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

[Mary Fernandez]

Hi all,
This is a truly interesting and thought-provoking thread. In the
Spring of 2012, Emory University began a "disability dialogues".
Basically, students, faculty and staff had hte opportunity to
participate in this dialogue which met once a week for eight weeks.
during these dialogues we discussed different aspects of disabilities,
everything from public policy to disability and sexuality. I was first
exposed to the idea of "person first" during these dialogues, and
quite frankly hadn't given it much thought again until this thread
began.
I tend to agree with Kurt, that the idea of "person first" was born
from an effort to humanize people with disabilities, which is, when
you think about it, a great idea. The point was to make a "blind
person", not be a "blind person" but someone who was a student,
teacher, woman, man, who happened to be blind. The point is to make
the general public think of us beyond the white cane, beyond all the
misconceptions that come with blindness.
Arielle wrote, "... 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."
While all of us who are in some way part of the NFB understand that
blindness is a characteristic, a trait, and aspect of us, that has
shaped us but does not define us, the majority of the world does not
see it that way. Isn't that part of our philosophy after all? To
change the misconceptions about blindness? So for most of us, like
Arielle, blindness could be a positive trait, but I think you will be
hard put to pull someone who is sighted off the street, and have them
agree that blindness is a positive trait. And it is the case that when
it comes to disabilities people judge us by our disabilities and not
by our individual traits. We struggle with that everyday. Looking for
employment,  u will walk into a potential employer's office, who will
immediately focus on your disability not the rest of you. Walking in
the streets every single day, someone will try to help you, even
though you are clearly getting by just fine.
And language is an incredibly important and vital part of society. The
names we give to things, the ways we refer to them literally shape
thought. So, yes, I see the point in "person first". Whether it is
practical in its application, and whether I prefer to be referred s a
"woman who is blind" is a separate and more complex matter. I don't
know that making such a fuss about being referred as person then
disability is the best way to change misconceptions. I feel that in
some ways it actually draws more attention to the fact that the person
is different. Most of us refer to ourselves, if it is appropriate as
blind people. And like Brandon says, being blind is often not even
part of whatever aspect of ourselves we trying to define. I am a
Latino woman, I am a blind woman, I am a short woman. I take pride in
all of those, yes, even the short part. But depending on the context,
I will not always bring up those characteristics. Ok, I feel like i'm
making less sense as I continue to write, so let me try to sum it up.
"person first" is a good idea, based on some solid theories. However,
in practice it is cumbersome, and might, in the long run do more harm
than good, as it creates unnatural speech patterns, thereby drawing
more attention to the very characteristic it is trying to
de-emphasize.
Thanks.
Mary


On 12/20/12, Kirt Manwaring <kirt.crazydude at gmail.com> wrote:
> Carley, Jedi and all,
>   I'm not saying I like person-first language, neither am I suggesting
> its application is helpful or appropriate.  I am, however, of the
> belief that the intention behind person-first language is to increase
> the belief that disabled people are people first and foremost, instead
> of walking, talking, breathing disabilities.  I'm sure we've all been
> treated as though we are blindness, (Carley, incidentally, that is the
> only part of being blind I find to be more than an inconvenience), and
> I think the people who propogated person-first language were trying to
> eliminate this second-class treatment.  Ironically enough, I think the
> actual application of person-first language has had an effect counter
> to its original intentions, but I can at least respect the desires
> behind the effort.  Am I making any sense?
>   Warmest regards, and happy holidays,
> Kirt
>
> On 12/20/12, Jedi Moerke <loneblindjedi at samobile.net> wrote:
>> That is a fabulous question! I would also be very interested in knowing
>> who
>> started the person first movement. If it was The disabled community who
>> started it, which group was it exactly and why? If it was the nondisabled
>> group that started it, which group was it and why? I wonder, if it were
>> persons with disabilities who started this, if they would be happy with
>> the
>> results if they knew how it will turn out. If memory serves, it was the
>> Secretary of Education the started person first language. There was a
>> memorandum sent out to government officials and workers in the early
>> 1990s
>> shortly after the passage of the Americans with disabilities act. This
>> memorandum gave extremely specific instructions on how various disability
>> groups ought to be referred to. But that still does not answer a question
>> of
>> how person first language actually got started. It does however, describe
>> how person first language was propagated.
>>
>> Respect fully submitted
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Dec 20, 2012, at 1:23 AM, Carly Mihalakis <carlymih at comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Listen, I don't know much about this "person first," nonsense but I
>>> would
>>> guess that this whole concept of addressing the person first was, like
>>> talking about a Black, or gay person, thought up by folk who aren't
>>> themselves,  Black, or gay, no? This idea of nonmembers labeling us
>>> horrifies me. A step toward self determination, in my view, is to figure
>>> out what makes how we ought to  be identified.
>>> Car 2012, you wrote:
>>>> Ashley,
>>>>  For myself, I mostly agree that person-first language is cumbersome
>>>> and doesn't really address the real problems disabled people (or
>>>> "people with disabilities", if anyone cares) still face in our
>>>> society.  However, the fact that the "sighted world" insists on
>>>> person-first language indicates, to me, that people are at least
>>>> trying to think of us as people who happen to have disabilities rather
>>>> than disabled people.  I've often heard Federationists say something
>>>> to the effect of "I'm not a blind person!!!  I just happen to be
>>>> blind, and there's a real difference!"  I think that statements like
>>>> that from disabled people (which are totally understandable) have, at
>>>> least in part, inspired the professional world to adopt person-first
>>>> language.  I don't think it's the right answer to descrimination and
>>>> marginalization, but at least the powers that be in the academic world
>>>> recognize, on paper if nothing else, that people often define us in
>>>> terms of our disabilities and not who we really are.  Surely, that
>>>> recognition is at least a small step in the right direction?
>>>>  Just my thoughts,
>>>> Kirt
>>>>
>>>> On 12/19/12, Ashley Bramlett <bookwormahb at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>> > Arielle,
>>>> > Well said. I prefer just blind people as well.
>>>> > Its interesting to me that we usually put the adjectives before the
>>>> > person
>>>> > to describe them.
>>>> > We do not say person with black hair but we say black haired person.
>>>> > We will not say person who is tall but  tall person. Yet with a
>>>> > disability
>>>> > we have to say person first. It seems odd to me.
>>>> > Just say deaf person, blind person, etc. It sounds less cumbersome
>>>> > to
>>>> > me.
>>>> >
>>>> > Ashley
>>>> >
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: Arielle Silverman
>>>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 10:07 PM
>>>> > To: National Association of Blind Students mailing list
>>>> > 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;24:1­24). He found that the
>>>> >>> person-first version of a label was regarded as “significantly more
>>>> >>> positive” in only 2% of comparisons. “For example,” wrote St.
>>>> >>> Louis,
>>>> >>> “with the exception of widely known terms that have stigmatized
>>>> >>> individuals (e.g., ‘Moron’), terms identifying serious mental
>>>> >>> illness
>>>> >>> (‘psychosis’) or dreaded diseases (‘leprosy’), person-first
>>>> >>> nomenclature made little difference in minimizing negative
>>>> >>> reactions.”There is no evidence that person-first terminology
>>>> >>> enhances
>>>> >>> sensitivity or reduces insensitivity, notes St. Louis, and yet
>>>> >>> health
>>>> >>> professionals and scholarly publishers are now among its strongest
>>>> >>> advocates. Good luck getting your work published in a scientific
>>>> >>> journal if you don’t conform. In the field of speech-language
>>>> >>> pathology, terms such as “person who stutters” or “child who
>>>> >>> stutters”
>>>> >>> have even become acronyms (PWS and CWS). To St. Louis, the notion
>>>> >>> that
>>>> >>> calling someone a PWS is more sensitive than calling them a
>>>> >>> stutterer
>>>> >>> is nothing short of ludicrous.
>>>> >>> “It’s not really about sensitivity,” says St. Louis. “It’s about:
>>>> >>> This
>>>> >>> is just the way it’s done.”Furthermore, suggests St. Louis, the
>>>> >>> sentiment expressed in communication is far more important than the
>>>> >>> linguistic circumlocutions present in the language. “If you are
>>>> >>> going
>>>> >>> to be a jerk,” he says, “you can be just as much of a jerk using
>>>> >>> person-first language as using the direct label.”Members of some
>>>> >>> disability groups have become so fed up with pressure to adopt
>>>> >>> person-first language that they have begun pushing back. The
>>>> >>> National
>>>> >>> Federation for the Blind in the United States has long opposed what
>>>> >>> it
>>>> >>> perceives as “an unholy crusade” to force everyone to use
>>>> >>> person-first
>>>> >>> language
>>>> >>> (www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm09/bm0903/bm090309.htm).The
>>>> >>> federation’s main publication, the Braille Monitor, has
>>>> >>> unequivocally
>>>> >>> defended its right “to cling to its conviction that vigorous prose
>>>> >>> is
>>>> >>> a virtue and that blind people can stand to read one of the
>>>> >>> adjectives
>>>> >>> that describe them before they arrive at the noun”
>>>> >>> (www.nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm09/bm0903/bm090308.htm).
>>>> >>> “Blind people we are, and we are content to be described as such.”
>>>> >>> Many people with diabetes are also surprised to learn that the word
>>>> >>> “diabetic” is now considered taboo. Who turned it into a moniker
>>>> >>> non
>>>> >>> grata? Not people with diabetes, apparently. Type “diabetic” and
>>>> >>> “tattoo” into Google Images and you’ll find thousands of people
>>>> >>> with
>>>> >>> the condition who have the word permanently inked on their skin.
>>>> >>> One
>>>> >>> of those people is Tanyss Christie, a mother of two from
>>>> >>> Chilliwack,
>>>> >>> British Columbia, who has “diabetic” tattooed on her inner left
>>>> >>> wrist
>>>> >>> in a style similar to a MedicAlert bracelet. Would she be upset if
>>>> >>> someone called her a diabetic?“No, I wouldn’t be offended,”
>>>> >>> Christie
>>>> >>> writes in an email. “Diabetes is me and who I am and I don’t need
>>>> >>> to
>>>> >>> hide that; I am a diabetic and have been for 29 years. I say it
>>>> >>> strong
>>>> >>> because I survived such a hard disease and hope to [for] many more
>>>> >>> years.”
>>>> >>> The topic of person-first language seems to stir particularly
>>>> >>> heated
>>>> >>> debate among people affected by autism. In general, parents of
>>>> >>> children with autism appear to prefer person-first language. Some
>>>> >>> even
>>>> >>> suggest that saying “autistic child” is not much better than
>>>> >>> referring
>>>> >>> to someone with cancer as a “cancerous person.” Many adults with
>>>> >>> autism, however, believe that autism is central to their identity
>>>> >>> and
>>>> >>> prefer to use terms such as “autistic person.” This has been called
>>>> >>> identify-first language.Person-first language implies that autism
>>>> >>> can
>>>> >>> be separated from the person, which simply isn’t true, according to
>>>> >>> Jim Sinclair, an adult with autism who cofounded the Autism Network
>>>> >>> International. In a widely circulated essay, Sinclair wrote that
>>>> >>> autism is such an essential feature of his being that to describe
>>>> >>> himself as a person with autism would be akin to calling a parent a
>>>> >>> “person with offspring” or calling a man a person “with maleness”
>>>> >>> (www.cafemom.com/journals/read/436505). Attempting to separate
>>>> >>> autism
>>>> >>> from personhood also “suggests that autism is something bad — so
>>>> >>> bad
>>>> >>> that it isn’t even consistent with being a person.”
>>>> >>> Then there are those who take a more moderate position, varying
>>>> >>> their
>>>> >>> language according to their audience so that focus remains on their
>>>> >>> message rather than how it’s delivered. This is the approach taken
>>>> >>> by
>>>> >>> Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg, a writer who chronicles her “journeys with
>>>> >>> autism” on her blog (www.journeyswithautism.com).“I will use
>>>> >>> person-first (i.e. person with autism) and identity-first (i.e
>>>> >>> autistic person) language interchangeably, partly for the sake of
>>>> >>> variety, and partly to resist the ideologues on both sides. I will
>>>> >>> also vary my language to suit my audience. For example, if I’m
>>>> >>> talking
>>>> >>> with people who prefer identity-first language, I will use it. If I
>>>> >>> am
>>>> >>> talking to people who prefer person-first language, I will use it.
>>>> >>> If
>>>> >>> I am talking to a mixed group, I will likely mix my terminology,”
>>>> >>> Cohen-Rottenberg writes in an email. “I find that people’s feelings
>>>> >>> can run so high regarding language that, even if I find
>>>> >>> person-first
>>>> >>> language very problematic, I’ll use it with people who favor it so
>>>> >>> that we don’t end up getting derailed into language discussions and
>>>> >>> away from the issue at hand.”Editor’s note: First of a multipart
>>>> >>> series.Part II: Person-first language: What it means to be a
>>>> >>> “person”(www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.109-4322).Part III:
>>>> >>> Person-first language: Laudable cause, horrible
>>>> >>> prose(www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.109-4338).Facebook
>>>> >>> Google+
>>>> >>> LinkedIn Reddit StumbleUpon TwitterWhat's this?Responses to this
>>>> >>> articleMaria Z GittaDo we really need to ask 'to what effect'?CMAJ
>>>> >>> published online November 7, 2012Full Text
>>>> >>> ________________End of message________________
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre
>>>> >>> for
>>>> >>> Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
>>>> >>> (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
>>>> >>> disability-research-request at jiscmail.ac.uk
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Archives and tools are located at:
>>>> >>> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this
>>>> >>> web
>>>> >>> page.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> nabs-l mailing list
>>>> >>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>>> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>>> >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>> >>> for
>>>> >>> nabs-l:
>>>> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/brandonkeithbiggs%40gmail.com
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> nabs-l mailing list
>>>> >>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>>> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>>> >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>> >>> for
>>>> >>> nabs-l:
>>>> >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/kirt.crazydude%40gmail.com
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> nabs-l mailing list
>>>> >> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>>> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>>> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info
>>>> >> for
>>>> >> nabs-l:
>>>> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/arielle71%40gmail.com
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > nabs-l mailing list
>>>> > nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>>>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>>>> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>>>> > nabs-l:
>>>> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/bookwormahb%40earthlink.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/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/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/loneblindjedi%40samobile.net
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nabs-l mailing list
>> nabs-l at nfbnet.org
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nabs-l_nfbnet.org
>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>> nabs-l:
>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nabs-l_nfbnet.org/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/trillian551%40gmail.com
>


-- 
Mary Fernandez
"I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will
forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them
feel."
—
Maya Angelou