Redefining How We Think & Write About Disability
We are taught to think of deafness, blindness, paralysis, Autism, etc. as inherently disabling to people who have them, but they are not actually disabling unless occurring in a society that won’t include them. For example, if our built spaces had no stairs, narrow passageways, or steep slopes, and all meetings occurred sitting down, and all doors were automatic, and other such changes, then using a wheelchair would not actually prevent anyone from fully participating in society and would not be a disability. Or, to give a real-life example, there used to be such a large population of deaf people on the island of Martha’s Vineyard that all hearing people learned sign language. Deafness was not a disability when it did not hamper people from functioning in daily life. A wide range of difference in ability is natural to humanity and is not inherently disabling if society does not make it so.
It is important not to write about people as being deserving of pity because of their differences in ability, but instead to write about them as being deserving of compassion because of how our society excludes them, judges them as inadequate, infantilizes them, and does not give them full access throughout life.
Public health experts have learned to stop writing about being Black as a risk factor for certain health issues, but to write instead about being a target of anti-Black racism as a risk factor for those issues. When will the same be done for people disabled by our society’s refusal to support people with the full, wide range of differences that naturally occur in our species? At least we can begin this change in the ways we think and write about people with disabilities.
Inclusive Gender Language – What Still Needs Fixing
US culture today is finally shifting away from language that assumes maleness as the norm, but in some places it isn’t shifting enough, and in some places I believe it is shifting in ways that continues to denigrate both the feminine and non-human animals.
Where It Isn’t Shifting Enough
A common convention outside progressive circles is to write “he or she” or “his/hers” when talking about a single person of any gender. This doesn’t go far enough because it still puts the male first, and it does not acknowledge non-binary people. This male primacy has been so ingrained that when I worked as a textbook editor over a decade ago, the companies whose job it was simply to reprint pages with my edits incorporated actually disobeyed my instructions and consistently printed “he or she” when I wrote “she or he.” I couldn’t make even that small change from inside the system – let alone add nonbinary people – even when technically I should have had the power to do so.
An Argument in Favor of They
When I was younger, my first reaction to they as a singular was that it was too grammatically awkward, since it goes with plural verbs, and I wished that ze or something like it had become popular instead. I was converted when I found out the history, however. Originally, they was either singular or plural, like you, which also uses plural verbs even when singular. They was historically used for a single person of indeterminate gender until the 1950s, when grammar rules were changed to speak of any indeterminate individual as male. By using they now when talking about a person of indeterminate or unknown gender, we are just going back to its historical use, and it makes sense from there to also use it for a person who does not identify as either a woman or a man… and when writing both, as I just did, I believe it is best to rebalance the scales by putting the feminine first.
An Argument Against It
A convention I passionately dislike is using it to describe non-human animals whose sex is unknown… or even whose sex is known. Even if we do not know an animal’s sex, we know for sure that the animal is a living being, not an object. Calling animals it supports the objectification and abuse of nature, whereas speaking of them as living beings like ourselves helps shift culture toward also treating them that way. If you don’t know an animal’s sex, I would encourage you to call the animal they – or she. I believe after such a long time of assuming maleness and all the damage it has done, assuming femaleness can be both refreshing and healing to individuals and to our culture. It helps rebalance the scales. And it is far better to mistake the sex of another animal than to treat her like an object.
Let’s Not Throw Away the Feminine Again
I am all in favor of trans inclusivity … I am concerned when it is done in a way that throws out the feminine. For example, I have seen people working with incarcerated pregnant women and mothers and not wanting to use feminine words, even though the actual individuals in question all identified as women and felt that the carceral system was taking away their womanhood and motherhood, which they valued. Yes, it is always possible that some do not fully identify as women and do not feel safe saying so in jail, but that does not mean we should throw away feminine words. If we jump right from treating the masculine as superior to throwing away all gendered language, we are throwing away the feminine for two different reasons. For many people femininity is positive, and for many it is negative only because their definition of it stems from patriarchy’s warped, denigrated versions of the feminine and masculine. I believe our language needs to honor the full spectrum, especially what has been denigrated – both the feminine and trans or nonbinary. An example is to describe a population as “trans and cisgender women and nonbinary people.” For inclusivity that honors all, we must continue to include both feminine and trans/nonbinary language, and I believe this is far more important than avoiding the grammatical awkwardness of lengthy terms.
Wait – Isn’t This Politically Correct? … Actually, No.
We all want to use language that values all people and doesn’t offend anyone, but it can get difficult to navigate what is offensive and what is not. For instance, it is better to talk about a “person who has been incarcerated” or “people who use illicit drugs” than an “inmate,” a “convict,” or “addicts.” These last three terms dehumanize people, reducing their entire identities to experiences that others judge them for, while the first two terms emphasize their humanity and imply that being incarcerated or using illicit drugs are some experiences they have had, among many others, and do not define who or what they are.
So the same holds true for anything, right? It is always best to say “a person who…”? Actually, no.
Autistic people, for instance, are often offended when called “people with Autism.” So what’s the difference? When is person-first language the way to go, and when is identity-first language best?
The difference is whether the identifier in question is inseparable from the person’s identity. Autistic people, for example, cannot be separated from their Autism. Is an all-pervasive aspect of who they are. Calling them “people with Autism” implies that they are separate from their Autism, that their value as people exists outside of it, and even that the Autism itself is a negative with which they must cope, which reduces their value as a person – hence the need to add “with.” Calling them “Autistic people” asserts their value as Autistics, without implying a false separation from their Autism or anything negative about it.
People who have been incarcerated should be seen as human beings apart from their incarceration, neither their identities nor their value defined by it. Try doing this with elements obviously integral to someone’s identity, and it becomes clear how silly it would be to use terms like “people with Black ethnicity” instead of “Black people” or “people with Hindu beliefs” instead of “Hindus” or “Hindu people.”
Here are a few more examples of when to use person-first and when to use identity-first language:
Person-First | Identity First |
People living with HIV/AIDS | Deaf people |
People in conflict with the law | Queer people |
People who trade sex | Asian people or Asians |
People who inject drugs | Muslims or Muslim people |
*This post is based on “Identity-First Language” by Lydia Brown. Read her full, excellent article here: