Anonymous #1 1w

person first language. e.g. “person with autism” instead of “autistic person” or “person who is blind” instead of “blind person” etc. i feel similarly about trying to replace “disabled” w/ “differently abled”

1

Anonymous OP 1w

“differently abled” is like so weird to me because it kinda pushes the idea that disabled people aren’t actually… disabled. which is the point. i CANT do some things. i am unable to do them. w person w autism it just kinda feels like treating autism as an evil thing that you can’t call someone. like i wouldn’t say “a person who’s gay” it’s “a gay person.”

9

Anonymous OP 1w

to me it does feel ableist, either by discrediting disabilities as actually disabling and something people DO struggle to deal with, or by treating it as a dirty word you shouldn’t call someone. disabilities suck and they’re not sunshine and rainbows but they aren’t dirty or something people can’t handle

1

Anonymous #1 1w

exactly, it’s still stigmatizing, just in a different way. they are nothing other than descriptive words unless you ascribe more complex meaning to them. I think one of the only contexts that we don’t have these issues with is in reference to certain vision issues. no one bats an eye if you say “colorblind people” instead of “people with colorblindness” or “nearsighted people” instead of “people with nearsightedness”

5

Anonymous OP 1w

also, hot take but needing glasses should be considered a disability (not for anything to do w/ ADA or checks or anything but just by definition). like… yeah glasses will fix certain vision impairments, but if you literally can’t function adequately in your day-to-day without the use of an aid (like glasses) then I think that should count even if it’s only minor

5

Anonymous OP 1w

no bc i legitimately can only see shapes and colors without my contacts i’m USELESS without them, i’m surprised it’s not honestly

1