Is the word "handicapped" offensive?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

Now, as a special education teacher. Terminology has changed to become more "person centered". To call someone handicapped, disabled, or special is not something that is smiled upon in the SPED profession. An example of this is: Instead of saying, "Johnny is autistic" you would say "Johnny has autism". As it was stated in the excerpt--a person is not defined by their exceptionality. Their exceptionality is just another trait they have. And, if you noticed--I don't use the word "disability", instead "exceptionality". The word disability implies that there is something someone can't do. Most times, it's not that these people CAN'T do it. They just do it a different way than most of the people around them would.

The "person-centric" change is a good one, and one that is simple and easy to implement - in language studies, it's much more effective language too, for what you're trying to accomplish with the descriptor. It's win/win.

However, use of terms like "exceptionality" is the opposite, in my mind - it's shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic in its truest form. There is nothing innate about the word "disability" or "handicap" or whatever that gives them connotation beyond their denotation - it's not an etymological property. It's a property of the way society at large views people who have a [exceptionality/disability/problem/challenge/whatever]. By changing the word, you're simply putting that word to the test next, once it becomes in heavy use - think "retarded" going to "mentally handicapped" going to "challenged" going to "special" and how each still carries stigma with it.

Is it really an improvement on the whole, or a temporary fix until language catches up? It seems much more the latter, and that's (not coincidentally) why I don't think "handicapped" should be viewed as offensive. In fact, it could be argued that all of these attempts to create a new, specialized, non-offensive language for various afflictions, maladies, lifestyles and challenges serves only to separate them more from "everybody else."

[srmom]

Is it really an improvement on the whole, or a temporary fix until language catches up? It seems much more the latter, and that's (not coincidentally) why I don't think "handicapped" should be viewed as offensive. In fact, it could be argued that all of these attempts to create a new, specialized, non-offensive language for various afflictions, maladies, lifestyles and challenges serves only to separate them more from "everybody else."

I agree with this. I think your whole post is spot on. It will never end.

[Psi U MC Vito]

A lot of it I think also has to do with the intent people have when using these terms as well. There are other words to describe various type of people that can be used either way.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The "person-centric" change is a good one, and one that is simple and easy to implement - in language studies, it's much more effective language too, for what you're trying to accomplish with the descriptor. It's win/win.

This.

My grad program deals with disabilities and mental health conditions on some level, and this is the type pf language that we are expected to use (both in discussion and in written communications).

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

A lot of it I think also has to do with the intent people have when using these terms as well.

This.

I wouldn't take offense to something being said when the person expressing themselves had no ill intentions when using such words.

I have an uncle who is mentally handicapped. And yes, that's what I say. Without going into the entire story and possibility of causes, around thirteen years old, he started having epileptic seizures. Eventually, he was having them so frequently, he had to be put on numerous medications which essentially "handicapped" him, and put him in a wheelchair. Even to call him mentally challenged or disabled seems weird to me. Ironically, as slow, and as barely talkative, and needing as much help as he does in life, he is extremely intelligent. My mom's side of the family has a tradition of playing Trivial Pursuit at Thanksgiving and Christmas. My uncle will be put on a team, and won't say much during the entire game. But when a question pops up that people don't even understand well enough to answer, he'll randomly blurt out the correct answer.

I think there are too many variations of mental and physical illnesses to make such definitions of "handicapped" and "disabled" encompass them all. And whichever word you use, I think it will eventually be looked at in a negative way.

However, I can understand the changing from "He is autistic" to "He has autism." But at the same time, I also wouldn't take offense if someone said the former.

I guess I just don't understand the extreme change from handicapped being ok to use, to it becoming extremely offensive. Even the word "retard" took centuries to be changed from a verb to a noun, and then considered offensive.

And to be completely honest, I am becoming tired of all of this PCness. Especially when people are simply following trends and using words that have been used for years, not knowing that they have apparently taken on a negative connotation.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

A lot of it I think also has to do with the intent people have when using these terms as well. There are other words to describe various type of people that can be used either way.

I agree. And, I see a big difference between the terms "handicapped" and "disabled". To me, a handicap is an obstacle, disabled is unable to function anymore (such as .. no longer able to work, on Social Security Disability because of it).

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

This.

My grad program deals with disabilities and mental health conditions on some level, and this is the type pf language that we are expected to use (both in discussion and in written communications).

We were always encouraged to do this, even when I was in OT school 25 years ago. (OMG! 25 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!) That said, we, as a society, tend to do this with everything. We don't "search Google", we "Google". We aren't "of Italian heritage", we "are Italian".

In some ways, I do understand what they are saying because of my Crohn's Disease. When I was first diagnosed, I felt like the Crohn's defined who I am. I was walking Crohn's Disease. It took a few years to start feeling like I am a person with Crohn's Disease and that it doesn't define me. This was an INTERNAL struggle. After I had surgery and was on maintenance meds, I got SO angry that I still had to go for regular blood work and get B12 supplements for the rest of my life because it added to feeling like the disease defined me. I imagine that everybody with a handicap, challenge, disability or serious illness feels that way at some point and the terminology would grate on you when you're in that place.

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by AGDee

This was an INTERNAL struggle. After I had surgery and was on maintenance meds, I got SO angry that I still had to go for regular blood work and get B12 supplements for the rest of my life because it added to feeling like the disease defined me. I imagine that everybody with a handicap, challenge, disability or serious illness feels that way at some point and the terminology would grate on you when you're in that place.

You just described how I feel every time I walk onto UNC campus for an appt with the neurologist, physiatrist, and/or orthopedic surgeon.

(speaking of, I'm due for an appt soon.....ugh)

[honeychile]

Interesting discussion. So... what should be done about golfers?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Interesting discussion. So... what should be done about golfers?

I almost brought up golfers! Don't bowlers get a handicap too?

[xomanadaxo]

^^Lol

Am I the only one who disagrees with the statement made in the article that said:

"Dictionary.com defines "handicap" as "any disadvantage that makes success more difficult." Obviously, this definition has many negative connotations. By using the word "handicapped" to describe people with a disability, we imply that they have something wrong with them"

I disagree that the definition itself has negative connotations. Personally, I think if the term "handicapped" is used only in the context of this definition, it is much less offensive than many other terms used in the past.

While the terms "handicapped" or "disabled" are by no means perfect terms, they are much better than some of the words used to describe individuals in the past. I think we are getting closer to finding more sensitive terms for these types of things, as shown by AlwaysSAI's point about saying "Johnny has autism" rather than "Johnny is autistic." Some people are okay with being defined by their disability, some want to be seen as more than it. (I use the term "disability," even though I dislike it, because that is what I have been taught is the correct term).

Honestly, I don't think the quest for PC-ness (made up word? Sorry!) will ever end. Somebody, somewhere will always be offended by pretty much everything. I think in cases like this, it's important to treat everyone, regardless of whether they are "handicapped" or not, with the same compassion and sensitivity they deserve. I agree with what many of you have already said: it's not always the word that is the problem, it's the way that word is used. In general, I feel like saying "handicapped entrance" is really not much different than saying "entrance for people with disabilities." However, I would be interested in hearing how others feel about this. If these words (or any words like them) make people feel marginalized or "put down," then it is probably time to reassess the kind of terms we are using.

So now I'm curious. Maybe some of the other GC-ers could help out: If society considers you "handicapped," is that how you see yourself? How do words like "handicapped" make you feel?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

The "person-centric" change is a good one, and one that is simple and easy to implement - in language studies, it's much more effective language too, for what you're trying to accomplish with the descriptor. It's win/win.

However, use of terms like "exceptionality" is the opposite, in my mind - it's shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic in its truest form. . . .

Co-sign on everything you said.

[33girl]

Honestly, just in a pure word dissection sense, I personally think disabled is more offensive than handicapped. "Dis" has negative connotations in any word it's attached to - that's a pretty basic thing that anyone picks up on, and I'm guessing someone just learning English would agree.

Or maybe we should be saying "differently abled" or "handi-capable." Those were around when my mom was still living and if anyone had actually used them on her, she would have probably said (paraphrasing) "I'm not differently abled, you idiot - I'm in a @#$%ing wheelchair."

[xomanadaxo]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Or maybe we should be saying "differently abled" or "handi-capable." Those were around when my mom was still living and if anyone had actually used them on her, she would have probably said (paraphrasing) "I'm not differently abled, you idiot - I'm in a @#$%ing wheelchair."

I'm pretty sure this is my favorite quote for the day. Kudos to your mom, 33girl, sounds like she had a lot of spunk!

[kddani]

Not related to "handicapped" per se, but there is someone seeking to get a law passed to remove "mentally retarded" from the federal lexicon:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/rosas-l...ory?id=9109319

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I thought you had to be smart to go to Johns Hopkins. Seized instead of ceased seriously?

JHU? Same school where students wack criminals with samurai swords?

Well hey...