[nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?

Carly Mihalakis carlymih at comcast.net
Wed Dec 12 21:07:47 UTC 2012 

Good morning, Jewel,


Here Here!At 11:48 AM 12/12/2012, Jewel wrote:
>I'm a blink and proud of it!
>
>On a more serious note, I tend toward calling myself blind as much as
>I call myself white or Cajun or short or stubborn. I don't want to be
>a person of short stature (ok, I'm not that short, 5'3") or a person
>who is white or a person with stubbornness. It sounds pretty
>ridiculous to me. I think I'm in line with the people who say that
>saying "person who is blind" or "person with autism" is seperating a
>part of the person that can't actually be seperated. Blindness is a
>part of my life as much as any other trait, and it cannot be seperated
>from me. So, call me blind, call me a blind person, but don't call me
>a person with blindness (that sounds sooooo awkward).
>
>My two cents,
>Jewel
>
>On 12/12/12, Jedi Moerke <loneblindjedi at samobile.net> wrote:
> > There was a researcher in the blindness community of The northwest who
> > sought  to answer the same question. He found that blind people usually
> > refer to themselves as blind people or visually impaired people And
> > generally preferred that two person first language. He also found that
> > sighted people, particularly professionals in the disability community, are
> > more likely to use person first language and 
> are more likely to prefer that.
> > So, it would seem that this is a case of the majority telling  the minority
> > what to do in terms of how they should be calling themselves. The idea
> > behind person first language is to draw attention away from a particular
> > characteristic. That suggests that the characteristic is thought to be
> > negative. We do not use similar linguistic 
> structure to describe things that
> > are neutral or positive. For that reason, I 
> go ahead and say blind people. I
> > think using that particular phraseology 
> permits discussion of whether or not
> > blindness   is positive, neutral, or negative. As for me personally, I say
> > that blindness is neutral most of the time 
> and positive most of the time For
> > the same reasons as Arielle.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > Jedi
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Dec 11, 2012, at 9:07 PM, Arielle Silverman <arielle71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >> The question of whether we describe ourselves in terms of blindness or
> >> in terms of other traits we have is an interesting one as well, but I
> >> think that's a different question from what the article I posted is
> >> asking about. The article is asking what we should call ourselves (or
> >> what others should call us) in discussions where blindness is the
> >> focus. Should we refer to ourselves as "people who are blind" or
> >> "people with blindness" or is the term "blind people" more
> >> appropriate?
> >> I find this issue to be personally relevant because I am applying for
> >> a job with a blindness research group, and I noticed that everywhere
> >> in their online materials, publications etc. they refer to their
> >> research participants as "people who are blind", "youth with visual
> >> impairments" etc. I don't think this necessarily reflects on their
> >> philosophy, but is probably just the language that they are accustomed
> >> to using and that is required by journals and other outlets. I also
> >> co-authored a paper a few years ago and one journal to which we sent
> >> the paper insisted that we use the term "people with blindness"
> >> throughout the entire manuscript, which I found extremely cumbersome
> >> and awkward. Anyway, in applying for this job it has been strange for
> >> me to either use the term "people who are blind" or to say "blind
> >> people" and risk causing offense. As a member of the blind community I
> >> feel on some level that everyone in this community are members of an
> >> extended family, and so it's weird to refer to all you guys as "people
> >> who are blind" and distance them from blindness, which I consider a
> >> positive identity that I share with all of you. This is also why I
> >> like to call someone with partial sight "blind" rather than "visually
> >> impaired" because calling them "blind" is welcoming them into my
> >> blindness family and community. Those of you who are NFB members, ACB
> >> members or part of any blindness organization probably understand the
> >> collective pride and joy that can rise up when we are in a convention
> >> assembly and call ourselves "the blind". Looking at it that way, I
> >> feel like it's almost insulting to refer to members of my blindness
> >> family as just "people who are blind" rather than fully including them
> >> with the label "blind people". So I understand what the article is
> >> talking about. At the same time, I wonder if there are folks out there
> >> who truly prefer to be called people who are blind instead, and if
> >> they feel this is putting their humanity before their blindness.
> >> Arielle
> >>
> >> On 12/11/12, Kirt <kirt.crazydude at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Brandon,
> >>> Thank you for writing my email for me. :-)
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 11, 2012, at 5:11 PM, "Brandon Keith Biggs"
> >>> <brandonkeithbiggs at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>> I used to call myself: "A blind actor" but recently I've stopped and
> >>>> what
> >>>> I've noticed is that often times people forget you are blind to some
> >>>> extent when you don't even say you are blind. I was talking to a guy on
> >>>> my
> >>>> dance teem and he said he had no idea I was blind until I was talking to
> >>>> my teacher after a conference and mentioned something about following a
> >>>> leader as a blind person.
> >>>>
> >>>> I personally think it matters in a context. If people are talking about
> >>>> my
> >>>> acting ability, I don't want to be known as a "blind actor" in reference
> >>>> to my acting ability, that would just be negative. There are aspects
> >>>> where
> >>>> saying blind actor or actor who is blind would be appropriate at the end
> >>>> of an article or possibly at the end of a bio, but that is only because
> >>>> people like the challenge of trying to figure out who the blind guy is
> >>>> :).
> >>>> I ask them after a show and they tell me what they saw that tipped them
> >>>> off. This helps me in becoming more natural and makes a little game of
> >>>> something that is of no major import for that point of time, but could
> >>>> mean me getting or losing a job later on.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I was in an article about genetic research, I would like it to be
> >>>> known
> >>>> that I'm blind first, because that is what is being tested for. They
> >>>> don't
> >>>> really care about me as a person, they just want to know I'm blind.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I'm talking to a director or agent about my singing, they don't need
> >>>> to
> >>>> know I'm blind, they want to know my voice type and my best rolls.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm a blind person who happens to be blind and I'm OK with both :). I
> >>>> don't even notice the difference.
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Brandon Keith Biggs
> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Arielle Silverman
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:40 PM
> >>>> To: nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>>> Subject: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
> >>>>
> >>>> I saw the below article on another list and thought it was very
> >>>> interesting. What do you guys think?
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>>> From: LILITH Finkler <lilithfinkler at hotmail.com>
> >>>> Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:41:42 -0300
> >>>> Subject: New Article: "Person-first language: Noble intent but to what
> >>>> effect?"
> >>>> To: DISABILITY-RESEARCH at jiscmail.ac.uk
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear Colleagues. Please see article below from the current issue of
> >>>> the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The journal is publishing a
> >>>> series on "person first language".
> >>>> 
> Lilith===========================================================================================
> >>>> CMAJ December 11, 2012 vol. 184 no. 18 First published November 5,
> >>>> 2012, doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-4319© 2012 Canadian Medical Association or
> >>>> its licensorsAll editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of
> >>>> the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical
> >>>> Association.NewsPerson-first language: Noble intent but to what
> >>>> effect?Roger Collier-Author AffiliationsCMAJKenneth St. Louis grew up
> >>>> with a moderate stutter that he eventually got under control in
> >>>> college. His struggle with stuttering led to an interest in
> >>>> speech-language pathology, which he now teaches at West Virginia
> >>>> University in Morgan-town. St. Louis is an expert in fluency
> >>>> disorders, including cluttering, a condition characterized by rapid
> >>>> speech with an erratic rhythm. Once, after a journal sent him the
> >>>> edited version of a paper he had submitted on cluttering, St. Louis
> >>>> noticed something curious.“They changed ‘clutterer’ to ‘person who
> >>>> clutters’ all the way through,” says St. Louis.The changes to St.
> >>>> Louis’ prose stem from the person-first (or people-first) language
> >>>> movement, which began some 20 years ago to promote the concept that a
> >>>> person shouldn’t be defined by a diagnosis. By literally putting
> >>>> “person” first in language, what was once a label becomes a mere
> >>>> characteristic. No longer are there “disabled people.” Instead, there
> >>>> are “people with disabilities.”
> >>>> No reasonable person would challenge the intent behind person-first
> >>>> language. Who, after all, would prefer to be known as a condition
> >>>> rather than as a person? But is this massive effort to change the
> >>>> language of disability and disease having any effect? Is it actually
> >>>> changing attitudes, reducing stigma or improving lives? Skeptics point
> >>>> to the nonexistent body of evidence. Advocates claim it starts with
> >>>> language and that results will follow.Words are indeed powerful, and
> >>>> they can perpetuate hurtful stereotypes and reinforce negative
> >>>> attitudes, suggests Kathie Snow, a disability rights advocate who runs
> >>>> the “Disability is Natural” website (www.disabilityisnatural.com).
> >>>> “People with developmental disabilities have, throughout history, been
> >>>> marginalized and devalued because of labels,” she says. “Labels have
> >>>> always caused people to be devalued. It has caused people to be put to
> >>>> death, to be sterilized against their will.”If a person-first language
> >>>> advocate had commissioned this sign, it would read: “CHILD WITH AUTISM
> >>>> AREA.”Image courtesy of © 2012 ThinkstockSuggesting that a diagnosis
> >>>> is a person’s most important characteristic reinforces the
> >>>> all-too-common opinion that people with disabilities have limited
> >>>> potential and society should expect little from them, Snow has written
> >>>> (www.disabilityisnatural.com/images/PDF/pfl09.pdf). She suggests that
> >>>> the disability rights movement is changing language to be more
> >>>> respectful rather than merely politically correct, in a similar vein
> >>>> to past efforts by civil rights and women’s movements.“If people with
> >>>> disabilities are to be included in all aspects of society, and if
> >>>> they’re to be respected and valued as our fellow citizens, we must
> >>>> stop using language that marginalizes and sets them apart,” wrote
> >>>> Snow. “History tells us that the first way to devalue a person is
> >>>> through language.”
> >>>> The global movement to promote person-first language has been
> >>>> extremely successful. It is now standard in government documents
> >>>> around the world, as well as in scientific journals and many other
> >>>> publications. Widespread adoption of this grammatical structure is the
> >>>> reason that, present sentence excepted, this article will not refer to
> >>>> a stutterer, a cancer patient, a diabetic, a blind man, a deaf woman
> >>>> or an autistic person. It might, however, refer to a person who
> >>>> stutters, a person with cancer, a person with diabetes, a man who is
> >>>> visually impaired, a woman who is hearing impaired or a person with
> >>>> autism.
> >>>> But some people, including members of several disability groups,
> >>>> aren’t big fans of person-first language. They claim it is merely
> >>>> political correctness run amok, verbosity intended to spare hurt
> >>>> feelings yet accomplishing little more than turning one word into two
> >>>> or more words. Even worse, some suggest, tucking the names of diseases
> >>>> and disabilities in the shadows may have the opposite effect of what
> >>>> is intended. It could stigmatize words that were never considered
> >>>> derogatory or pejorative in the first place.
> >>>> St. Louis’ introduction to person-first language made him wonder if it
> >>>> actually had an effect on opinions about words used to label people
> >>>> with various conditions, including speech, language and hearing
> >>>> disorders (J Fluency Discord 1999;24:1­24). He found that the
> >>>> person-first version of a label was regarded as “significantly more
> >>>> positive” in only 2% of comparisons. “For example,” wrote St. Louis,
> >>>> “with the exception of widely known terms that have stigmatized
> >>>> individuals (e.g., ‘Moron’), terms identifying serious mental illness
> >>>> (‘psychosis’) or dreaded diseases (‘leprosy’), person-first
> >>>> nomenclature made little difference in minimizing negative
> >>>> reactions.”There is no evidence that person-first terminology enhances
> >>>> sensitivity or reduces insensitivity, notes St. Louis, and yet health
> >>>> professionals and scholarly publishers are now among its strongest
> >>>> advocates. Good luck getting your work published in a scientific
> >>>> journal if you don’t conform. In the field of speech-language
> >>>> pathology, terms such as “person who stutters” or “child who stutters”
> >>>> have even become acronyms (PWS and CWS). To St. Louis, the notion that
> >>>> calling someone a PWS is more sensitive than calling them a stutterer
> >>>> is nothing short of ludicrous.
> >>>> “It’s not really about sensitivity,” says St. Louis. “It’s about: This
> >>>> is just the way it’s done.”Furthermore, suggests St. Louis, the
> >>>> sentiment expressed in communication is far more important than the
> >>>> linguistic circumlocutions present in the language. “If you are going
> >>>> to be a jerk,” he says, “you can be just as much of a jerk using
> >>>> person-first language as using the direct label.”Members of some
> >>>> disability groups have become so fed up with pressure to adopt
> >>>> person-first language that they have begun pushing back. The National
> >>>> Federation for the Blind in the United States has long opposed what it
> >>>> perceives as “an unholy crusade” to force everyone to use person-first
> >>>> language
> >>>> (www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm09/bm0903/bm090309.htm).The
> >>>> federation’s main publication, the Braille Monitor, has unequivocally
> >>>> defended its right “to cling to its conviction that vigorous prose is
> >>>> a virtue and that blind people can stand to read one of the adjectives
> >>>> that describe them before they arrive at the noun”
> >>>> (www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm09/bm0903/bm090308.htm).
> >>>> “Blind people we are, and we are content to be described as such.”
> >>>> Many people with diabetes are also surprised to learn that the word
> >>>> “diabetic” is now considered taboo. Who turned it into a moniker non
> >>>> grata? Not people with diabetes, apparently. Type “diabetic” and
> >>>> “tattoo” into Google Images and you’ll find thousands of people with
> >>>> the condition who have the word permanently inked on their skin. One
> >>>> of those people is Tanyss Christie, a mother of two from Chilliwack,
> >>>> British Columbia, who has “diabetic” tattooed on her inner left wrist
> >>>> in a style similar to a MedicAlert bracelet. Would she be upset if
> >>>> someone called her a diabetic?“No, I wouldn’t be offended,” Christie
> >>>> writes in an email. “Diabetes is me and who I am and I don’t need to
> >>>> hide that; I am a diabetic and have been for 29 years. I say it strong
> >>>> because I survived such a hard disease and hope to [for] many more
> >>>> years.”
> >>>> The topic of person-first language seems to stir particularly heated
> >>>> debate among people affected by autism. In general, parents of
> >>>> children with autism appear to prefer person-first language. Some even
> >>>> suggest that saying “autistic child” is not much better than referring
> >>>> to someone with cancer as a “cancerous person.” Many adults with
> >>>> autism, however, believe that autism is central to their identity and
> >>>> prefer to use terms such as “autistic person.” This has been called
> >>>> identify-first language.Person-first language implies that autism can
> >>>> be separated from the person, which simply isn’t true, according to
> >>>> Jim Sinclair, an adult with autism who cofounded the Autism Network
> >>>> International. In a widely circulated essay, Sinclair wrote that
> >>>> autism is such an essential feature of his being that to describe
> >>>> himself as a person with autism would be akin to calling a parent a
> >>>> “person with offspring” or calling a man a person “with maleness”
> >>>> (www.cafemom.com/journals/read/436505). Attempting to separate autism
> >>>> from personhood also “suggests that autism is something bad — so bad
> >>>> that it isn’t even consistent with being a person.”
> >>>> Then there are those who take a more moderate position, varying their
> >>>> language according to their audience so that focus remains on their
> >>>> message rather than how it’s delivered. This is the approach taken by
> >>>> Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg, a writer who chronicles her “journeys with
> >>>> autism” on her blog (www.journeyswithautism.com).“I will use
> >>>> person-first (i.e. person with autism) and identity-first (i.e
> >>>> autistic person) language interchangeably, partly for the sake of
> >>>> variety, and partly to resist the ideologues on both sides. I will
> >>>> also vary my language to suit my audience. For example, if I’m talking
> >>>> with people who prefer identity-first language, I will use it. If I am
> >>>> talking to people who prefer person-first language, I will use it. If
> >>>> I am talking to a mixed group, I will likely mix my terminology,”
> >>>> Cohen-Rottenberg writes in an email. “I find that people’s feelings
> >>>> can run so high regarding language that, even if I find person-first
> >>>> language very problematic, I’ll use it with people who favor it so
> >>>> that we don’t end up getting derailed into language discussions and
> >>>> away from the issue at hand.”Editor’s note: First of a multipart
> >>>> series.Part II: Person-first language: What it means to be a
> >>>> “person”(www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.109-4322).Part III:
> >>>> Person-first language: Laudable cause, horrible
> >>>> prose(www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.109-4338).Facebook Google+
> >>>> LinkedIn Reddit StumbleUpon TwitterWhat's this?Responses to this
> >>>> articleMaria Z GittaDo we really need to ask 'to what effect'?CMAJ
> >>>> published online November 7, 2012Full Text
> >>>> ________________End of message________________
> >>>>
> >>>> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
> >>>> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
> >>>> (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
> >>>>
> >>>> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
> >>>> disability-research-request at jiscmail.ac.uk
> >>>>
> >>>> Archives and tools are located at:
> >>>> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> >>>>
> >>>> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web
> >>>> page.
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> nabs-l mailing list
> >>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>>> nabs-l:
> >>>> 
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/brandonkeithbiggs%40gmail.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> nabs-l mailing list
> >>>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>>> nabs-l:
> >>>> 
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/kirt.crazydude%40gmail.com
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> nabs-l mailing list
> >>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >>> nabs-l:
> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nabs-l mailing list
> >> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> >> nabs-l:
> >> 
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nabs-l mailing list
> > nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> > nabs-l:
> > 
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/herekittykat2%40gmail.com
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>nabs-l mailing list
>nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nabs-l:
>http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/carlymih%40comcast.net

More information about the NABS-L mailing list