[nabs-l] ACT Test

[Sylvia Yasa]

Hello Arielle,

You can use your assistive technology and a computer only for the
essay part of the test, as an alternative to using a scribe. However,
I think this option is not valid for the other sections of the test.
Sylvia

On 12/14/12, nabs-l-request at nfbnet.org <nabs-l-request at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> Send nabs-l mailing list submissions to
> 	nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	nabs-l-request at nfbnet.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	nabs-l-owner at nfbnet.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of nabs-l digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Are we blind people or people who are blind? (Carly Mihalakis)
>    2. {Disarmed} FW: Happy Holidays from NBP! (Humberto Avila)
>    3. Re: Are we blind people or people who are blind? (Jason Meddaugh)
>    4. Re: Are we blind people or people who are blind? (melissa Green)
>    5. Re: Are we blind people or people who are blind? (Joshua Lester)
>    6. Re: ACT Test (Arielle Silverman)
>    7. Re: Are we blind people or people who are blind? (Carly Mihalakis)
>    8. Re: Are we blind people or people who are blind?
>       (Arielle Silverman)
>    9. Re: Are we blind people or people who are blind? (Lavonya Gardner)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:23:26 -0800
> From: Carly Mihalakis <carlymih at comcast.net>
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> 	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>,	nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20121213122037.01be17a8 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
>
> Hi, NABS,
>
>          Don't you think it's up to the
> individual how they are are refered too by ol'
> Sighty, and others? This debate is pretty boring
> because I know how I feel most comfortable being referred too.
> So, everybody figure out what works for you, and be content!
> Car ----- 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;24:1?24). 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/carlymih%40comcast.net
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:24:53 -0800
> From: "Humberto Avila" <avila.bert.humberto2 at gmail.com>
> To: <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>, <blindTlk at nfbNet.org>, <GUI-talk at nfbNet.org>,
> 	<nfbcs at nfbNet.org>, <nfbWaTlk at nfbNet.org>, <nfb-talk at nfbNet.org>
> Subject: [nabs-l] {Disarmed} FW: Happy Holidays from NBP!
> Message-ID: <002d01cdd96f$ea533010$bef99030$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"
>
>
>
> From: Brian Mac Donald [mailto:contact at nbp.org] On Behalf Of Brian Mac
> Donald
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:16 AM
> To: avila.bert.humberto2 at gmail.com
> Subject: Happy Holidays from NBP!
>
> Having trouble?  <http://nbp.convio.net/site/R?i=XNTavmKT8dzvOfOR0SShYg>
> View this message online.
>
>  <http://nbp.convio.net/site/R?i=scOgNa2Sm8cAiXv9yl6jww> Happy Holidays
>  <http://nbp.convio.net/site/R?i=G8F-i9HHVawXeIK0n4ltmA> End of Year Bow
> Season's Greetings from all of us at National Braille Press!
>
> As we celebrate this holiday season, we thank all of you - our braille
> readers, customers, donors, volunteers, trustees, members, staff, & friends
> - for everything that you do to further braille literacy.
>
> Wishing you joy and happiness!
>   <http://nbp.convio.net/site/PixelServer?j=wiE-kEoloCXBM3WqpXTlyQ>
>
>  <http://nbp.convio.net/site/R?i=g7Ng0G1ZjKsGrGL0taOPqg> Make a Gift Button
> <http://nbp.convio.net/site/R?i=hOs1yxxh4YFRheqZUq0ybA> Tell a Friend
>
>   <http://nbp.convio.net/images/spacer.gif>
>
>  <http://nbp.convio.net/site/R?i=Rfye7AghEbYKWBC0SgoKsA>
> <http://nbp.convio.net/site/R?i=Rfye7AghEbYKWBC0SgoKsA> Powered By Convio
> <http://nbp.convio.net/site/R?i=Rfye7AghEbYKWBC0SgoKsA>
> <http://nbp.convio.net/site/CO?i=PkcJNmPoaJisfXEidSXjMPSouEcYl0i6&cid=1121>
> Manage your email preferences.
> National Braille Press. C 2012 All rights reserved.
> 88 Saint Stephen Street Boston, MA 02115-4302
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 15:32:36 -0500
> From: "Jason Meddaugh" <jj at bestmidi.com>
> To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
> 	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
> Message-ID: <084ED215F93445C2934C23FF05DDDD6F at jage>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> 	reply-type=response
>
> Kathie Snow, a disability rights advocate who runs
>>the "Disability is Natural" website (
> www.disabilityisnatural.com
> ).
>
> The contact form here has a visual CAPTCHA. Enough said.
>
> Best Regards,
> Jason Meddaugh
> A T Guys
> Your Assistive Technology Experts
> (269) 216-4798
> http://www.ATGuys.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carly Mihalakis" <carlymih at comcast.net>
> To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>; <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 3:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
>
>
> Hi, NABS,
>
>          Don't you think it's up to the
> individual how they are are refered too by ol'
> Sighty, and others? This debate is pretty boring
> because I know how I feel most comfortable being referred too.
> So, everybody figure out what works for you, and be content!
> Car ----- 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;24:1?24). 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/carlymih%40comcast.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/jj%40bestmidi.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 14:24:08 -0700
> From: "melissa Green" <lissa1531 at gmail.com>
> To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
> 	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
> Message-ID: <9B086E0354C04BD8B8B0F5D3973AEA23 at HP30910210001>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="Windows-1252"
>
> Arielle.
> In many special education classes ththat I took, People First language is
> taught.
> Like you, I found it hard to use people first language in papers.
> If I was writing a paper on education, I had to stop myself from saying
> blind shildren, and write children who are blind.
> I like your idea of having a family of blind people.
> IMO, some of the people first language is steeped in pollitically correct
> language.
>
> Many blessings,
> melissa and Pj
> At the center of your being you have the answer; you know who you are and
> you know what you want.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arielle Silverman" <arielle71 at gmail.com>
> To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
>
>
> 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;24:1?24). 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/lissa1531%40gmail.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:53:48 +0000
> From: Joshua Lester <JLester8462 at PCCUAEDU.onmicrosoft.com>
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> 	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
> Message-ID:
> 	<C59029FFE3A11944A4AD8DD66F7458C10D580BCA at CH1PRD0710MB393.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
> 	
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
>
> Hey Melissa!
> I agree with your post!
> I also prefer blind over "Visually Impaired," any day!
> Blessings, Joshua
> ________________________________________
> From: nabs-l [nabs-l-bounces at nfbnet.org] on behalf of melissa Green
> [lissa1531 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 3:24 PM
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
>
> Arielle.
> In many special education classes ththat I took, People First language is
> taught.
> Like you, I found it hard to use people first language in papers.
> If I was writing a paper on education, I had to stop myself from saying
> blind shildren, and write children who are blind.
> I like your idea of having a family of blind people.
> IMO, some of the people first language is steeped in pollitically correct
> language.
>
> Many blessings,
> melissa and Pj
> At the center of your being you have the answer; you know who you are and
> you know what you want.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arielle Silverman" <arielle71 at gmail.com>
> To: "National Association of Blind Students mailing list"
> <nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 8:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
>
>
> 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;24:1?24). 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/lissa1531%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/jlester8462%40pccuaedu.onmicrosoft.com
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 16:59:28 -0700
> From: Arielle Silverman <arielle71 at gmail.com>
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> 	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] ACT Test
> Message-ID:
> 	<CALAYQJCS5o9UJrAC0y5O4fJKf6amtRuSHeULBiL9d=qHKt+E2Q at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Hi all,
> Does anyone know if computers with magnification or screen-reading
> software are allowed as an accommodation on the ACT or SAT? My
> impression was that computers are not allowed, only calculators, but I
> could be wrong (and I hope I am, I think they should be allowed).
> For many test-takers who are not proficient in Braille for one reason
> or another, and cannot use large print, reliance on a human reader is
> often the only option. This is OK but not the best accommodation for
> certain types of problems such as reading comprehension and math word
> problems.
> Tactile diagrams are generally provided and a formerly sighted student
> may not have much difficulty interpreting those, even if they are not
> fluent in Braille yet.
> Best,
> Arielle
>
> On 12/12/12, Herrin, Amber <herrinar at muohio.edu> wrote:
>> Hello and good afternoon Sylvia,
>>
>> Does your student yet use any kind of screen reader or magnifier
>> (assuming he or she may have enough vision left for that?)
>>
>> If your student does have some residual vision but does not yet know
>> how to use any kind of screen magnifiers for the computer, can the
>> student read large print?
>>
>> What about a raised-line drawing board?
>>
>> Taking these various options into consideration, here are a few
>> suggestions:
>>
>> The student could take the test on the computer using either a screen
>> reader or screen magnifier.
>> The test could be produced for the student in large print and the
>> student could then answer all questions by reading, using normal
>> methods, only in larger print.
>> The student could have the test read to them (assuming reading in
>> either method on his or her own is not possible) and then use a
>> raised-line drawing board for writing out using memory of the written
>> letters or numbers, the way to work the problems out, or the answers
>> if using a calculator.
>>
>> It would obviously fall to the student to know how to solve the
>> problems, but depending on what the student needs, he or she could use
>> a drawing board to write the problem out in equation format, or, if
>> calculators are allowed, write down the answers which could then be
>> written in for her by a sighted person reading the board.
>>
>> Alternatively, for answering, if this test is multiple-choice, the
>> student could come up with the answer and then tell the reader to read
>> the options, and choose the option that fits the answer already
>> obtained.
>>
>> I sincerely hope this helps, and feel free to contact me off list if
>> you have any questions about anything I've mentioned here or to ask
>> any other questions I might be able to help with.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Amber
>>
>> On 12/12/12, Sarah <coastergirl92 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> For my career, I want to become a technology inststructor.  What
>>> requirements did you need to become a technology instructor?
>>> were there any special classes required any classes at all?
>>> Thanks for your help,
>>> Sarah and Wizard
>>>
>>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Sylvia Yasa <yasa.sylvia at gmail.com
>>> To: nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>> Date sent: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:23:11 -0500
>>> Subject: [nabs-l] ACT Test
>>>
>>> Hello guys,
>>>
>>> I am a technology instructor at a blindness rehabilitation center
>>> in
>>> the state of Maryland.  I currently have a student who wants to
>>> take
>>> the ACT test for college admission.  This test has a mathematics
>>> section.
>>>
>>> I am very interested to know some of the techniques you use to
>>> handle
>>> math questions like word problems, simple equations, etc.
>>> Note: my student became blind recently, so her Braille, as of
>>> now, is
>>> not a reliable option.
>>>
>>> Any input will be extremely helpful!
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sylvia
>>>
>>> Sylvia Yasa M.ed - AT
>>> Assistive Technology Instructor / Specialist
>>> Blind Industries and Services of Maryland
>>> 3345 Washington BLVD., Baltimore, MD 21227
>>> (410) 737- 2682
>>> yasa.sylvia at gmail.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/coastergirl92
>>> %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/herrinar%40muohio.edu
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Amber R. Herrin
>>
>> e: herrinar at muohio.edu
>> P: (513) 593-5855
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:14:27 -0800
> From: Carly Mihalakis <carlymih at comcast.net>
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> 	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20121213170048.01c8bec0 at comcast.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
>
> Hi,, List,
>
> Personally, I feel most comfortable being thought
> of in terms of a blind person, not a "person who
> is blind" I feel it waters down a cultural,  if
> not a physilogical element blindness can entale.
> For that reason, I am completely against
> so-called people first, verbeage. I believe it
> may prove to alienate us further in that by
> expecting people feel they must walk on egg shells when referring to us.
> Besides, too many indirect words waters down a voice already stifled.
>
> 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;24:1?24). 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/carlymih%40comcast.net
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:45:29 -0700
> From: Arielle Silverman <arielle71 at gmail.com>
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> 	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
> Message-ID:
> 	<CALAYQJDZ7_wF-UEEF+E5vTTevC9cTzM8JXixciPhE=DKYqt-eA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> This is interesting. It seems clear that at least for the most part,
> "person-first" expressions like people who are blind are used and
> advocated by those without disabilities, while those with disabilities
> prefer the "identity-first" versions such as blind people. Why the
> difference?
> It seems there might be at least two reasons why "outsiders"
> (sighted/nondisabled) might prefer person-first language. The first is
> out of a noble desire to use language that respects us and affords us
> full humanity, as "people first". The second is out of a more
> prejudiced desire to distance people from disabilities and to hide or
> minimize characteristics that are viewed negatively.
> I was discussing this with a friend who is a special education
> professor (someone who trains future special ed teachers) who does not
> herself have any disability. She argued that person-first language is
> important because it prevents the use of offensive terms that used to
> be used, such as "retards". We also talked about how euphemisms such
> as "special needs" and "differently abled", though perhaps more
> accurate than the word "disability", have started to take on their own
> negative connotations. Personally I never really liked being called
> someone with special needs, although it is funny that I don't really
> object to being called a person with a disability (or a disabled
> person) but when you think about it, blindness is more of a special
> need than it is a disability. We aren't diminished in our abilities to
> do things so much as we have different accessibility needs, etc. than
> do sighted people.
> It is clear that what is offensive vs. not is in the eye of the
> beholder. I hope that we as blind people will start to be heard by
> outsiders if we argue that we want to be called blind people instead
> of people who are blind. I admit that as a "white heterosexual" I have
> in the past felt awkward and uncertain about how to refer to people
> who have dark skin and/or people who are sexually attracted to their
> same gender. In fact I'm still not quite sure whether the term "black"
> or "African-American" is more appropriate or if there is even a
> consensus about that. I am, however, certain that I will only call
> these and other minorities by the names they say they want to be
> called. Unfortunately it seems we as blind people aren't always given
> this courtesy, or perhaps we just haven't really had that conversation
> with the sighted about it. It is also a shame that there is such a
> disconnect between the group comprised of blind people and the group
> comprised of professionals and researchers on blindness. A major part
> of the disconnect is that we have been actively kept out of some of
> the blindness professions and few of us have elected to initiate
> blindness-related research. That is slowly changing with the LA Tech
> programs and I hope our generation can continue this trend of
> integration between our community and those who serve us. If we are
> the ones editing the journals and setting the linguistic norms, not
> only might we start being called by a name that affirms our positive
> identity, but we might actually get some work done that advances our
> standing in the world.
> Nothing about us without us!
> Arielle
>
> On 12/13/12, Carly Mihalakis <carlymih at comcast.net> wrote:
>> Hi,, List,
>>
>> Personally, I feel most comfortable being thought
>> of in terms of a blind person, not a "person who
>> is blind" I feel it waters down a cultural,  if
>> not a physilogical element blindness can entale.
>> For that reason, I am completely against
>> so-called people first, verbeage. I believe it
>> may prove to alienate us further in that by
>> expecting people feel they must walk on egg shells when referring to us.
>> Besides, too many indirect words waters down a voice already stifled.
>>
>> 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;24:1?24). 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/carlymih%40comcast.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/arielle71%40gmail.com
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 21:40:01 -0500
> From: Lavonya Gardner <hotdancer1416 at gmail.com>
> To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
> 	<nabs-l at nfbnet.org>
> Subject: Re: [nabs-l] Are we blind people or people who are blind?
> Message-ID: <9FF36AF0-8644-4DAE-BA84-C74049BA1209 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;	charset=utf-8
>
> that is the same thing that autistic people want. but it isn't just the
> sighted world that gve us grief about it. i found that a lot of sighted
> people do better wth me the some blind people. though we have a lot of the
> same theories. we have the nothng about us, with out us, with the autistics
> self advocacy group as the n f b. so why we can't work together, especialy
> blind autistics like myself, is beyond me. a lot of the tactile techniques
> that work with blind people, work with autistc people.  i would love to be
> understood, and work with other blind people.  have to deal with both,
> autism and blindness, and i would be of help, as weell as be helped.
>  Lavonnya
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Dec 13, 2012, at 8:45 PM, Arielle Silverman <arielle71 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is interesting. It seems clear that at least for the most part,
>> "person-first" expressions like people who are blind are used and
>> advocated by those without disabilities, while those with disabilities
>> prefer the "identity-first" versions such as blind people. Why the
>> difference?
>> It seems there might be at least two reasons why "outsiders"
>> (sighted/nondisabled) might prefer person-first language. The first is
>> out of a noble desire to use language that respects us and affords us
>> full humanity, as "people first". The second is out of a more
>> prejudiced desire to distance people from disabilities and to hide or
>> minimize characteristics that are viewed negatively.
>> I was discussing this with a friend who is a special education
>> professor (someone who trains future special ed teachers) who does not
>> herself have any disability. She argued that person-first language is
>> important because it prevents the use of offensive terms that used to
>> be used, such as "retards". We also talked about how euphemisms such
>> as "special needs" and "differently abled", though perhaps more
>> accurate than the word "disability", have started to take on their own
>> negative connotations. Personally I never really liked being called
>> someone with special needs, although it is funny that I don't really
>> object to being called a person with a disability (or a disabled
>> person) but when you think about it, blindness is more of a special
>> need than it is a disability. We aren't diminished in our abilities to
>> do things so much as we have different accessibility needs, etc. than
>> do sighted people.
>> It is clear that what is offensive vs. not is in the eye of the
>> beholder. I hope that we as blind people will start to be heard by
>> outsiders if we argue that we want to be called blind people instead
>> of people who are blind. I admit that as a "white heterosexual" I have
>> in the past felt awkward and uncertain about how to refer to people
>> who have dark skin and/or people who are sexually attracted to their
>> same gender. In fact I'm still not quite sure whether the term "black"
>> or "African-American" is more appropriate or if there is even a
>> consensus about that. I am, however, certain that I will only call
>> these and other minorities by the names they say they want to be
>> called. Unfortunately it seems we as blind people aren't always given
>> this courtesy, or perhaps we just haven't really had that conversation
>> with the sighted about it. It is also a shame that there is such a
>> disconnect between the group comprised of blind people and the group
>> comprised of professionals and researchers on blindness. A major part
>> of the disconnect is that we have been actively kept out of some of
>> the blindness professions and few of us have elected to initiate
>> blindness-related research. That is slowly changing with the LA Tech
>> programs and I hope our generation can continue this trend of
>> integration between our community and those who serve us. If we are
>> the ones editing the journals and setting the linguistic norms, not
>> only might we start being called by a name that affirms our positive
>> identity, but we might actually get some work done that advances our
>> standing in the world.
>> Nothing about us without us!
>> Arielle
>>
>> On 12/13/12, Carly Mihalakis <carlymih at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Hi,, List,
>>>
>>> Personally, I feel most comfortable being thought
>>> of in terms of a blind person, not a "person who
>>> is blind" I feel it waters down a cultural,  if
>>> not a physilogical element blindness can entale.
>>> For that reason, I am completely against
>>> so-called people first, verbeage. I believe it
>>> may prove to alienate us further in that by
>>> expecting people feel they must walk on egg shells when referring to us.
>>> Besides, too many indirect words waters down a voice already stifled.
>>>
>>> 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;24:1?24). 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/carlymih%40comcast.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/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/hotdancer1416%40gmail.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> nabs-l mailing list
> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of nabs-l Digest, Vol 74, Issue 16
> **************************************
>