S/O Words that hurt

[fhjmom]

There was a thread about a term that the OP found hurtful. I realize that thread may have gotten a bit heated and it is not my intent to rehash that particular discussion, but it did get me to thinking about other words and how people perceive them. I am guilty myself of using words that I now know some to find hurtful and I have tried very hard to adjust my usage.

 

One is the term "mentally retarded". I have disliked the term "retard/retarded" used as slang or an insult pretty much all of my adult life, but only recently realized that there was a movement to replace the "official" terminology with something along the lines of "cognitive disability".

 

On a more personal note is the term "hearing impaired". I much prefer the term "hard-of-hearing" and that is what I use to identify myself and the girls, but I have to admit I do cringe when someone calls us "impaired". Before the girls were diagnosed, I did use "hearing impaired" myself but I became much more aware of the implications when applying it to my daughters. I don't want to imply they are "broken" or "less than". I don't get bent out of shape if someone else uses it, and many people/parents use it to describe themselves/their child; however, I have also known other people who are very offended by it, so that is part of the reason I have chosen not to use "impaired".

 

Like it or not, words do carry a lot of power. There is a movement to use "people-first" language when referring to those living with a disability. If I was unknowingly using a word that was hurtful to someone else, I would want to be made aware of it and I would find it helpful to know why they felt that way.

[Nakia]

This is a different type of situation, but I hate the medical terminology used if someone has a miscarriage. It is called an abortion if you lose a baby before 20 weeks. I had a miscarriage, and I hate seeing on my medical records that I had an abortion. Even though it says "missed abortion", it stills breaks my heart every single time I see it.

 

I also cringe when someone says, "Oh, she is bipolar." No, she is not bipolar. She has bipolar disorder. I am not bipolar. I have bipolar disorder. I am much more than my diagnosis.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Nakia

[missesd]

There was a thread about a term that the OP found hurtful. I realize that thread may have gotten a bit heated and it is not my intent to rehash that particular discussion, but it did get me to thinking about other words and how people perceive them. I am guilty myself of using words that I now know some to find hurtful and I have tried very hard to adjust my usage.

 

One is the term "mentally retarded". I have disliked the term "retard/retarded" used as slang or an insult pretty much all of my adult life, but only recently realized that there was a movement to replace the "official" terminology with something along the lines of "cognitive disability".

 

On a more personal note is the term "hearing impaired". I much prefer the term "hard-of-hearing" and that is what I use to identify myself and the girls, but I have to admit I do cringe when someone calls us "impaired". Before the girls were diagnosed, I did use "hearing impaired" myself but I became much more aware of the implications when applying it to my daughters. I don't want to imply they are "broken" or "less than". I don't get bent out of shape if someone else uses it, and many people/parents use it to describe themselves/their child; however, I have also known other people who are very offended by it, so that is part of the reason I have chosen not to use "impaired".

 

Like it or not, words do carry a lot of power. There is a movement to use "people-first" language when referring to those living with a disability. If I was unknowingly using a word that was hurtful to someone else, I would want to be made aware of it and I would find it helpful to know why they felt that way.

 

I think there is just no *right way*... I, myself, am deaf in my left ear completely. I had a drowning accident at 4, was pronounced clinically dead at EMT arrival, and was brought back, but with not without blowing my ear drum and having almost complete, if not complete, nerve damage. I don't mind using "hearing impaired", because that is what I am, will always be. My hearing is impaired, it is less, it is broken. I do not like "hard of hearing" however. It implies someone with old age, and I am only 36. I was 4 when it happened, so I have been like this since I was little. It is just one persons preference over another. And IMO, we could all kill ourselves trying to appease everyone's sensitivities.

[missesd]

This is a different type of situation, but I hate the medical terminology used if someone has a miscarriage. It is called an abortion if you lose a baby before 20 weeks. I had a miscarriage, and I had seeing on my medical records that I had an abortion. Even though it says "missed abortion", it stills breaks my heart every single time I see it.

 

I also cringe when someone says, "Oh, she is bipolar." No, she is not bipolar. She has bipolar disorder. I am not bipolar. I have bipolar disorder. I am much more than my diagnosis.

 

:iagree:with the first part. I had one too, and since (for myself) I am staunchly against abortion, that was really hard for me. It was almost a whole nother issue for me to deal with on top of the loss of the baby. The fact that I kept hearing everyone saying "I had a missed abortion" at the hospital. The fact that my D&C was no more then an abortion. The fact that my Dr refused to acknowledge it was a baby, but instead referred to it as a fetus :( I hate that it is in my file too. Or when asked about pregnancies and births, I have to say 7 pregnancies and 6 births... you know what they are thinking. And I am always quick to say, "I had a miscarriage between baby 2 and 3, in 1997".

[Nakia]

:iagree:with the first part. I had one too, and since (for myself) I am staunchly against abortion, that was really hard for me. It was almost a whole nother issue for me to deal with on top of the loss of the baby. The fact that I kept hearing everyone saying "I had a missed abortion" at the hospital. The fact that my D&C was no more then an abortion. The fact that my Dr refused to acknowledge it was a baby, but instead referred to it as a fetus :( I hate that it is in my file too. Or when asked about pregnancies and births, I have to say 7 pregnancies and 6 births... you know what they are thinking. And I am always quick to say, "I had a miscarriage between baby 2 and 3, in 1997".

 

:grouphug: My doctor is/was beyond amazing. I, too, am adamantly opposed to abortion, and so is my doctor. He sat in pre-op and prayed with Patrick and me as they were preparing me for my D&C. He has delivered all my babies. I am very thankful for him. But there is no changing what the records say, unfortunately. Regarding the part of your post that I bolded, do you mean you think people automatically assume you had an elective abortion? I don't think that's true, at least in my experience.

[missesd]

:grouphug: My doctor is/was beyond amazing. I, too, am adamantly opposed to abortion, and so is my doctor. He sat in pre-op and prayed with Patrick and me as they were preparing me for my D&C. He has delivered all my babies. I am very thankful for him. But there is no changing what the records say, unfortunately. Regarding the part of your post that I bolded, do you mean you think people automatically assume you had an elective abortion? I don't think that's true, at least in my experience.

 

I don't know... maybe it's my fear of what people might think or assume, because to me it such a blackened thought. Does that make sense?

 

Also, FWIW, I didn't even go back to that Dr for my post check...

[jewellsmommy]

And IMO, we could all kill ourselves trying to appease everyone's sensitivities.

 

I agree. I try to be sensitive to issues that I am aware of, but every one is sooo different in how they perceive these type of situations. It reminds me of the whole african-american vs. black terminology. It seems to be 50/50 as to which is the appropriate term/less offensive.

[Virg]

:iagree:

 

We should do the best we can to not offend others but there is a point when it becomes ridiculous. My husband is black and my kids and step-kids are all mixed. I have had black people, who have overheard me use the term "black" get angry with me (and cuss me out in public lol) for not using "African-American." However my husband doesn't like being referred to as African-American because he feels it makes it seem less than American. He says he isn't from Africa, and no one in his family has been for several hundred years. A lot of it is just a matter of preference. I wish people spent more time trying to understand that others were raised differently, have different opinions or are even perhaps just ignorant of PC terms and didn't take things quite so personally. MOST (not all lol) of the time I don't think people mean any offense, they just don't understand. :) Just my 2 cents and hopefully I didn't offend anyone!

[Joy at Home]

There was a thread about a term that the OP found hurtful. I realize that thread may have gotten a bit heated and it is not my intent to rehash that particular discussion, but it did get me to thinking about other words and how people perceive them. I am guilty myself of using words that I now know some to find hurtful and I have tried very hard to adjust my usage.

 

One is the term "mentally retarded". I have disliked the term "retard/retarded" used as slang or an insult pretty much all of my adult life, but only recently realized that there was a movement to replace the "official" terminology with something along the lines of "cognitive disability".

 

On a more personal note is the term "hearing impaired". I much prefer the term "hard-of-hearing" and that is what I use to identify myself and the girls, but I have to admit I do cringe when someone calls us "impaired". Before the girls were diagnosed, I did use "hearing impaired" myself but I became much more aware of the implications when applying it to my daughters. I don't want to imply they are "broken" or "less than". I don't get bent out of shape if someone else uses it, and many people/parents use it to describe themselves/their child; however, I have also known other people who are very offended by it, so that is part of the reason I have chosen not to use "impaired".

 

Like it or not, words do carry a lot of power. There is a movement to use "people-first" language when referring to those living with a disability. If I was unknowingly using a word that was hurtful to someone else, I would want to be made aware of it and I would find it helpful to know why they felt that way.

 

I don't offend easily and I know people use language they're familiar with, but my *preference* over "mentally retarded" is cognitive or development disability. It moves away from the old stigma and is more respectful, which is why I use those terms. Again, people use terminology they know and are familiar with, and I feel like we do more for our cause (for lack of a better word) by being graceful and willing to enlighten rather than claim offense.

 

Having said that, I cringe every time I hear a grown up who should no better use the word "retard" in casual conversation (as in, "I'm such a retard, I locked my keys in my car").

 

Blessings,

Lisa

[milovany]

On a more personal note is the term "hearing impaired". I much prefer the term "hard-of-hearing" and that is what I use to identify myself and the girls, but I have to admit I do cringe when someone calls us "impaired". Before the girls were diagnosed, I did use "hearing impaired" myself but I became much more aware of the implications when applying it to my daughters. I don't want to imply they are "broken" or "less than". I don't get bent out of shape if someone else uses it, and many people/parents use it to describe themselves/their child; however, I have also known other people who are very offended by it, so that is part of the reason I have chosen not to use "impaired".

 

Tamara, this was interesting for me to read. I work with the deaf/hard of hearing on a local university campus. I found that I use the term "hearing impaired" because (in my mind, I guess) it seemed to include both those who are deaf and those who are hard of hearing. It seemed like a more concise term, I guess you could say, than "deaf/hard of hearing". In addition, I don't think the *person* is impaired -- but that their hearing, a physical function, is. I'm more than happy to read your thoughts on this because in my work with the deaf/hard of hearing I certainly don't want to be offending anyone! (Come to think of it, I believe I've heard one of the students I work with use "hearing impaired" and not "hard of hearing"). Thoughts?

[LG Gone Wild]

Actually, the only terms I find offensive are those blaspheming God. Everything else...meh, I don't get worked up over, not even racial slurs (okay, sand n!gger might be too much for me).

[pqr]

The problem is that we as a people have gone nuts we are so afraid of offering insult that we tie ourselves into pretzels and then look stupid. Further we will jump at the slightest implication that we are being offensive and it only takes a complaint to make people hunt for a new way of saying something eg

 

“Broken home” it is not insulting, it is a term, and fairly accurate at that.

Koran, Q’oran, Qu’ran, Quran none offer any praise or condemnation when used in English they simply represent differing spellings and differing pronunciations of a word.

Deaf, hearing impaired etc. Again no praise or condemnation in any of the terms.

Illegal immigrant/alien. A factual and accurate term

Thug, criminal....not a "gentleman" and not deservous of the word

 

Some words do have negative connotations and should be avoided, but it seems that everyone now wants to jump on the bandwagon.

 

 

Frankly some people simply need to grow up and stop looking for ways to be offended.

 

The below list may, however, help those curmudgeons amongst us who while intending no insult seem to do so with regularity:

 

Actor: metamorphosing being, possessing great wealth

 

Actress: metamorphosing being, possessing great wealth (and occasionally great beauty)

 

Bag boy: agricultural product organizer

 

Bald: follicularly challenged

 

Bomb: vertically deployed antipersonnel device

 

Boy: oppressor-to-be

 

Brainwashing: cognitive accommodation or too much PC

 

Car: earth-unfriendly, vertically-challenged mode of transport

 

Car Wash Worker: vehicle-appearance specialist

 

Cat: quadruped non-human associate

 

Cheating: cooperative assignment

 

Criticism: unjust self-esteem reducer

 

Dead: metabolically challenged

 

Demand: propose strongly

 

Derision: nontraditional praise

 

Dirty Old Man: sexually focused, chronologically gifted individual

 

Dumb: cerebrally challenged

 

Evil: niceness deprived

 

Exercise: body enhancement through exertion

 

Failure: non-traditional success

 

Fart: human ozone depletor; ecologically incorrect expression

 

Fat: horizontally challenged: person of substance

 

Garbage collector: sanitation engineer

 

Gas Station Attendant: petroleum transfer technician

 

Girl: pre-woman

 

Guess: anomaly maneuvers: repetitive predictions

 

Handicapped: physically challenged

 

Homeless person: residentially flexible individual

 

Hurricane: himmicane (non sexist)

 

Ignorant: factually unencumbered

 

Incorrect: alternative answer

 

Individualism: uncooperative spirit

 

Information: overly structured trivia

 

Insane: reality challenged

 

Kill: creating a permanent state of metabolic dormancy; servicing the target (military)

 

Lazy: motivationally dispossessed

 

Lost: locationally disadvantaged

 

Man: oppressor

 

Manhole: maintenance portal

 

Misunderstand: personalized interpretation

 

Monster: person of scales

 

Mugging: unforeseen funding of underclass

 

Murderer: termination specialist

 

Nerd: under-attractive, cerebrally gifted individual

 

Numismatist: capitalist monetary acquisition expert

 

Nut: hexagonal rotatable surface compression unit

 

Off: energy efficient

 

Old: chronologically gifted

 

Perfume: discretionary fragrance

 

Pervert: person engaged in nontraditional espionage

 

Pissed off: satisfaction deprived

 

Political: amorally gifted

 

Poor: economically marginalized

 

Prisoner: client of the correctional system

 

Prostitute: body entrepreneur

 

Redneck: rustically inclined

 

Rich: economically maximized

 

Secretary: stationery engineer

 

Sex: cooperative physical fitness

 

Sexist: gender biased with niceness deprived overtones

 

Short: altitudinally disadvantaged: vertically challenged

 

Sleepy: under-alert

 

Smart: cerebrally gifted

 

Specialist: physician having concentrated on a particular field of tax shelters

 

Structure: impersonal hindrance

 

Tall: vertically gifted: altitudinally endowed

 

Teacher: volunteer knowledge conveyor

 

Teaching: personality repression

 

Tired: rest-challenged

 

Uglier: over under-attractive

 

Ugliest: over-under-attractively gifted

 

Ugly: under-attractive

 

Unemployed: non-waged

 

Unsure: conceptual conflict

 

Woman: w/o man; womyn

 

Zipper: interlocking slide fasteners

Edited December 27, 2010 by pqr

[Peela]

I like the movement towards trying to express any kind of disability as something the person has rather than is.

We are a society of labellers. But none of us are the sum total of our labels.

It's true, language carries a lot of power with it. It pays to be careful with our words. That is an important Buddhist concept- right speech.

And then there is the extreme political correctness that takes it all to ridiculous lengths and is more about appearing right than actually coming from a good place.

[texasmama]

Tamara, I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this. It is not something I have every been exposed to and I will be more aware now.

 

I dislike the term "retard", as well, to describe a moment of forgetfulness or as an insult. I have some family members who use the term, and I ask them not to.

 

I have long struggled with "black" vs. "African American". I still don't know which is the more preferred term.

 

I recently had someone say "learning differences" to me rather than "learning disabilities" as we discussed a student of mine. It struck me as a little too p.c...as a parent with a child who has learning disabilities, I don't feel offended by that term, but I would love to hear from others about their perception of it.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

The problem with discussing various "disabilities" and the like is that what you are dealing with in the end is a medical diagnosis and it requires a label. Like it or not if there is anything that differs from a set norm-there is a medical label for it-from psychological problems, obstetric issues to physical weight. There are anthropological terms for ethnicity, religion etc.

 

What ever is being labeled will remain even if the label changes and eventually the stigma moves to the new label, maybe it carries a few less or a few new implications as language changes over time but the negative connotations will carry over. What do we do? Every time this happens do we invent new words for a condition or do we just grow up and deal with the fact that there are times that labels are going to be used and learn to read offense in how the words are used rather than the words themselves.

[LG Gone Wild]

Political: amorally gifted

 

 

Prostitute: body entrepreneur

 

I like those two. :lol:

 

And then there is the extreme political correctness that takes it all to ridiculous lengths and is more about appearing right than actually coming from a good place.

 

too right

[Rosie_0801]

Tamara, this was interesting for me to read. I work with the deaf/hard of hearing on a local university campus. I found that I use the term "hearing impaired" because (in my mind, I guess) it seemed to include both those who are deaf and those who are hard of hearing. It seemed like a more concise term, I guess you could say, than "deaf/hard of hearing". In addition, I don't think the *person* is impaired -- but that their hearing, a physical function, is. I'm more than happy to read your thoughts on this because in my work with the deaf/hard of hearing I certainly don't want to be offending anyone! (Come to think of it, I believe I've heard one of the students I work with use "hearing impaired" and not "hard of hearing"). Thoughts?

 

Which term a person uses about themselves often falls along cultural lines. For example, my hubby is hard of hearing/ half Deaf. His sister is hearing impaired. In my experience, the biggest clue to which a person identifies as is what kind of hearing aide they wear, lol. In the ear- probably hearing impaired, behind the ear- Hoh/Deaf.

 

Deaf, hearing impaired etc. Again no praise or condemnation in any of the terms.

 

I would agree with you on many of your examples, but not all. There is generally (not 100% everyone, but generally) agreed on baggage that comes with some of those terms and the above quoted is one of them. You might use them as synonyms, but there are subtle differences when used about and by some people. Of course, if you don't care to be in the know about that, you'll be judged "an ignorant hearing person" but that won't hurt you if you don't know about it :tongue_smilie:

 

Rosie

[pqr]

there are subtle differences when used about and by some people.

Rosie

 

Understood and one should use the correct term, my point is that neither is pejorative.

[Rosie_0801]

Understood and one should use the correct term, my point is that neither is pejorative.

 

My point is that is your opinion, not an inherent truth.

 

Not that we need to agree. If we're inadvertently offending someone, that somebody will or won't choose to call us on it.

 

Rosie

[fhjmom]

I think there is just no *right way*... I, myself, am deaf in my left ear completely. I had a drowning accident at 4, was pronounced clinically dead at EMT arrival, and was brought back, but with not without blowing my ear drum and having almost complete, if not complete, nerve damage. I don't mind using "hearing impaired", because that is what I am, will always be. My hearing is impaired, it is less, it is broken. I do not like "hard of hearing" however. It implies someone with old age, and I am only 36. I was 4 when it happened, so I have been like this since I was little. It is just one persons preference over another. And IMO, we could all kill ourselves trying to appease everyone's sensitivities.

 

This is a good example of when I said that other people use the term to describe themselves and why I don't get bent out of shape about it. How people choose to self-identify is their choice. I have found that most people who use the term "hearing impaired" do not usually associate with the Deaf community, and that is fine, just a different point of view and the status of hearing being more a clinical condition. I do disagree though that "hard-of-hearing" implies someone who is old; I am HOH and I am 41 (I became HOH in my early 30's). My daughters are HOH and they are 6 and 3. A related story, we went to a Deaf church event and 6 YO DD was playing with a CODA (child of Deaf Adults) that was hearing and similar in age to her. The other little girl asked my DD if she was hearing or Deaf. Because DD wore hearing aids, but she really didn't sign the other girl couldn't figure it out where DD "fit". DD asked me on the way home if she was Deaf and I asked her how she thought of herself. She said she was hard-of-hearing, so I told her then that is what she should tell someone the next time she was asked.

 

I am fine with someone who identifies themselves as hearing impaired if that is what they are comfortable with. I have just come to realize that the term is hurtful to others and so I have personally chosen not to use it. I am very appreciative of those who are considerate enough to find out how I self-identify and use the terminology I am most comfortable with when referring to me and my children.

 

Which term a person uses about themselves often falls along cultural lines. For example, my hubby is hard of hearing/ half Deaf. His sister is hearing impaired. In my experience, the biggest clue to which a person identifies as is what kind of hearing aide they wear, lol. In the ear- probably hearing impaired, behind the ear- Hoh/Deaf.

I would agree with you on many of your examples, but not all. There is generally (not 100% everyone, but generally) agreed on baggage that comes with some of those terms and the above quoted is one of them. You might use them as synonyms, but there are subtle differences when used about and by some people. Of course, if you don't care to be in the know about that, you'll be judged "an ignorant hearing person" but that won't hurt you if you don't know about it :tongue_smilie:

As usual, :iagree:with Rosie! :001_smile:

[fhjmom]

Originally Posted by pqr

Understood and one should use the correct term, my point is that neither is pejorative.

 

My point is that is your opinion, not an inherent truth.

 

Not that we need to agree. If we're inadvertently offending someone, that somebody will or won't choose to call us on it.

 

Rosie

 

I have to agree with Rosie again here.

By definition:

  pejorative [pi-jawr-uh-tiv, -jor-, pej-uh-rey-, pee-juh-]

 

–adjective 1. having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force:

 

 

To many Deaf people, the term "hearing impaired" is indeed disparaging, derogatory, and/or belittling.

[ChristusG]

Honestly, I think people just get worked up over words and try to be too PC nowadays. Sometimes, things just are what they are. If people are using the terms and not meaning any offense by them, then I don't see what's the harm in using them.

 

For example, I'm caucasian. If I was called a white girl, I'd have no problem with that. Cause guess what? I'm white LOL.

 

As for hearing impaired....isn't that correct? A person's hearing is impaired? Same with broken home.....if the home was peaceful at one time and now the parents are split up, hasn't it been broken? As for retarded....I would never use that word on a "casual" or joking basis. And people who do are just being rude, in my opinion. The same for people who say things like "that's gay" when they dislike something.

 

I just don't understand that if the term is true, and someone is not meaning to be offensive by using the term....then why is it hurtful?

 

I wear glasses. I'm vision impaired. My vision is not working properly...it's less than perfect. It sounds right to me.

[fhjmom]

Tamara, this was interesting for me to read. I work with the deaf/hard of hearing on a local university campus. I found that I use the term "hearing impaired" because (in my mind, I guess) it seemed to include both those who are deaf and those who are hard of hearing. It seemed like a more concise term, I guess you could say, than "deaf/hard of hearing". In addition, I don't think the *person* is impaired -- but that their hearing, a physical function, is. I'm more than happy to read your thoughts on this because in my work with the deaf/hard of hearing I certainly don't want to be offending anyone! (Come to think of it, I believe I've heard one of the students I work with use "hearing impaired" and not "hard of hearing"). Thoughts?

 

I think this speaks a lot to finding out what the person you are identifying is comfortable with. I do know people who self-identify as hearing impaired and I am okay with that because they have the right to choose how they look at themselves. When I first started loosing my hearing, I thought "hearing impaired" sounded more intellectual/medical (I tend to use more medical terms anyway as I have a background in sports medicine). As I continued to loose more hearing, began learning ASL and got more exposure to the Deaf community and Deaf culture, I realized that some people were offended by the idea of being "impaired".This was about the same time the girls were diagnosed and I was really struggling with coming to terms with the obstacles they would face because of their hearing loss. I decided I would do what I could to make sure they had confidence in who they were. We are not hearing people who are broken, we are very capable people who are hard-of-hearing (at least that is the message I want the girls to hear).

 

I won't tell you to not use the term hearing impaired, but I will warn you that to many in the Deaf community it will send up a flag of not being culturally aware. Believe me I know the challenges in finding appropriate terminology. I work with a non-profit gropu that supports families of children who are "deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing impaired" - yes, all those terms are used in the mission statement to try to be sensitive. We do tend to shorten more often to "D/HH" though.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Have you heard of authorial intent? That is taking into consideration what the author of a book was trying to say. I think there is something to considering "speakorial" intent (and yes, if Shakespeare could coin words, so can I).

 

Since I was taking into consideration what my co-workers at the time were trying to say, I didn't take offense when they gave me a send-off to "priest school" when I left to go to a Protestant seminary.

 

When I talked to WWII vets in college (after having just come to the US from growing up in Japan), I did not take offense at them talking about the Japs because I could tell in the context that it had no pejorative meaning for them - it was simply a word from their time. When I went to American high school for one year and everyone called me "the Jap" I did take offense because in the context it was plenty clear that there was quite a bit of pejorative meaning for them.

 

Occasionally someone will repeatedly use a word that while not used by them pejoratively, does have hurtful connotations. I will then say to them "I can tell you don't mean it this way, but many people have used this term in this way _____________." Most people will apologize and will try (probably not 100% at first) to use a different term.

 

I will not do that with a word that is not clearly tainted with pejorative connotations. For example, if someone says "handicapped" instead of "disabled" instead of what it is nowadays (isn't there a new term with the term "abled" in it?) I will not correct someone because the change was not because of hatred but simply an evolution of the language. Yes, I know there are some attitude shifts behind the evolution but they aren't huge ones, in my opinion.

[jewellsmommy]

Honestly, I think people just get worked up over words and try to be too PC nowadays. Sometimes, things just are what they are. If people are using the terms and not meaning any offense by them, then I don't see what's the harm in using them.

 

For example, I'm caucasian. If I was called a white girl, I'd have no problem with that. Cause guess what? I'm white LOL.

 

As for hearing impaired....isn't that correct? A person's hearing is impaired? Same with broken home.....if the home was peaceful at one time and now the parents are split up, hasn't it been broken? As for retarded....I would never use that word on a "casual" or joking basis. And people who do are just being rude, in my opinion. The same for people who say things like "that's gay" when they dislike something.

 

I just don't understand that if the term is true, and someone is not meaning to be offensive by using the term....then why is it hurtful?

 

I wear glasses. I'm vision impaired. My vision is not working properly...it's less than perfect. It sounds right to me.

 

I agree. There needs to be flex ( for lack of a better word) when you are the one who senses offense when none is intended. I think it is unreasonable to get bent out of shape at hearing a non-preferred term when no harm is meant. I may not like a particular term, but that is more my problem than the person saying it, KWIM?

[Lovedtodeath]

The problem with discussing various "disabilities" and the like is that what you are dealing with in the end is a medical diagnosis and it requires a label. Like it or not if there is anything that differs from a set norm-there is a medical label for it-from psychological problems, obstetric issues to physical weight. There are anthropological terms for ethnicity, religion etc.

 

What ever is being labeled will remain even if the label changes and eventually the stigma moves to the new label, maybe it carries a few less or a few new implications as language changes over time but the negative connotations will carry over. What do we do? Every time this happens do we invent new words for a condition or do we just grow up and deal with the fact that there are times that labels are going to be used and learn to read offense in how the words are used rather than the words themselves.

:iagree:I have close family members of nearly every ethnic group, sexual orientation and ability/disability both of mind and body and this is what I think. :)

[WTMCassandra]

I too have experience with the Deaf/deaf/HOH/HI community. The terms are sensitive and do mean different things. So I can only extrapolate to other situations (ethnic background, mental challenges, etc.) that it could be as nuanced and complicated there.

 

In my experience (admittedly my information is at least 10 years old), some people identify themselves as Deaf, which means they are proudly part of their community, even militantly so, and do NOT consider themselves "broken." They would be the most offended at being considered "impaired." Deaf people with a lower-case "d" were not as militant but usually profoundly deaf, totally ASL, and probably didn't speak much. Hard of hearing might use a combination of lip-reading, a bit of residual hearing, and perhaps were brought up oral/mainstreamed and perhaps learned ASL later in life. They are in a nether-world between true Deaf and Hearing--sometimes they are great go-betweens, and sometimes they just don't feel like they quite fit anywhere. However, I did hear the whole community with its variations called "hearing impaired" or "deaf," but again, my experience is dated.

 

So my point is that the people who have pointed out that real people get real feelings hurt because of terminology are correct, at least in the deaf community. So perhaps it is that way in other communities, not just a "PC" problem (although I believe that is possible too). So, don't be too cynical, folks. Terminology can mean the difference between someone feeling like a victim and feeling empowered.

[specialmama]

When I was pg with my son, we were actually expecting him to have physical deformities and possibly some other issues. We knew this, but for a while did not tell anyone. What I became acutely aware of, is how some well-wishers' words stung.

"Oh you're pregnant! What do you want, a boy or a girl? Oh, I guess it doesn't matter, as long as it's healthy."

WHAT? As long as it's healthy? That puts the onus on an innocent little baby! How asinine! I turned it around and replied, "no, as long as it's loved," which puts the onus on the adults where it belongs thankyouverymuch. ;) I explained this to my MIL who was forever saying "as long as it's healthy" and I explained that there are many, many women who know their unborn babe has spina bifida, or down's, or missing an arm, or has an enlarged heart, or perhaps it has even died inutero. How does saying "as long as it's healthy" make them feel? What on earth does that imply? Having experienced the above, I am way more sensitive when talking with women who are expecting. Every baby is a gift, even if it's not healthy.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Back in college, I was peripherally part of the deaf culture. I say peripherally because I was hired as a note taker, and tutor for the deaf students in my major. When you are involved in a certain culture, it does make sense and is respectful to learn the cultural terms. However, if someone casually notices that you are signing, it isn't reasonable to be offended if they do not automatically know if you prefer one term over the other, or if you have some hearing or not. Yes, people can ask, but sometimes people get offended if you ask, so it can be a no win situation.

 

In the same way, my dh is Filipino but if you just look at him, you can't really tell if he is Filipino, Chinese or even Hispanic. It would be silly for him to be offended if someone asked him if he was Chinese. I could see him being offended if someone just automatically assumed he was one or the other but even then that shows ignorance more than anything else so I could also see him letting it go but gently correcting the person.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Jean in Newcastle

[WTMCassandra]

The problem with discussing various "disabilities" and the like is that what you are dealing with in the end is a medical diagnosis and it requires a label. Like it or not if there is anything that differs from a set norm-there is a medical label for it-from psychological problems, obstetric issues to physical weight. There are anthropological terms for ethnicity, religion etc.

 

What ever is being labeled will remain even if the label changes and eventually the stigma moves to the new label, maybe it carries a few less or a few new implications as language changes over time but the negative connotations will carry over. What do we do? Every time this happens do we invent new words for a condition or do we just grow up and deal with the fact that there are times that labels are going to be used and learn to read offense in how the words are used rather than the words themselves.

 

Yes, but who decides what the label is?????

 

Take "spontaneous abortion," for example. That lovely moniker (NOT) was assigned by the male medical establishment long before women were doctors. Why should hurting women have to be slapped with that term? How about "incompetent cervix?" Talk about feeling blamed on top of a woman being consigned to bedrest! Why add insult to injury? Sure, the injury won't go away with a more neutral term, but we could remove the insult, at least.

[jewellsmommy]

When I was pg with my son, we were actually expecting him to have physical deformities and possibly some other issues. We knew this, but for a while did not tell anyone. What I became acutely aware of, is how some well-wishers' words stung.

"Oh you're pregnant! What do you want, a boy or a girl? Oh, I guess it doesn't matter, as long as it's healthy."

WHAT? As long as it's healthy? That puts the onus on an innocent little baby! How asinine! I turned it around and replied, "no, as long as it's loved," which puts the onus on the adults where it belongs thankyouverymuch. ;) I explained this to my MIL who was forever saying "as long as it's healthy" and I explained that there are many, many women who know their unborn babe has spina bifida, or down's, or missing an arm, or has an enlarged heart, or perhaps it has even died inutero. How does saying "as long as it's healthy" make them feel? What on earth does that imply? Having experienced the above, I am way more sensitive when talking with women who are expecting. Every baby is a gift, even if it's not healthy.

 

 

I definitely get what you are saying.

 

I don't think that I would have ever picked up on that. I would still consider someone with down-syndrome, missing a limb, or spina bifida as being able to be healthy, kwim? And I think the point of that saying, which is so common, is to be grateful regardless of the sex, that there are more important concerns. I don't think (from those I have heard say this) it is meant to demean or de-value the life of babies that are going to be born with challenges. I think it is meant more as a wish for you. Having said this, it certainly doesn't hurt to be more self aware of mommas that may derive the same meaning that you did.

 

 

ETA: I found it amusing, in reflection, that the part of the saying you quoted that "bothered" me is not the word healthy but the word it. I have a slight internal shiver when I hear a baby referred to as it. I always say the baby if gender is unknown. But, I recognize that, no harm is meant. I just don't like the term it for a baby.

Edited December 27, 2010 by jewellsmommy

[Kate CA]

To many Deaf people, the term "hearing impaired" is indeed disparaging, derogatory, and/or belittling.

 

But the definition of impaired is this:

 

"diminished in strength, quality, or utility; "impaired eyesight""

 

Isn't that what having a difficult time hearing is? I don't understand why one has to look for offense in word usage that is a statement of fact. :confused:

 

It is quite possible to be offended over almost anything. There was a lengthy thread on this type of subject years ago - people that are blind or deaf are offended that others would consider them impaired in some way. However if one is missing an ability or that ability is not "at full use" or whatever, why is this wrong to view it this way?

 

If my child or I was deaf or blind, I would do whatever I could (if there were things I could do) to help them. There are things people miss by being blind or deaf, but this does *not* make those that are some how less valuable or whatnot as humans. This seemed to me to be the prevailing thought - that if we said someone was blind or deaf and didn't view that as a positive that I was wrong for seeing it that way. :confused:

 

I am not sure I am making myself terribly clear so please as for clarification if you don't get my meaning.

 

ETA: I just read this post: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2288134&postcount=1

 

This is the kind of thing I am talking about. Now I would *certainly* not purposely offend someone by the use of language, but I don't get the militant attitude that something isn't missing if one is deaf or blind. I am not judging that person as a human being - they are the same as I am - but this puzzles me.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Kate CA

[specialmama]

I definitely get what you are saying.

 

I don't think that I would have ever picked up on that. I would still consider someone with down-syndrome, missing a limb, or spina bifida as being able to be healthy, kwim? And I think the point of that saying, which is so common, is to be grateful regardless of the sex, that there are more important concerns. I don't think (from those I have heard say this) it is meant to demean or de-value the life of babies that are going to be born with challenges. I think it is meant more as a wish for you. Having said this, it certainly doesn't hurt to be more self aware of mommas that may derive the same meaning that you did.

 

I hear what you're saying, and I agree that the intent is not to demean. But as a mom who is still processing the news (which could take months)and coming to terms with her baby not being picture-perfect-healthy, plus hormonal (oy!), hearing it is like a literal slap in the face. It just stuns you and the shock renders you speechless at first.

[jewellsmommy]

I hear what you're saying, and I agree that the intent is not to demean. But as a mom who is still processing the news (which could take months)and coming to terms with her baby not being picture-perfect-healthy, plus hormonal (oy!), hearing it is like a literal slap in the face. It just stuns you and the shock renders you speechless at first.

 

 

I get that. Experiencing infertility does that to you too. Things that people say trying to be supportive will come across totally wrong and hurtful no matter how hard they try. When you are in a unique or less common situation, you have a different perspective.

[Rosie_0801]

As for hearing impaired....isn't that correct? A person's hearing is impaired?

 

Depends how you look at it ;) That is the medical point of view, yeah. If you look at it from a cultural point of view, they aren't impaired, they're a perfectly legitimate minority group. A Deaf person isn't going to disagree that their hearing is worse than yours. They just think the term "hearing impaired" is focusing on the wrong thing. Tamara explained better. Kate CA- The Deaf will joke that people like you are "signing impaired." It is perfectly understandable that you would think a D/deaf person was missing out on something. They are, and may or may not have value on that thing they are missing. From their point of view, you are also missing something. You are missing not being D/deaf and the positive things that involves. Do you feel "impaired?" You are missing that. You don't have high value on that, so you aren't bothered, right? People consistently calling you "signing impaired" would get old, wouldn't it? You'd be surprised how many Deaf people really don't place any more value on being hearing than you place on being deaf. It's a weird concept to try and wrap your head around, but there it is.

 

I wear glasses too. I'm fine with "vision impaired" not just because my vision is impaired, but because a) I was born with 20/20 vision and it has deteriorated and b) I don't identify as a blind person. I am a person with vision who's vision is crappier than it ought to be. Comparing blindness with deafness is like comparing apples and oranges, however.

 

I think we can all understand putting up with something, knowing the person doesn't mean it the way it comes out, and getting fed up. If you call a Deaf person "hearing impaired," they will probably know you don't mean anything offensive, but they've still heard the same thing a trillion times from a trillion other "ignorant hearing people," including the people who are supposed to care most about them and it has gotten old.

 

Rosie- who, incidentally, does not have the local Deaf community on a pedestal. The militant thing gets old too.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[EmilyK]

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/24/on-slurs-a-response/?scp=1&sq=slurring&st=cse

I read this yesterday and it seems on point for this discussion. I found the article itself hard to follow in parts, but the comments are quite interesting.

 

One of the interesting things for me in these discussions are the different points of view. If a word is offensive, do we measure that by 1) the conscious intent of the speaker 2) subconscious or otherwise unknown intent of speaker 3) effect on listener (which listener? there may be many) or 4) societal consensus, or?

 

Given that words only have the meanings we give them, who gets to measure the offense seems important.

 

I do agree with Peela about right speech in the Buddhist sense.

 

I'm not sure why I would intentionally use a word others have told me offends them. I do get it that the rules are confusing.

[asta]

Yes, but who decides what the label is?????

 

Take "spontaneous abortion," for example. That lovely moniker (NOT) was assigned by the male medical establishment long before women were doctors. Why should hurting women have to be slapped with that term? How about "incompetent cervix?" Talk about feeling blamed on top of a woman being consigned to bedrest! Why add insult to injury? Sure, the injury won't go away with a more neutral term, but we could remove the insult, at least.

 

Um, no.

 

ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: from Latin aboriri ‘miscarry,’ from ab- ‘away, from’ + oriri ‘be born.’

 

It applies to all living things. It is simply terminology, and applies to animals, plants and humans. "Modern" humans have given it a bad connotation. There are classifications within the medical community so that all doctors understand what is going on with a patient medically, but they aren't moral judgements. A doctor looking at a patient's chart knows the difference between "spontaneous abortion" (miscarriage) and "induced abortion". They will also write "induced abortion" differently depending on the "why" of it: a miscarriage leads to the mother having a D&C (which is noted) for a "spontaneous abortion", a baby that has died in utero leading to a D&C is noted as a "therapeutic/induced abortion" vs an "artificial/induced abortion" (Roe v Wade). The avg person may not see the distinctions, but the docs do.

 

Unless the docs are @ssholes. Then all bets are off.

 

 

a

[jenn1129]

good grief. I think I'm just going to crawl back into my hole, and stop trying to talk to people. It seems we are da*&ed if we do, da*&ed if we dont. :001_huh:

[Josie]

good grief. I think I'm just going to crawl back into my hole, and stop trying to talk to people. It seems we are da*&ed if we do, da*&ed if we dont. :001_huh:

 

:iagree: I was just thinking this myself. I never mean to offend anyone, but it happens.

 

I wonder what unintended consequences are a result of all the political correctness and the worry of never offending anyone. Could one of the unintended consequences be that we don't talk to each other as much or with as much depth as we used to?

[DarlaS]

Yes, but who decides what the label is?????

 

Take "spontaneous abortion," for example. That lovely moniker (NOT) was assigned by the male medical establishment long before women were doctors. Why should hurting women have to be slapped with that term? How about "incompetent cervix?" Talk about feeling blamed on top of a woman being consigned to bedrest! Why add insult to injury? Sure, the injury won't go away with a more neutral term, but we could remove the insult, at least.

 

Nothing elective was ever implied in the term *originally*. It implied something spontaneous before the procedure. The word has been around much longer (1500 something) and was once a perfectly useful concise term to describe an untimely end to something--many things. Not just pregnancies.

 

Calling an elective termination an abortion may have been a way to make it seem less offensive. Now it's offending another group of people, and they should really have updated their vocabularies and paperwork by now. Even Merriam-Webster brings up that meaning first now. Ick.

[Mejane]

The problem is that we as a people have gone nuts we are so afraid of offering insult that we tie ourselves into pretzels and then look stupid. Further we will jump at the slightest implication that we are being offensive and it only takes a complaint to make people hunt for a new way of saying something Some words do have negative connotations and should be avoided, but it seems that everyone now wants to jump on the bandwagon.

 

 

Frankly some people simply need to grow up and stop looking for ways to be offended.

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

And then there is the extreme political correctness that takes it all to ridiculous lengths and is more about appearing right than actually coming from a good place.

 

:iagree:

 

I think it's also important to remember that "labels" morph over time. Negro > black > Afro-american > African American and appears to be moving back to black. Homosexual > gay... who knows what it will be in ten years? I think many people are not 'up' on the lingo, so calling someone something considered passe does not always equal insult. IMHO.

[Nakia]

Um, no.

 

 

 

It applies to all living things. It is simply terminology, and applies to animals, plants and humans. "Modern" humans have given it a bad connotation. There are classifications within the medical community so that all doctors understand what is going on with a patient medically, but they aren't moral judgements. A doctor looking at a patient's chart knows the difference between "spontaneous abortion" (miscarriage) and "induced abortion". They will also write "induced abortion" differently depending on the "why" of it: a miscarriage leads to the mother having a D&C (which is noted) for a "spontaneous abortion", a baby that has died in utero leading to a D&C is noted as a "therapeutic/induced abortion" vs an "artificial/induced abortion" (Roe v Wade). The avg person may not see the distinctions, but the docs do.

 

Unless the docs are @ssholes. Then all bets are off.

 

 

a

 

You are exactly right that docs do see/know the difference, and there are different classifications. And I am not offended by the terminology because I am part of the medical community. It just hurts to see it in my chart.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Yes, but who decides what the label is?????

 

Take "spontaneous abortion," for example. That lovely moniker (NOT) was assigned by the male medical establishment long before women were doctors. Why should hurting women have to be slapped with that term? How about "incompetent cervix?" Talk about feeling blamed on top of a woman being consigned to bedrest! Why add insult to injury? Sure, the injury won't go away with a more neutral term, but we could remove the insult, at least.

 

I think that in these cases, as well as many others, the insult isn't there. The medical community isn't intending to offer insult-they are looking for a descriptive label for a given condition. My point, as was well made by Asta's history of the usage/origin of the word "abortion", was that no matter what term we use language will eventually evolve to the point that someone will find it hurtful or insulting. Or because the condition being discussed is unpleasant, painful or damaging the new term will be equated with the negative feelings.

 

For a good doctor none of the terms you discuss carry value judgments about an individual. They are simply descriptors for a medical condition. People who are hurting tend to look for insult and injury where none is offered. This may be a coping mechanism but the constant changing of language is not a solution as what may be an acceptable term for one may be an insult for another.

[JadeOrchidSong]

But how are we supposed to know what term each person prefers in order not to offend them?

I think if we mean well and try our best to not to offend, that is enough. When we do know the preference of a person, then we can address to that person the way s/he prefers. Otherwise we will just have to rely on our best judgment and correct as we can and move on. There will be no end of unintended offenses because people are different. What is right for one person is offensive to another.

As long as we mean well and do our best, we should have peace. Otherwise we will never be able to sleep.

[JadeOrchidSong]

I haven't read beyond the first page, but I wanted to throw in my two cents about this topic.

 

First of all, I think we should all look beyond the surface of what words are being said, and look at the heart of the person saying them. If someone says something to you with no intention of hurting feelings, then I think you are taking unwarranted liberty in attributing vice where none exists. Society is so quick to prescribe motive behind someone's words, whether that motive exists or not.

 

Secondly, someone can't make you be offended. Only you are the one who allows yourself to be offended. If you find that every jot and tittle, whether written or spoken, gets your gander up, then perhaps the problem is within yourself. If people say things (without intending malice - see above), and you are constantly bristling from them, then I suggest you examine yourself and try to figure out why your security lies in people's words instead of in a higher power or sense of self-esteem.

:iagree::iagree:Just want I would like to say. Thank you for taking words out of my mouth and say them so well.

The listener should be able to judge the heart of the speaker. Sometimes a nice word can sound wrong if spoken with a mean tone/heart. The heart is what really counts.

[angela in ohio]

Mentally retarded has been out of use for years and years. The last bit left, the state boards of MRDD in some states, changed recently. I think it's pretty common knowledge that you shouldn't use the term retarded. The correct term actually would depend on the diagnosis, but usually it would be CI (cognitively impaired.) The word disability can be offensive.

 

Dh is in special education administration and training. He keeps me up on the latest terms. For example, our dc visit special ed classes. Years ago, they were referred to as "regular education" peers. Not they are called "typical" peers.

 

Hearing impaired is currently the correct term, considered the most politically correct. Hard-of-hearing would be considered an out of date term among most HI teachers and advocates, as would deaf.

 

People first language, regardless of how anyone feels about the rapidly changing terminology, just makes sense. For example, people USE a wheelchair, it doesn't define them as a person (such as "wheelchair-bound man," for example.) We say "a boy with ASD," not "an autistic boy."

 

Anyway, my main point is that there is a HUGE difference between using the word retarted, which has been considered offensive for many years, and using a slightly incorrect or out-of-date designation.

[Joanne]

We've matured, evolved and grown and become more sophisticated in many ways over the decades that most of us have been alive. Why would that not be true in terms of language used to describe human situations?

 

I've seen, and been a part of the rhetoric, about "over political correctness" before. I've read pqr's posted list before and chuckled. I've backed off this hypersensitivity towards a reflective use of speech. Words matter.

 

Starting in January, I will be counseling the older generations as part of my education. I fully expect that they won't be "up" on changed terminology. Context and understanding is important. In most cases, educating the client probably won't be the best use of my clinical time unless the words used are part of the presenting problem.

 

 

When I was running poker tournaments as a job, I had a player use the words "jewed down" and "gyped". For me, his *heart* didn't matter. He needed to know that they were not acceptable words to use. He didn't have to agree, he didn't have to have a heart that was unkind - he needed to know that I would not allow the use of those words in my setting.

 

Certainly, there are grey areas in this - black and African-American is a complex and confusing one, for example. I hesitate to choose the right word every time. I think the first step is in whether the word/descripter/label is even necessary.

 

In the examples on which I posted my "broken home" thread, the fact that the parents of the child were divorced was not pertinent anyway.

[Laurie4b]

It is love to want to know, and expend the energy to find out, how people wish to be identified and to choose to use those terms. It is love to "cover over" the use of a nonpreferred term by someone who doesn't know the current lingo and has intended no harm. Words do have power and we should give preference to one another in love. I think what people get tired of is being "called down" for inadvertantly "stepping in it" and because language evolves rather quickly, that can happen too often to keep up with. But it is still the job of a heart bent on love to perseverein trying to learn, and of a heart bent on love to correct with gentleness and understanding.

[texasmama]

I'm not sure why I would intentionally use a word others have told me offends them. I do get it that the rules are confusing.

 

This is where I am coming from. When approaching a person who has something going on with them that I don't have (any difference in hearing, race, religion, etc.), I prefer to find out what term they find appropriate to use. I do understand that there is often not a consensus on this, but I am willing to keep each individual's preference in mind.

 

For me, it comes down to this: If I am not a part of a group, I don't get the right to say what is or is not offensive or acceptable about descriptive words for whatever "issue" people in that group are dealing with. I don't wish to be offensive or hurtful to someone else, not even unintentionally, so I am willing to change my language to reflect other people's preferences. Not everyone is willing to do this. I am.

 

I do not place the highest authority on my own feelings/thoughts when dealing with a situation which does not apply to me or a loved one. (For instance, neither I nor anyone in my family has any difficulty hearing so I don't feel ilt is appropriate for me to weigh in on what is an appropriate way to describe this "condition".) I can weigh in on learning disabilities, women, Christians, clubfoot, birth defects, children from a divorced home and a few other things because these are part of my personal experience.

 

Pardon my awkward wording. This is all harder to express than I had anticipated.

[MyBlueLobsters]

I haven't read beyond the first page, but I wanted to throw in my two cents about this topic.

 

First of all, I think we should all look beyond the surface of what words are being said, and look at the heart of the person saying them. If someone says something to you with no intention of hurting feelings, then I think you are taking unwarranted liberty in attributing vice where none exists. Society is so quick to prescribe motive behind someone's words, whether that motive exists or not.

 

Secondly, someone can't make you be offended. Only you are the one who allows yourself to be offended. If you find that every jot and tittle, whether written or spoken, gets your gander up, then perhaps the problem is within yourself. If people say things (without intending malice - see above), and you are constantly bristling from them, then I suggest you examine yourself and try to figure out why your security lies in people's words instead of in a higher power or sense of self-esteem.

 

:iagree:

 

I was in a McDonald's with my kids once and an elderly lady approached me, looked at Logan and said "Is he a retarded one?" I'll admit, I was a bit taken aback and said "What?" She, again, said "Is is a retarded one? I can always spot the retarded ones" I smiled and told her that he had Down syndrome. She, with amazing love in her voice and tears in her eyes, said that she had had a son with Down syndrome and that "the retarded ones always make me smile".

 

I have friends so caught up in the new PC movement about not using the "r" word that they would have been offended. Was I? Absolutely not. I loved that she approached me and asked me about him. Logan gave her happiness, reminded her of her son. How could I be offended by that??

 

Just my $.02

Edited December 27, 2010 by MyBlueLobsters