Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!oliveb!bunker!hcap!hnews!Michael.Merrow
From: Michael.Merrow@hnews.fidonet.org (Michael Merrow)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Kicking a Dead Horse?
Message-ID: <10089@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 12 Feb 90 03:02:22 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: Michael.Merrow@hnews.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: The Handicap News, Shelton CT (203) 337-1607
Lines: 56
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 6683

Hi. I am pretty much new to this conference. I have been reading messages 
for a few weeks now, but this is the first time I've felt compelled to 
write...
 
Re:
 
RR>                              Watch Your Language
 
While I agree with most of the points raised, I have a problem with one
in particular:
 
RR>                             How Not to Refer to Us
RR>
RR>   The disabled or handicapped - This makes a physical limitation 
 
It is not important to me whether I am refered to as a "disabled person" 
or a "person with a disability." Calling someone "disabled" is a 
convention of Modern American English, and was never intended, as far as 
I can tell, to mean anything of a deragatory or demeaning nature. It just 
fits better when spoken or written. This discussion reminds me of the 
ongoing debate over whether one should use "he/she" to replace "he" when 
refering to someone of no particular gender. Since William Strunk Jr. and 
E.B. White address the "he" vs. "he/she" question so well in - The 
Elements of Style - I'll quote part of the paragraph they write on the 
subject:
 
"The use of 'he' as pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a simple, 
practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English language. 
'He' has lost all suggestion of maleness in these circumstances. The word 
was unquestionably biased to begin with (the dominant male), but after 
hundreds of years it has become seemingly indispensible. It has no 
pejorative connotation; it is never incorrect. Substituting "he or she" 
in its place is the logical thing to do if it works. But it often doesn't 
work, if only because repetition makes it sound boring or silly."
 
I think this argument can be applied just as well to the "disabled 
person" vs. "person with a disability" debate and we can all move on 
beyond semantics to what's really important - the person behind the 
label.
 
-----------------
 
I hope this doesn't all sound too negative. Since becoming a "wheelchair 
user" a little over a year ago, I've hoped to find a place to meet and 
talk with others in a similar situation. I think I've found it. You folks 
are all so caring and supportive here. I hope I can contribute in a 
positive way to future discussions.
 
Michael
 

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!Michael.Merrow
Internet: Michael.Merrow@hnews.fidonet.org