[Blindtlk] Use of the Term Visually Impaired

[Christine Szostak]

Just a note of interest, do you realize that the way you said this, the 
statement you would be making, if you wanted to incorporate blindness into 
your framework, you would say I am blind, still placing yourself first 
(e.g., you suggested as an example I  am tall... which suggests these are 
all subparts of the overall you, which is the most important part of you). 
Blindness, at least to me, is just one more characteristic of who I am. It 
is not all of me just like my being female is only a part of who I am, I do 
not think, the female Chris, I think of Chris the female.
Happy Friday all, excellent topic, and lots of fun!
Chris


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kelby carlson" <kelbycarlson at gmail.com>
To: "Blind Talk Mailing List" <blindtlk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Blindtlk] Use of the Term Visually Impaired


>I actually want to push back against the idea of "person-first"
> language. Two reasons come immediately to mind: it can often be
> linguistically clunky, particularly if you are simply trying (for
> whatever reason) to insert an adjective into a sentence. "Kelby is
> blind" and "Kelby is a person with blindness" are functionally
> identical statements that communicate the exact same reality. But
> let's assume that language is more political than I think it is. I
> think there's still a problem with "person-first" language, as it
> actually restricts the disabled from incorporating their disability
> into a larger framework of identity. If I were to describe myself as
> "tall", "green-eyed", "talkative", and "bookish", all of these are
> parts or aspects of my identity that carry different degrees of weight
> and importance. Adding "blind" to that list incorporates my disability
> as something that partially shapes and governs my identity, without
> giving it primarily place. By contrast, "person with blindness"
> implies that "blindness" as an abstract quality can be detached from
> the person to whom it is being ascribed; moreso, it implies that such
> a depersonalization is actually a moral necessity. It seems to me that
> to separate a person from their disability in this way is the
> philosophical equivalent of partial dehumanization, because it denies
> the possibility and benefit of incorporation of disability into one's
> human identity.
>
> Now I don't think this is an ironclad case, but it does suggest that
> the self-evident morality of "person-first" language is actually
> nothing of the kind when it is investigated.
>
>
>
> On 6/21/13, Michael Capelle <michael.capelle at charter.net> wrote:
>> Definitely, I have always agreed with the statement, "people first."
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/kelbycarlson%40gmail.com
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>