[Blindtlk] Use of the Term Visually Impaired

[Desiree Oudinot]

Person first language has always seemed a bit nitpicky to me. Either
way, the term is the same. Adjusting the order of words does not
change the tone in which it's said, for example. If someone is
stuttering and fumbling in desperation, trying to appear politically
correct, I really don't care what term they use, or what order they
say it in, as long as they can find some semblance of comfort so they
can move past that and get to know me as a person. by the same token,
anyone with enough spite or hatred in their heart can make any number
of phrases or statements sound like a curse.
In other words, far too much emphasis is placed on the ways in which
words or terms are used. If we would all relax about it, and allow
people to say what they're comfortable with, rather than trying to
shove a certain ideal down their throats that blind, or visually
impaired, or what have you, is the *only* acceptable, politically
correct thing to say, a lot of awkwardness would be avoided, leading
to more easily flowing conversations, educational experiences, and so
on.

On 6/21/13, Christine Szostak <szostak.1 at buckeyemail.osu.edu> wrote:
> Hi,
>   I suspect that actually the issue was not really with the term visually
> impaired, but rather with the order. When you say a "visually impaired
> person" the disability comes first as  opposed to saying a "person with a
> visual impairment". Thus, having the disability first is objected to, at
> least this is what I am assuming the blogger was getting at.
> Happy Friday!
> Chris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kelby Carlson" <kelbycarlson at gmail.com>
> To: <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 4:24 PM
> Subject: [Blindtlk] Use of the Term Visually Impaired
>
>
>> Hi everybody!
>>
>> So, since I'm not aware of any incendiary debates flaring up around here
>> recently, I thought I'd bring up something I read recently that I found
>> utterly baffling.  This was on a blog thread about proper etiquette around
>>
>> people with disabilities.  Towards the end, a discussion of language
>> appropriateness came up, and someone said that "visually impaired" was an
>>
>> unacceptable term that should not be used.  Instead, one should say "with
>>
>> a visual impairment." I have heard similar things regaring the phrasing of
>>
>> a "blind person" versus "a person with blindness", but this was especially
>>
>> perplexing because I can't recall ever meeting someone in my entire life
>> who was opposed to the term "visually impaired", at least when it was used
>>
>> to describe someone who had some functional vision.  I don't have strong
>> feelings either way, but I would actually lean more to towards preferring
>>
>> visually impaired than "partially sighted", though I think neither one is
>>
>> more linguistically accurate than the other.
>>
>> I have encountered the issue of language surrounding disability many
>> times, and it's always been a bit strange-don't we, as blind people (among
>>
>> other people with various kinds of disabilities) have higher priorities on
>>
>> our lists of "things to fix in the world"? These are just my thoughts on
>> the matter.
>>
>> Kelby S.  Carlson
>>
>> Vanderbilt University
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> blindtlk mailing list
>> blindtlk at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> blindtlk:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/szostak.1%40buckeyemail.osu.edu
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindtlk mailing list
> blindtlk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindtlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> blindtlk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindtlk_nfbnet.org/turtlepower17%40gmail.com
>