Jump to content

Menu

S/O Words that hurt


Recommended Posts

Oh, and one more thing. I think that the PC movement has gone too far when a person, in the same boat as you, feels that they have to walk on eggshells during conversation. I have many friends who have kids with DS, who have corrected me during conversation. There are people I avoid talking to because they are offended that I said "Mentally retarded" I can't even keep up with what is PC.....and I HAVE a kid with DS! Now, to me, THAT is being too PC and choosing to be offended when there is no cause.

Edited by MyBlueLobsters
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

:iagree: This is very much where I am coming from, as well. There is no love or kindness in insisting that people are "too sensitive" when someone uses a hurtful term to describe a condition that they themselves do not have. Yes, political correctness is tiresome, but kindness is always relevant and timeless.

 

If I am not sure that a word is not offensive, I ask. This is a minor example, but in my job as adjunct professor last semester I had a student who was black/African American (not sure which is preferred) who had huge deficiencies in his writing. This was a graduate level course, and he didn't have the skills needed to do graduate level work. I spoke with the graduate advisor (who also happens to be black/African American) about this and other issues I noticed with him. Because I am white, I didn't know if the term "ebonics" was offensive in the black community so I asked her, as that was the most descriptive term I could come up with regarding his speaking/writing issues. I asked her for feedback on the term and let her know that I wanted her to tell me if it was an offensive term. She stated that it was not. I learned something and was glad I asked. Maybe that is not the best example, but it is one fresh on my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Thanks. You described this really well. This is how I feel too. I need to remember this in the future, because even if someone *is* oversensitive (perhaps due to a painful situation in their life) why would I want to inflict further harm? And I really don't know how someone else feels if I'm not walking in their shoes.

 

I think I feel embarrassed when someone calls me out for using the wrong word, and so I may feel defensive. Sometimes I have a transitory feeling of "that's just too PC" when what I'm really feeling is defensive and ashamed, and wanting to transfer it into anger at the "oversensitive" person. But that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree: This is very much where I am coming from, as well. There is no love or kindness in insisting that people are "too sensitive" when someone uses a hurtful term to describe a condition that they themselves do not have. Yes, political correctness is tiresome, but kindness is always relevant and timeless.

 

.

 

Thank you for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to assume that there is no love or kindness coming from someone who used a term that you have taken offense by, isn't showing love to that person either.

 

I don't assume this. In many situations, it is very clear that people are only using the terminology with which they are familiar (in the example you use of Down Syndrome, for instance). I had an elderly grandfather (who has passed away) who would occasionally use the word "nigger" in a descriptive but not pejorative sense. I don't believe that his intention was to be hurtful or inappropriate. Should he have known that this term had fallen out of use as a description years prior? Probably. But he didn't seem to. I look at the context of people's life experiences, age, cultural backgrounds, etc when possible.

 

I am actually rarely hurt or offended by other people's terminology to describe me or my kids. I am more concerned about my use of terms on others' feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no love or kindness in insisting that people are "too sensitive" when someone uses a hurtful term to describe a condition that they themselves do not have. Yes, political correctness is tiresome, but kindness is always relevant and timeless.

 

 

 

I love this sentiment and completely agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I think you expressed it beautifully. Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I have to strongly disagree with this statement. "Hearing impaired" is the diagnostic code used in educational settings (or in the case of Texas, it is actually "auditorally impaired") but it is *NOT* the term most accepted in the Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing community. I realize that my girls must be labeled in order to receive services and AI is the term that must be used. In that setting I understand and accept it, but I do not ever use the term "auditorally impaired" anywhere outside of an IEP meeting. If the community that the term is referring to does not embrace it, I don't see how it can be considered PC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

: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

 

How touching. I think most people would have been very taken aback! But, she was just old school and used the term most familiar to her. I think it is awesome that you were able to see through the word to the heart behind it. Kudos to you! As hard as I am sure it was to hear her word choice, it sounds like it was a sweet moment.

Edited by jewellsmommy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

: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

 

 

I so agree.

 

Yes, "retarded" is out of date and offensive to many, but not everyone, especially the older generation, realize that. They are just using what words they know, and as with anything the intent and heart of the speaker should rule.

 

Lisa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I so agree.

 

Yes, "retarded" is out of date and offensive to many, but not everyone, especially the older generation, realize that. They are just using what words they know, and as with anything the intent and heart of the speaker should rule.

 

Lisa

 

In fact, "retarded" took the place of "Mongoloid" which is the term John Langdon Down, the man who discovered Down syndrome, called them because he thought they resembled people from Mongolia. So, for the older generation, "retarded'" IS the nicer term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

I agree.

 

I would much rather people feel comfortable enough to open up dialogue about dd than to be afraid of offending and saying nothing. I don't want to drive people away by correcting their non-pc terms and choosing to be offended. Instead, I want to encourage people to ask questions, approach her, feel comfortable. If they use antiquated terms, oh well. It is their heart I will always look at, not their words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like it when someone calls someone retarded when they are using it in a rude way -- like namecalling. Aside from that, I just figure people don't mean any harm and they're using the best words they know how to describe something. I call myself OCD all the time. I do have OCD traits, and no -- it doesn't define me. I also call myself "such a homeschooler," but I am surely more than that.

 

From being on these boards, I have noticed there are usually the types that don't get easily offended by these things and those that do. I am in the former group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

My son was diagnosed mentally retarded 6 months ago, so I am not sure how it has been out of use for years and years. The DSM-IV and the Social Security Administration still use the term as well.

 

Honestly, I don't care what they call him! It doesn't mean anything other than his measured IQ falls below a certain level. I don't care is you say he *is* that or he *has* that. I'd rather spend the time helping him than worrying about what he is called.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 have had a missed abortion. It bothers me not in the least that it is written in my medical records as such. IRL, I refer to it as a miscarriage. When I say miscarriage colloquially, my friends understand what I mean. When my doctor writes "missed abortion - 14-16 weeks" other doctors know exactly what he means, too.

 

The medical establishment has quite rightly decided upon a standard terminology. It's extremely important that they use the SAME terms everywhere in order to avoid (possibly disastrous) misunderstandings.

 

I don't think we should take it so personally. It isn't personal. It's a medical factual statement. It has nothing to do with our personal feelings about the event. The words used are an accepted medical standard. We don't (and shouldn't) get to substitute other words just because it makes us "feel better" about what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

 

This is what I try to do. It is confusing sometimes because if you only ever hear a group of people refer to themselves one way, it is surprising to be told by someone else that the term you used is offensive to them. I don't discount their feelings, but I think a little grace can go both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

:iagree:

My oldest ds is visually impaired. Not blind--but he does have severe impaired vision. He does have to field a lot of questions when he uses his cane out in public-since people can tell that he does have vision--they just do not understand that he does not have enough vision to be without his cane nor does he have enough vision to pass a drivers test. So when the questions come-he does inform them that he does have a visual impairment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had a missed abortion. It bothers me not in the least that it is written in my medical records as such. IRL, I refer to it as a miscarriage. When I say miscarriage colloquially, my friends understand what I mean. When my doctor writes "missed abortion - 14-16 weeks" other doctors know exactly what he means, too.

 

The medical establishment has quite rightly decided upon a standard terminology. It's extremely important that they use the SAME terms everywhere in order to avoid (possibly disastrous) misunderstandings.

 

I don't think we should take it so personally. It isn't personal. It's a medical factual statement. It has nothing to do with our personal feelings about the event. The words used are an accepted medical standard. We don't (and shouldn't) get to substitute other words just because it makes us "feel better" about what happened.

 

Audrey, I most certainly agree with you that it is not personal. It still gives me a little ache in my heart to see it in my records, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

I also hate that terminology. I had a miscarriage at 7 1/2 weeks with life-threatening hemorrhage. I was employed by the Federal government at the time and my insurance initially denied me coverage because abortion is was not covered under my health plan. I flipped out when I received that notice.

 

I understand the suspicion with a D&C at 7 weeks, but I had spent 4 days in the hospital and needed 2 transfusions after my first miscarriage--once I started bleeding heavily with my second miscarriage, I needed surgery. After two letters from my doctor and a threat to take my appeal to court, they finally paid the hospital. It was a total mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:iagree: This is very much where I am coming from, as well. There is no love or kindness in insisting that people are "too sensitive" when someone uses a hurtful term to describe a condition that they themselves do not have. Yes, political correctness is tiresome, but kindness is always relevant and timeless.

 

 

 

This is true, but it's also unkind to assume the worst about someone who may use a term you (in general) find offensive that they don't. Love is kind, and it also doesn't take into account a wrong suffered, and believes and hopes in the best. I think less negative energy is used if one would take the position that the offending person didn't mean offense, instead of knee-jerking to the conclusion that they're clods of some sort and then getting all riled up in offense. Seriously, is it really worth that? Granted, if you're speaking with someone and they use an offensive term in a hurtful context or with the intention of pushing your buttons, then it's safe to conclude they're just being cruel. But even then, you (again, general) are responsible for your own feelings.

 

The older I get, I see more and more self-created victims (again, speaking generally here--this is not aimed at you). People choose to wallow in hurtful pasts, to the degree that they expect everyone around them to know and keep at the forefront of their minds exactly what it is they find so offensive and if they happen to, in a moment of insanity, say or refer to anything the wallower finds hurtful, watch out. The p*ssy fit begins. It's ridiculous, it's a waste of energy, it's self-centered, and it's juvenile. And frankly, when I see grown adults live like this, I find it scary.

 

Wouldn't it just be easier to assume the best in people until you have evidence that they really do mean you harm? And, if they do mean you harm, walk away. There's a ton more power in not letting them hurt you than there is in screaming and crying about how hurt you are. When you do that, they've won, and you are still stuck in the Rut of Wallowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it just be easier to assume the best in people until you have evidence that they really do mean you harm? And, if they do mean you harm, walk away. There's a ton more power in not letting them hurt you than there is in screaming and crying about how hurt you are. When you do that, they've won, and you are still stuck in the Rut of Wallowing.

 

 

Very, very well said.

 

Lisa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The older I get, I see more and more self-created victims (again, speaking generally here--this is not aimed at you). People choose to wallow in hurtful pasts, to the degree that they expect everyone around them to know and keep at the forefront of their minds exactly what it is they find so offensive and if they happen to, in a moment of insanity, say or refer to anything the wallower finds hurtful, watch out. The p*ssy fit begins. It's ridiculous, it's a waste of energy, it's self-centered, and it's juvenile. And frankly, when I see grown adults live like this, I find it scary.

 

Wouldn't it just be easier to assume the best in people until you have evidence that they really do mean you harm? And, if they do mean you harm, walk away. There's a ton more power in not letting them hurt you than there is in screaming and crying about how hurt you are. When you do that, they've won, and you are still stuck in the Rut of Wallowing.

 

 

:iagree:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also hate that terminology. I had a miscarriage at 7 1/2 weeks with life-threatening hemorrhage. I was employed by the Federal government at the time and my insurance initially denied me coverage because abortion is was not covered under my health plan. I flipped out when I received that notice.

 

I understand the suspicion with a D&C at 7 weeks, but I had spent 4 days in the hospital and needed 2 transfusions after my first miscarriage--once I started bleeding heavily with my second miscarriage, I needed surgery. After two letters from my doctor and a threat to take my appeal to court, they finally paid the hospital. It was a total mess.

 

Oh my gosh, what a nightmare. Stupid bureaucrat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true, but it's also unkind to assume the worst about someone who may use a term you (in general) find offensive that they don't. Love is kind, and it also doesn't take into account a wrong suffered, and believes and hopes in the best. I think less negative energy is used if one would take the position that the offending person didn't mean offense, instead of knee-jerking to the conclusion that they're clods of some sort and then getting all riled up in offense. Seriously, is it really worth that? Granted, if you're speaking with someone and they use an offensive term in a hurtful context or with the intention of pushing your buttons, then it's safe to conclude they're just being cruel. But even then, you (again, general) are responsible for your own feelings.

 

The older I get, I see more and more self-created victims (again, speaking generally here--this is not aimed at you). People choose to wallow in hurtful pasts, to the degree that they expect everyone around them to know and keep at the forefront of their minds exactly what it is they find so offensive and if they happen to, in a moment of insanity, say or refer to anything the wallower finds hurtful, watch out. The p*ssy fit begins. It's ridiculous, it's a waste of energy, it's self-centered, and it's juvenile. And frankly, when I see grown adults live like this, I find it scary.

 

Wouldn't it just be easier to assume the best in people until you have evidence that they really do mean you harm? And, if they do mean you harm, walk away. There's a ton more power in not letting them hurt you than there is in screaming and crying about how hurt you are. When you do that, they've won, and you are still stuck in the Rut of Wallowing.

 

I addressed this in post #58 of this thread.

 

I'm not certain how you reached this conclusion based on what I wrote. I was really speaking in defense of others' feelings, not my own. I don't spend a lot of time being offended by people who don't intend harm. I'm very able (generally speaking) to determind the difference between those who intend harm and those who do not. I cannot actually think of a time when someone used a term which I found offensive and I felt that the person meant harm. My post was not written from my own personal experience. I am sorry that you took it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I addressed this in post #58 of this thread.

 

I'm not certain how you reached this conclusion based on what I wrote. I was really speaking in defense of others' feelings, not my own. I don't spend a lot of time being offended by people who don't intend harm. I'm very able (generally speaking) to determind the difference between those who intend harm and those who do not. I cannot actually think of a time when someone used a term which I found offensive and I felt that the person meant harm. My post was not written from my own personal experience. I am sorry that you took it that way.

 

Again, I was speaking generally and my post wasn't aimed at you personally. I guess that was unclear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

:iagree:

 

My first pregnancy ended in miscarriage at 16 weeks. When I went to a new doctor about 7 months later, with my second pregnancy, he looked at my chart, saw the term "spontaneous abortion" and said, "Oh, I see you miscarried your first baby." He knew by the term in my chart that it was just my body getting rid of a pregnancy that was not viable. My feelings were not hurt, nor did I feel the need to explain that I did not have a voluntary abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been on the receiving end of 'correction' when using different terminology.

 

Not pleasant.

 

My SIL screamed at me for using the term 'Native Indian'. I've used 'First Nations' ever since, and even talked to others about it, not b/c I'm wonderful, or have any stake in the matter, but b/c I didn't want another person to have the kind of dressing down I received. Wolf is Metis, which is in itself often in need of clarification, b/c not a lot of ppl who don't share his heritage know what that means. He's been assumed to be Arabic, Portuguese, Mexican...the list goes on. After a while of 'guess what heritage he is', Wolf has been known to simply say, "Canadian" and walk away.

 

Fwiw, here the term, "Indian" is used as an insult towards another person of First Nations heritage.

 

My first pregnancy with Wolf was ectopic. I lost it on a nurse when I was in the hospital w/early labour w/Princess and she told me I had an abortion. Even as a health care worker, knowing the 'technical' meaning, I lost it. Scared, hormonal, pregnant...don't you tell me I had an abortion...poor woman!

 

I've also gotten in crud for referring to a friend as 'Deaf' by my mother. Sorry, but according to my friend, its a culture, with its own language, etc, and therefore is capitalized. She was aghast that I'd see it as so important that I'd capitalize it. :001_huh:

 

There's just no winning sometimes. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I was speaking generally and my post wasn't aimed at you personally. I guess that was unclear?

 

Thank you for the clarification. Because you quoted me, I wondered if you had perhaps misunderstood my meaning.

 

I agree with your point that no one is served by fit throwing. Kindness towards all is a good principle to follow so we are in agreement there.:001_smile:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My son was diagnosed mentally retarded 6 months ago, so I am not sure how it has been out of use for years and years. The DSM-IV and the Social Security Administration still use the term as well.

 

Honestly, I don't care what they call him! It doesn't mean anything other than his measured IQ falls below a certain level. I don't care is you say he *is* that or he *has* that. I'd rather spend the time helping him than worrying about what he is called.

 

Same for my daughter, 5 months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Thank you. I was going to clarify this, but you saved me the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the clarification. Because you quoted me, I wondered if you had perhaps misunderstood my meaning.

 

I agree with your point that no one is served by fit throwing. Kindness towards all is a good principle to follow so we are in agreement there.:001_smile:

 

I was spring-boarding from you. :) We need a "spring-board" smilie. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

: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

 

Great post!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

: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?

 

Personally, I think one of the unintended consequences is creating a generation that will be so emotionally fragile over every wrong word that they'll be unable to cope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, this issue was brought up in another context on Language Log, a linguistics blog I like to read. This is one of the comments:

While I agree that using the phrase "practically autistic" was, at best, in poor taste - please, as an autistic individual, I'm asking you not to go around telling people to use person-first language.

Person-first language is unnatural. It calls unnecessary attention to differences, and is stigmatizing, in a way that speaking normally isn't. Being smart isn't "normal", but nobody refers to Stephen Hawking as "a person with genius". Being gay isn't "normal" (that's not a value statement!), but I'm certain that going around referring to others as "people with homosexuality" would get you very few friends. I'm a left-handed atheist, but nobody would call me "a person with left-handed tendencies who also has atheism". Because we only use person-first language for things we consider bad it creates the impression that whatever-it-is is bad, damaging, sick, or wrong.

Person-first language is also insulting in its very premise (if you don't speak correctly, you'll forget I'm a person?) and also in its reasoning (autism isn't a tiny part of who I am, it's how my brain works. You can't take that away and still have *me*.)

You are free to speak however you like, and so long as you're speaking respectfully it really doesn't matter how you say it, but I, frankly, am tired of hearing people chastised for "not speaking correctly" when they've done nothing wrong. Person-first language isn't even widely preferred among adult autistics. (Nor among the Deaf, as I understand it, where Deaf refers to being a part of Deaf culture, but that's not a group I'm a part of.)

 

And someone else responded thus:
My son, who is autistic, wrote recently on his blog that autism is about who-you-are, your identity, and not merely something-about-you. He said, "Because of this, I prefer 'autistic' to 'person with autism'. This is not some separate thing that we should disregard when talking about the 'real' me. Trying to get past the autism to see the 'real' me is like trying to get past all the layers of the onion to the 'real' onion." I need a walker to get around, and I just say "disabled" unless there's some conversational reason why I need to explain in what way. The walker is just part of me (now), and I am irritated by scolds who presume to tell me how I should describe myself.

 

I think that this is a perspective which we ought to consider too. I have no horse in this race, as these particular issues don't relate to me personally. However, I can easily see how they might be extrapolated to do so. Anyway, I thought the quotes were an interesting, possibly enlightening, perspective. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Caitlin - absolutely. (There is no way to quote it!)

 

:iagree: Life is too short to take offense over someone else's use of a word. I refuse to give people that kind of power over me.

 

I've always liked Crocker's Rules:

 

Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being nice to you. Crocker's Rules means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind - if you're offended, it's your fault. Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor. (Which, in point of fact, they would be. One of the big problems with this culture is that everyone's afraid to tell you you're wrong, or they think they have to dance around it.) Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting. Obviously, don't declare yourself to be operating by Crocker's Rules unless you have that kind of mental discipline.

 

Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean you can insult people; it means that other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you. Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it? Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor.

 

"Crocker's Rules" are named after Lee Daniel Crocker.

 

Sometimes people don't quite understand what is being said there. This guy has a good clarification:

 

Crocker's Rules didn't give you the right to say anything offensive, but other people could say potentially offensive things to you, and it was your responsibility not to be offended. This was surprisingly hard to explain to people; many people would read the careful explanation and hear, "Crocker's Rules mean you can say offensive things to other people."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to read through the whole thread, but am familiar with the arguments that generally emerge in a discussion like this.

 

For those who argue that it is all about political correctness, I disagree. It isn't just about being PC, and it isn't just about semantics. Words have power.

 

I am perfectly comfortable acknowledging that my son has mental retardation (actually we are currently waiting to hear back from the psych., so I can't say for certain that he does--I know several people with Down syndrome who are *not* mentally retarded). But the way the word "retarded" and "retard" is thrown around the playground (and water cooler) is something I will never accept or be comfortable with or tell an adult self-advocate with Down syndrome to just get over it and that they are offended too easily.

 

Compassionate adults should be perfectly capable of coming up with other language, and if not, then get a thesaurus. The words you use and model around your kids have the potential to hurt both my child with mental retardation and his siblings...deeply. Do you seriously think your right to use that word weighs more heavily than a child's legitimate pain?

 

My son has Down syndrome. He is not defined by that extra 21st chromosome. He is not a Downs kid, and under no circumstances a "Downs". (A term that was actually used by the public school ESE pre-k teacher--which confirmed my decision that he would not set foot in the PS in this district ever). I don't expect the general population to be familiar with people-first language, but professionals? Yes, absolutely. And if someone takes the time to try to share how to speak respectfully about kids (or adults) like my son, then for goodness sake have a teachable spirit.

 

Re: people-first language and autism--what is so difficult about calling people what they want to be called? Once we have been told what an individual or group prefers to be called, what is so difficult about doing it? So I will say autistic person and I will also say person with Down syndrome. It.really.isn't.hard.

 

I honestly understand when people are not familiar with the issues surrounding language and disabilities/differing abilities/differences...I am not easily offended. (And people above a certain age obviously deserve more leeway). I try to look to the spirit of what someone is trying to say rather than focus on the words. But willfully using language that is known to hurt is cruel. And lazy.

 

My feelings have admittedly evolved on the "r"-word. I went from seeing it as akin to the "n"-word when my son was an infant. Now I believe there may actually be an appropriate way and time to use "retarded". I also think there is a significant difference between calling an action retarded and calling a person a "retard". BUT--my feelings aren't the most important here. I have met and talked to enough adults with mental retardation, I have heard them personally relate the pain they experienced when a medical term that they are diagnosed with is used as the lowest of insults. So I do not use the word and I let friends and family know why.

 

 

Also--for the record...people are Asian, objects are Oriental.

Edited by deacongirl
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

This is beautifully said. Thank you! (I am working on the correcting with gentleness and understanding).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

This bugs me when I see/hear it. Often times here I'll see a parent write that their child is Failure to Thrive. It makes me :001_huh::glare:. And it isn't limited to F2T. I've seen it with other diagnosis. I don't think a disease, condition or disability should define a person in such a way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Caitlin - absolutely. (There is no way to quote it!)

 

 

 

I've always liked Crocker's Rules:

 

Declaring yourself to be operating by "Crocker's Rules" means that other people are allowed to optimize their messages for information, not for being nice to you. Crocker's Rules means that you have accepted full responsibility for the operation of your own mind - if you're offended, it's your fault. Anyone is allowed to call you a moron and claim to be doing you a favor. (Which, in point of fact, they would be. One of the big problems with this culture is that everyone's afraid to tell you you're wrong, or they think they have to dance around it.) Two people using Crocker's Rules should be able to communicate all relevant information in the minimum amount of time, without paraphrasing or social formatting. Obviously, don't declare yourself to be operating by Crocker's Rules unless you have that kind of mental discipline.

 

Note that Crocker's Rules does not mean you can insult people; it means that other people don't have to worry about whether they are insulting you. Crocker's Rules are a discipline, not a privilege. Furthermore, taking advantage of Crocker's Rules does not imply reciprocity. How could it? Crocker's Rules are something you do for yourself, to maximize information received - not something you grit your teeth over and do as a favor.

 

"Crocker's Rules" are named after Lee Daniel Crocker.

 

Sometimes people don't quite understand what is being said there. This guy has a good clarification:

 

I have never heard of this before, I like it. This is how I communicate with my family, though. We are honest with each other, but we don't insult each other. And if in the course of being honest someone's feelings are hurt, we say it, apologize and move on.

 

It really takes a lot to offend me, I think that I am not the norm.:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crocker's Rules didn't give you the right to say anything offensive, but other people could say potentially offensive things to you, and it was your responsibility not to be offended. This was surprisingly hard to explain to people; many people would read the careful explanation and hear, "Crocker's Rules mean you can say offensive things to other people."
This sounds just like what my Bible study teaches. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...