The following language is prohibited on this blog:
Hateful / Phobic language that harms and otherizes people, particularly marginalized people. This includes (but is not limited to) language that is hateful and/or phobic of:
- QUILTBAG people
- queer people
- intersex people
- lesbian people
- trans people
- bi people
- asexual people
- gay people
- otherkin people
- religious people
- atheist people
- fat people
- people with-or-without children
- people with disabilities
- people of color
- people of any gender whatsoever
Ableist language deserves a special mention because is so heavily entwined in our culture that even advanced feminists are not always aware of what is and isn't appropriate to say in a Safe Space. The following words are not allowed in this space:
- Blind as a metaphor. ("I am legally blind" is acceptable. "The blind leading the blind" is not.)
- Crazy
- Cretin
- Cripple
- Crutch as a metaphor. ("I am using crutches" is acceptable. "Religion is a crutch" is not.)
- Deaf as a metaphor. ("I am deaf in one ear" is acceptable. "Deaf to my request" is not.)
- Dumb
- Hysterical
- Lame
- Idiot
- Moron
- Retarded (and "-tard" variations, including fucktard.)
- Spastic
- Vegetable as a reference to people in comas.
That's a lot of words, isn't it? Do you think it's totally unfair that we have so many ableist words in our cultural vocabulary to the point where communication is sometimes difficult once they have been declared off-limits? I do too! Get mad at our culture for making us reliant on them, and not at me for banning them from this space. Here is a nice list of alternative words.
Caveat To The Above: Potentially triggering language is allowable in this space for purposes of deconstruction or reclamation. Language deconstruction generally seeks to show why slurs are not legitimate; here is an example that focuses heavily on misogynistic and ableist language. Language reclamation generally seeks to reclaim words for non-slur purposes; here is an example of a magazine named after a well known misogynistic slur. If I can't clearly tell from the context of your post that you are deconstructing or reclaiming a word, and especially if you are not a member of the affected group (i.e., neurotypical people do not get to 'reclaim' words associated with mental illness), then you are using it wrong.
Comments which seek to deconstruct and/or reclaim triggering language must have an appropriate content note.
2 comments:
I guess the quandry I would face, as an admittedly-privileged person, is that if any ableist word should be removed from the lexicon- or at the very least not used as an epithet- doesn't that essentially forbid all forms of insulting language? "Blinkered" was suggested above, but if we take this pattern as normal and avoid language that insults people with disabilities, is that not insulting to individuals with limited peripheral vision in the same way that "blind" is demeaning in the more general sense?
It's not just a matter of slippery slopes- if do, in fact, believe that if you're going to eliminate some of that sort of thing, you have to go all the way with it, and I question the effect that has on our language. Can we really take the step of eliminating every insulting word? "Fool" was also brought up as an example, but can't the argument be made just as easily that such a word is classist and deserves just as much to be removed? Is there _any_ negative word or insult that someone, somewhere won't take as discriminatory? Because, certainly, every group has been, at one time or place, been discriminated against, and it's for that reason that it's important to oppose discrimination in the general sense rather than only the specific "this group here and now is being persecuted."
I think there's a world of difference between being actively discriminatory with language and simply using words to describe the realities of things. We can admit that a "blind" person (glossing over the fact that many of them are still able to see to some degree or another) is not worth any less as a person without avoiding the truth that there is a thing they are incapable of doing that most people can; ability does not define humanity. We can admit to traits being positive or negative without dehumanizing anyone who possesses a negative traits. We do it all the time with social traits- "Jon is kind of a jerk, but once you get to know him he's okay." Is there any reason can't bring this type of compromise to ableist language as well?
(To emphasize: this isn't to say that there isn't discrimination against any of these groups or that nothing needs to be done to fight the systems that entrench such discrimination, but I'm not sure that proscribing language is the way to go about doing so. Surely, as a writer yourself you can understand that "just say the words you literally mean" is not really a very good solution to replacing metaphors that some people may find offensive?)
I guess the quandry I would face, as an admittedly-privileged person, is that if any ableist word should be removed from the lexicon- or at the very least not used as an epithet- doesn't that essentially forbid all forms of insulting language? "Blinkered" was suggested above, but if we take this pattern as normal and avoid language that insults people with disabilities, is that not insulting to individuals with limited peripheral vision in the same way that "blind" is demeaning in the more general sense?
It's not just a matter of slippery slopes- if do, in fact, believe that if you're going to eliminate some of that sort of thing, you have to go all the way with it, and I question the effect that has on our language. Can we really take the step of eliminating every insulting word? "Fool" was also brought up as an example, but can't the argument be made just as easily that such a word is classist and deserves just as much to be removed? Is there _any_ negative word or insult that someone, somewhere won't take as discriminatory? Because, certainly, every group has been, at one time or place, been discriminated against, and it's for that reason that it's important to oppose discrimination in the general sense rather than only the specific "this group here and now is being persecuted."
I think there's a world of difference between being actively discriminatory with language and simply using words to describe the realities of things. We can admit that a "blind" person (glossing over the fact that many of them are still able to see to some degree or another) is not worth any less as a person without avoiding the truth that there is a thing they are incapable of doing that most people can; ability does not define humanity. We can admit to traits being positive or negative without dehumanizing anyone who possesses a negative traits. We do it all the time with social traits- "Jon is kind of a jerk, but once you get to know him he's okay." Is there any reason can't bring this type of compromise to ableist language as well?
(To emphasize: this isn't to say that there isn't discrimination against any of these groups or that nothing needs to be done to fight the systems that entrench such discrimination, but I'm not sure that proscribing language is the way to go about doing so. Surely, as a writer yourself you can understand that "just say the words you literally mean" is not really a very good solution to replacing metaphors that some people may find offensive?)
Post a Comment