabled people like me, these common words can be micro-assaults. For instance, “falling on deaf ears” provides evidence that most people associate deafness with wilful ignorance (even if they consciously may not). But much more than individual slights, expressions like these can do real, lasting harm to the people whom these words and phrases undermine – and even the people who use them in daily conversation, too.

Not a small problem
About 1 billion people worldwide – 15% of the global population – have some type of documented disability. In the US, this proportion is even larger, at about one in four people, with similar rates reported in the UK.

Despite these numbers, disabled people experience widespread discrimination at nearly every level of society. This phenomenon, known as 'ableism' – discrimination based on disability – can take on various forms. Personal ableism might look like name-calling, or committing violence against a disabled person, while systemic ableism refers to the inequity disabled people experience as a result of laws and policy.

But ableism can also be indirect, even unintentional, in the form of linguistic micro-aggressions. As much as we all like to think we’re careful with the words we choose, ableist language is a pervasive part of our lexicon. Examples in pop culture are everywhere, and you’ve almost certainly used it yourself.
Frequently, ableist language (known to some as ‘disableist’ language) crops up in the slang we use, like calling something “dumb” or “lame”, or making a declaration like, “I’m so OCD!”. Though these might feel like casual slights or exclamations, they still do damage.

Jamie Hale, the London-based CEO of Pathfinders Neuromuscular Alliance, a UK charity run for and by people with neuromuscular conditions, notes that the potential for harm exists even if the words are not used against a disabled person specifically. “There's a sense when people use disableist language, that they are seeing ways of being as lesser,” says Hale. “It is often not a conscious attempt to harm disabled people, but it acts to construct a world-view in which existing as a disabled person is [negative].”

Using language that equates disability to something negative can be problematic in several ways.
First, these words give an inaccurate picture of what being disabled actually means. “To describe someone as ‘crippled by’ something is to say that they are 'limited' [or] 'trapped', perhaps,” says Hale. “But those aren't how I experience my being.”

Disability as metaphor is also an imprecise way to say of saying what we really mean. The phrase ‘fall on deaf ears’, for example, both perpetuates stereotypes and simultaneously obscures the reality of the situation it describes. Being deaf is an involuntary state, whereas hearing people who let pleas ‘fall on deaf ears’ are making a conscious choice to ignore those requests. Labelling them ‘deaf’ frames them as passive, rather than people actively responsible for their own decisions.

Ableist language crops up in the slang we use, like calling something “dumb” or “lame”, or making a declaration like, “I’m so OCD!”
Hale adds that using disability as a shorthand for something negative or inferior reinforces negative attitudes and actions, and fuels the larger systems of oppression in place. “We build a world with the language we use, and for as long as we're comfortable using this language, we continue to build and reinforce disableist structures,” they say.

Say what?
If ableist language is so harmful, why is it so common? Why might someone who would never purposefully insult a disabled person outright still find ableist expressions among their own vocabulary?
Ableist language as colloquialism functions like any other slang term: people repeat it because they’ve heard others say it, a mimicry that on its face suggests use is undiscerning. However, according to University of Louisville linguistics professor DW Maurer, while anyone can create slang term, the expression will only “gain currency according to the unanimity of attitude within the group”. This suggests ableist slang is ubiquitous because, on some level, the speakers believe it to be true.

It’s possible for individuals to be truly unconscious of these biases within themselves, and unaware of the ableism couched in their own everyday sayings. But the fact is, discussions about the negative effect of a word such as “dumb” – a term originally denoting a deaf person who did not use speech, but which now functions as slang for something brutish, uninteresting or of low intelligence – have been happening in deaf and disabled circles for centuries.

According to Rosa Lee Timm, the Maryland, US-based chief marketing officer of non-profit organisation Communication Service for the Deaf, these conversations have remained largely unexamined by the mainstream because non-disabled people believe that ableism doesn’t affect them, and ableist language perpetuates and justifies that belief.
“Ableist language encourages a culture of separation. It defines, excludes and marginalises people,” says Timm. She adds that this allows non-disabled people to be bystanders in the face of ableist culture infrastructure at large.

A boomerang effect
Although these words and phrases are obviously harmful to the groups they marginalise, non-disabled people who casually use ableist language may be negatively impacting themselves, too.
“What happens to this group of hearing, non-disabled people later in life – be it hearing loss, an accident, a health issue, aging or any number of things – when they transition to the disabled community?” says Timm. “The ableist language they used has created an oppressive environment.”

Timm notes this ‘environment’ includes an impact on their own self-worth. “Beauty standards are a good comparison, in terms of language’s psychological power,” she says. “As a parent, if I say, ‘wow, that’s beautiful’ or ‘that’s ugly’, my children see that and internalise it… This can have a profound impact, particularly if they examine themselves and feel like they don’t match the standard… The same goes for ability.”
Hale seconds the idea that nondisabled people who experience disability later in life will be harmed by the rhetoric they use today. They also note that the divisive nature of ableist language can even have a negative impact on people who will never experience disability.
“It hurts all of us when we de-humanise ways of being, and construct them wholly in the negative,” they say.

Dismantling ableist structures
Given how ingrained ableism is in our society, rooting it out may seem an overwhelming task. Being aware of the words you use each day is a necessary step in the process. “Dismantling disableist structures doesn't start with language, but building a world without them requires that we change our language,” says Hale.
Examining your own go-to phrases and attempting to replace them with less problematic synonyms is a good start. “Think about what you mean. Don't just repeat a phrase because you've heard it, think about what you're trying to convey,” says Hale.

Often avoiding ableist euphemisms just means choosing more straightforward and literal language – rather than “fall on deaf ears”, one might say “ignoring” or “choosing not to engage”.
Language is ever-changing, so eliminating ableism from your vocabulary will be an ongoing process rather than a static victory. You may stumble, but checking in with disabled people is an effective way to find your footing and continuing to build a more inclusive vocabulary. “My advice is always to listen,” says Timm. “Ask questions, avoid assumptions, and start by listening to the people who are impacted the most. Think about whether your own word choice is contributing to their oppression.”

It may feel uncomfortable, but discomfort and vulnerability necessitate introspection, which Hale points to as keys to dismantling ableist attitudes. “According to [disability equality charity] Scope, two-thirds of the British population feel uncomfortable talking to a disabled person,” says Hale. “Why? If you can work out why you're uncomfortable, you're well en route to changing it.”
 
I like being deaf. I like the silence as well as the rich culture and language deafness affords me. When I see the word ‘deaf’ on the page, it evokes a feeling of pride for my community, and calls to me as if I’m being addressed directly, as if it were my name.
I'm surprised she doesn't capitalize "Deaf".

micro-assaults.
Let's upgrade this to mega-assaults.


Using language that equates disability to something negative
Disability is something negative. Deal.
 
This is pure sour grapes. "Hearing probably isn't all that great anyway. It's better to not hear." Something they tell themselves to cope.
It's worse when normies, who have both hearing and seeing, saying exactly this because they bought into the deaf and blind propaganda. Of where their other senses are amplified to compensate for the missing sense.
 
Noticed the article referred to the charity, Scope, which researches Cerebral Palsy.

Just a reminder that Scope used to be called The Spastic Society. Hahahahaha.
 
Disability is something negative. Deal.

It is so nonsensical how we are never supposed to acknowledge this obvious point, despite the fact that literally nothing about disability activism makes any fucking sense if we're pretending they are at no significant disadvantage. People who believe this are the same faggots who say that equality of opportunity isn't good enough and they won't be happy until they see equality of outcome, which is literally impossible in any society worth living in. Well, them and numb fucks who are so incapable of understanding nuance that they can't tell the difference between "let's do backflips to avoid acknowledging we even noticed someone's obvious disability" and "don't be a dick to the disabled."
 
Christ in Heaven, did the author just step out of a time capsule from 2013?

The cochleally bald have a disability other humans don't have to deal with, I don't care about them calling their various coping mechanisms to succeed in life despite that a 'culture'. Negative vocabulary to describe negative things has referenced physical impairments in every language, in every culture, on the planet. Get over it.
 
White women getting upset on behalf of a minority group they don't belong to? Must be a day ending in "y"
 
Am I back in 2015 again? It's been some years since I seen the term "ableist" being used unironically.
 
Deafness is a disability that detracts from a person's ability to live. It is not just another valid life preference. My mother told me of a couple of friends of hers - a deaf couple, who both died along with their hearing one year old child in a traffic accident because they were riding bikes and couldn't hear the out of control truck barreling down on them. A hearing couple wouldn't have had that problem, therefore, deafness is an impairment.

There are a lot of people in the deaf community who are psycho about denying their disability, and criticizing anyone who gets their kids cochlear implants. No one cares if you're deaf and want to live in a community of people who want to pretend they're normal. But you don't have the right to police speech that tells the truth about your situation, just because you don't want to hear it.
 
This is the same type of person who would protest cochlear implants, deaf people what get them, or, God forbid, parents what get them for their deaf children because they're denying their "deaf identity" and are committing a deaf genocide or some retarded shit.

>>"The primary reason for the implants was always to make deaf people hear. The only reason why anyone would want that is because deafness is seen as a handicap that needs to be fixed.

>>"This is a huge issue in deaf culture. Deaf people believe that deafness is not a handicap, but a culture. Attempts at “fixing” the deaf are seen as offensive and are met with protests. Children should not be “fixed” to be like hearing people, but should be introduced to deaf culture where he or she was born to belong."
(Emphases in original)


>>Throughout the 1980s and the early 1990s, Deaf people mobilized to protest the use of cochlear implants. In particular, they objected to the choice being made on behalf of young children to insert the implant. These critics reject the very idea of trying to find a “cure” for deafness. Indeed they have compared it to genocide. They argue that deaf people should not be thought of as disabled but as members of a minority cultural group.

"Defending Deaf Culture: The Case of Cochlear Implants", The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 13, Number 2, 2005, pp. 135–152
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom