#disability language

I have had to fight so much. Against myself, against my body, against society, against family, against friends, against doctors.

Let me tell you, something as pervasive as a disability changes you, in lots of ways. I am a completely different person to who I was three years ago.

The way I see it people are the sums of their experiences. Everything we do and everything that happens to us contributes in some way to who we are. A disability is no different.

Which is why I get so upset when I see "person with a disability"

Because that separates me from a major part of my identity. In saying "person with" you separate me from myself and you ignore my struggle.

I am a woman. Not a "person with femaleness"

I am a lesbian. Not a "person with lesbianism"

I am disabled.

I am disabled.

Just fucking say it.

Language like "person with a disability" and things like "handicapable" and "differently abled" are all attempts at 'speaking around' disability.

I think abled people do this because they are uncomfortable with disabled people and our bodies.

They are uncomfortable with us because we are reminders that even if you do everything right and you eat kale and do yoga and don't drink and don't smoke, you can still become severely ill, you can still become limited in someway.

I will not break down when you call me disabled, I have accepted it and I am proud to be who I am.

"Person with a disability" doesn't achieve your abled idea of 'reminding people that they are people not their illnesses/impairments'

When I say I'm a lesbian that doesn't imply that I am not a person, and neither does the word disabled.

When the choice is available, the way someone’s condition is referred to can make a difference. I thought my response to the person first vs identity first language post made that clear.

If a disability community prefers identity first and non-disabled people consistently use person-first, it’s pretty clear the people pushing person-first don’t respect disabled people enough to address them the way they want to be addressed. It smacks of “I know better than you” superiority.

I am are two of the most powerful words we have because what comes after tells the world who we are. Those words are the core of every person. If it’s God, I AM is a complete sentence!

So what does that say about people? What comes after “I am” in reference to yourself?

I AM...

alive.

a woman.

a brunette.

petite.

skinny.

white.

Catholic.

asexual.

autistic.

a bullying survivor.

Groot.

I only chose one of those, one is a silly joke-- the rest were already there when my genes built me into me or they were something that happened to me and changed me irreversibly.

So anyone who tells me those parts of my identity don’t matter by ignoring how I refer to myself is telling me that I don’t matter.

And that’s bullshit, because I matter and so does everyone else.

"Is it that you can't or that you won't?" is usually a phrase used to judge someone for being 'lazy', 'uncooperative', or 'defiant' but I actually think it's a really useful phrase for acceptance and accommodation.

(may not be applicable to all people or all situations -- I know many crips find saying "can't" is actually a really important distinction and this is not meant to contradict that)

A common narrative around accommodations can be summed up by the phrase, "but do you actually need that?" setting up this dichotomy of:

If you absolutely cannot do something, then (and only then!) should you have an accommodation or support (but really maybe you should just try harder?)

If you can do something then you should just do it and stop being lazy

They're really both just denying the difficulties we face in doing whatever task or action we're talking about.

I think turning the narrative around can actually help us bypass this (particular) issue entirely.

It doesn't really matter if I technically can or can't do [insert task here], because the fact of the matter is that I simply won't do it. It won't happen. It won't get done. And when it doesn't get done there are consequences that make everything else in my life worse. Accommodating myself allows me to [maintain a good quality of life, conserve energy for more important things, etc.].

There are times when we want to maintain open the possibility of a "can". When limitations are largely circumstantial or environmental (ie. social model of disability -- the way the world is structured by our society makes it so that I can't do this) it may be important to maintain the right to "can" but only in the right conditions. It may be important for self-esteem and confidence to avoid saying "I can't" just so people will give you supports.

If Speech is Dangerous, Not Speaking Is Too

This post is mainly inspired by Mel from “Cussin’ and Discussing”, who is one of my favourite bloggers. Their well-written piece about the pain of emergency speech when your body isn’t built for it is incredible.

I can’t claim to feel the exact same way about talking as Mel does, but their words are excellent in a topic I don’t think is “talked” about enough.

So here’s my big idea:

“Verbal”…