The changing language of disability

I was once introduced at a webinar as “Alex White who has been talking about the language of disability before it was fashionable.” By which they meant until the webinar made it so! 

Fashionable or not, I believe that words matter, but language changes all the time.  

In May 1999, in the pre-fashionable age, I wrote an article for The Journalist about the language around disability. I said: 

“If you listen to disabled people and use less stereotypical language, journalists can avoid the pitfalls of the ‘pat on the head’ syndrome still far too prevalent in the press.” 

The 1999 article created a flurry of letters (remember them?) from irate journalists complaining that I had gone too far. I wonder if any would stand by their views today? 

It is interesting to see how the language debate has moved on. Most of the disabling words that we were battling against then are no longer used.

But have attitudes to disabled people really changed?  

Sufferer?

The first word I discussed was ‘sufferer’: 

If you call someone ‘a cerebral palsy sufferer’, you are reducing an individual’s life to a condition and making assumptions about it. One paper described a disabled teenager as “preparing to visit the delights of Florida despite suffering from cerebral palsy”.  

Yes, disabled people go on holiday too. Hold the front page! 

Not patronising?

A fellow journalist replied: “Describing someone as a cerebral palsy sufferer is a simple statement of fact. It is not patronising to say so.” 

I couldn’t suffer in silence, so I responded,  

“As a person who lost my job because of Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI), I have to say that I don’t prefer the tag ‘sufferer’. It is a condition I have, not my raison d’être.  

“The assertion that it is not patronising to call people with cerebral palsy sufferers is not borne out by comments made to me by people with cerebral palsy. Only disabled people can say whether they suffer or not.” 

Wheelchair-bound?

The next was ‘wheelchair-bound’, another word that thankfully seems to have died out: 

You can also reduce the chance of nonsenses like this from the Daily Telegraph: “Penny Elliott, 14, who suffers from cerebral palsy and is wheelchair-bound” which appeared next to a picture of a smiling, standing girl. 

Wheelchair users don’t spend all their time in their chairs despite a story about a “wheelchair-bound swimmer”! 

And why “wheelchair-bound Christie Nolan” in another Telegraph article about the prize-winning novelist?  

Victims?

The next word for the chop was ‘victim’: 

Disabled people are not victims of their impairments nor do they conquer them. They don’t “overcome disability to write a poem”. What they overcome are the disabling barriers that prejudice places in their way.

Brave?

Why “brave Carly” in the headline on a good story about a little girl with cerebral palsy who started to speak using a voice synthesiser? “Brave” implies choice. While it might be brave to tackle a bank robber, it is erroneous to say that a person is brave for living with an impairment. 

‘Brave’ is in decline but ‘inspiring’ seems to be taking its place. 

PC Boulevard

One letter writer implored me not to “stray too far down PC boulevard”.  

Asking disabled people how they describe themselves isn’t being ‘politically correct’. Only correct. 

As I said in my blog Disability and inclusive language in 2021: 

“If you are writing about disability and are not talking to disabled people, you need to rethink your approach. The mantra is “Nothing about us without us.” 

If you want some general advice, try How we speak about disability (Scope) 

What words bother you now in the disability discourse?