The Language Of Anti-Ableism

Subtle exclusionary words and phrases can present disabled people with barriers to feeling included.

The language we use can also provide listeners with insights into our own beliefs - and biases. Using ableist language highlights the fact that you are uneducated in, wilfully ignorant of or worse, simply don’t care about the struggles of people with disabilities in society past and present.

By consciously (or unconsciously) using words that deem people with disabilities as other, abnormal or in some way defective, we re-enforce the already widespread oppression of the whole community.

We may not mean to play a part in enforcing oppression of disabled people, but as long as ableist words remain acceptable in everyday language, the disability inclusion gap will remain open. Becoming more aware of how everyday language helps perpetuate ableist ideas and values is a very important step in closing gaps between people with disabilities and those without.

The first step on your journey into anti-ableism and inclusive language should be to ask for the terms your colleagues and potential colleagues prefer.

Disability identities and language

Whilst having a cache of generally acceptable language is useful, it’s vital to remember that all groups are made up of individuals each with their own personal view of how their disability or neurodivergence shapes - or fits into - their identity.

Some individuals will prefer to use Person First language for example “person with sight loss” or “person with a limb difference”.

Some individuals prefer not to be separated from their disability and prefer Identity First Language for example “I am blind” or “I am limb different”.

Some people you meet will subscribe to the Social Model of disability (you can learn more about this in the next section) - and they may also use person-first or identity-first language. For example an individual might prefer to be referred to as a “person with sight loss” or they may prefer “blind” but they may also use different or additional terms based on the social model for example “I am disabled”.

Some individuals do not view themselves as having a disability but simply a difference - for example “I am not disabled, I’m Autistic” or “I’m not disabled, I am dyslexic”. It’s important to note that even when a person’s physical or mental condition would classify them as being protected by the Equality Act as having a disability, they may not identify as being disabled.

Some individuals aren't viewed by either themselves or society as being disabled, for example people with dwarfism (or dwarfs, people of small stature or little people). Most people with dwarfism view themselves as having no disability at all other than the one created for them by a world built for taller people.

Some individuals don’t view themselves as disabled but simply as having additional needs.

Below we will outline what some of the terms in the above introduction mean as well as how to navigate the language of disability, additional needs and neurodiversity.

Head to your Powered By Diversity Playbook Disability Inclusion & Anti-ableism for the Workplace for more on this topic.

Disability Inclusive Language

Person First Language

Person first language - involves referring to the person before referring to their disability for example:

“person with a disability” over “disabled person”
“person with a hearing impairment” over “deaf person”
“person with a psychiatric disability” over “mentally ill person”

It is always preferable to use the terms an individual prefers but in situations where it’s not possible to check, then person first language is generally considered to be a respectful option to use.

As with all language around diversity and inclusion - it’s important to always be open to challenge and being corrected.

The Social Model

Many disabled people subscribe to the social model of disability which is a way of looking at disability outside of the medical model and within the context of the built environment and societal norms.

Let's look at limb difference as one example. A person with limb difference might have shorter and/or fewer limbs than many other people. If their limb difference means they have difficulties walking, they may use a prosthetic. If their limb difference means they have fewer fingers or no fingers on one or both hands, they may use assistive technologies to do certain things like typing. A person with limb difference may consider themselves to be fit, healthy, happy and capable but there are certain things in our society that disable them.

Our society and all of its systems were built for non wheelchair users with two legs and two arms, two hands and two feet and ten fingers and ten toes of average length and mobility. Society was not built for people with limb differences at the centre. If it had been, ramps and working lifts would be essential everywhere. Assistive technologies would be standard. There would be height adjustable equipment, varied height surfaces and appliances, accessible gates, doors and toilets would be standard and there would always be enough space to manoeuvre a wheelchair around offices, shops and other buildings. If society was built like this, it would mean that people with limb difference would not be disabled.

We recommend that you read more about the social model of disability. Scope have a great set of resources that you can access here.

Identity First Language

It’s very important to note that some people prefer their descriptors to be not separated from who they are as a person, so person first language doesn’t work for them. For example some deaf people would say “I’m autistic”, which describes a part of their identity and a recognition of their neurodivergence. A person who uses identity first language would likely use the phrase “I am autistic” over the phrase “I have Autism” which is language more readily associated with the diagnosis of an illness.

To many, the word “disability” can bring thoughts of doctors, sickness, illness and pain, that for many just doesn’t match with their reality - or how they want to be viewed. With that assumption of “disability” in mind, many different kinds of people don’t view the way that they are as disabled; they are simply part of the diverse spectrum of people that make up the world. Their differences make them who they are and are a part of their identity. Many people who think this way prefer their descriptors not to be separated from their personhood for example “I am blind”, “I am bipolar”.

Identity First language is also important for some people who subscribe to the social model of disability. Subscribers to the social model will often say “I am disabled” and the part that’s missing from that sentence would be “by societal norms and the built world around me”.

Additional needs

Some individuals don’t view themselves as disabled but simply as having additional needs. Let’s look, for example, at someone with epilepsy, which is a physical, life-long condition. The person with epilepsy would be protected by the Equality Act 2010 as having a disability, but a person with epilepsy may - or may not - view themselves as disabled.

Neurodivergencies, such as Dyslexia, can be classed as physical, life-long conditions. People with Dyslexia for example, are protected by the Equality Act 2010 as having a disability, however they may - or may not - view themselves as disabled. They may however have additional needs, for example Dyslexic people may benefit from being able to dictate their work using voice-to-text technology, or being matched with someone who can proofread their written work so they don’t need to read over it tens of times in order to check that it makes sense.

Even if a person doesn’t view themselves as disabled, they might still have additional needs in the workplace (for example screen adaptors, a safe working environment, rest areas). Others may not view themselves as disabled or as having additional needs, they may not even feel the need to disclose their neurodivergence, condition or disability to employers, nor do they have to.

Intellectual disability

Intellectual disability is defined by the World Health Organisation as a significantly reduced ability to understand new or complex information and to learn and apply new skills (impaired intelligence). This results in a reduced ability to cope independently (impaired social functioning), and begins before adulthood, with a lasting effect on development.

Intellectual disabilities can be genetic (for example Fragile X Syndrome and Down syndrome) or environmental (for example Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder).
Intellectual disabilities are distinct from learning disabilities; Dyspraxia and Dyslexia for example can be classified medically as Learning Disabilities (It’s important to note here that the World health Organisation uses medicalised language and many people who identify as Dyslexic or Dyspraxic may object to the term ‘disability’ being used to describe their characteristics).

Many people with intellectual disabilities can - and want to - work. Tesco for example is a high profile employer of people with intellectual disabilities.

Let’s think about our language regarding intellectual disabilities:

REFLECTION

Who is the judge of offensiveness?

Read the terms below and notice your reaction to them:

Idiot.
Moron.
Retard.
Mong.
Spaz.
Duh.
Cretin.

• Do you use any of these terms?

• Did you know that all of these terms were originally used to describe people with intellectual disabilities?

• Should non-disabled people pick and choose which are offensive terms - and which are not?

• What would be your action if you heard someone at your workplace using these terms?

• What would be your action if these terms were reported as being exclusionary at your workplace?

Tragedy, Pity and Condescension

At certain points, some people with disabilities or neurodivergences may go through a moment - or a period - of viewing the way they were born, what happened to them, or their diagnosis as ‘a tragedy’, unfair and/ or unjust. They may even feel like being pitied during this period. However all the people with disabilities and neurodivergences who collaborated to create this playbook, either always did - or got to a point - where they view their disabilities and neurodivergences as a huge and essential part of who they are, what they have achieved, and looking back, they wouldn’t change a single thing.

With this in mind, it’s easy to see why viewing or referring to somebody’s mental or physical condition, which they are perfectly content with, as ‘a tragedy’ can be offensive and is often viewed as ableism - i.e. perpetuating the belief that non disabled, neurotypical people are superior and anyone else is to be viewed with pity as ‘a tragic case’.

Consider the implications of offering - or conveying - pity towards someone who views their disability as having enriched their life and given them numerous opportunities to meet many different people, travel, help others, progress in their careers and live a certain way of life. It’s communicating to the individual that you feel sorry for them because they are ‘not like you’, which is the very definition of ableism.

Language for ‘the opposite’ of disabled and neurodivergent?

As always, ask the individual which terms they prefer as a general default, but in general it’s advisable to use “disabled people” and “non disabled people” when referring to disabled people and those who are not disabled.

This would be preferable to terms like “able people and disabled people” or “differently abled people and abled people” or “able bodied and disabled” and definitely never use “normal” in opposition to disabled. The reason we advise avoiding the above is that all of these plant “able” at the centre, whereas “disabled and non disabled” centres disabled people.

It’s generally accepted that people who are not neurodivergent are referred to as “neurotypical”.

In general we would advise avoiding using the terms ‘differently abled’ or ‘differently able’. To some disabled people these are acceptable terms, however they are becoming more and more outmoded - and can be viewed instead as patronising and condescending, especially to those who subscribe to the social model of disability.

REFLECTION

Redefining 'normal'

Reflect on what you personally think of as 'normal' in your workplace: making a coffee, finding your way around the building, using the toilet, speaking to your colleagues and customers over the phone, reading your messages, typing an email...

Now think about how you might do all of those 'normal' things with a disability. Now think of them with a different disability. The definition of 'normal' becomes vastly different.

Non disabled people have been socialised to believe that certain traits, characteristics and functions are "normal" - but think about what that assumption makes everything - and everyone - else outside that boundary.

Medicalisation and offence

Medical terms have caused friction with some people in the disabled and neurodivergent community for a long time. The medical model centres around what the medical profession considers ‘normal’, meaning that either directly or by implication, differences, divergences, disabilities and conditions are ‘abnormal’, ‘subnormal’, ‘defects’ or ‘illnesses’… all of which are understandably offensive when implied, or used to describe people.

It’s important to note that some disabled people do subscribe to the medical model of disability and, as with all differences, they must be allowed to lead in terms of how they prefer to describe themselves. However to people who don’t subscribe to the medical model, medicalising people’s disabilities or neurodivegences can be extremely offensive and viewed as ableist. For example, referring to somebody who strongly identifies with their Bipolar as having a ‘mental illness’, somebody who values their limb difference as having a ‘birth defect’ or ‘abnormality’, somebody’s disability which has enriched their lives as a ‘handicap’ or somebody’s intelligence as ‘subnormal’.

Cr*ppled is an extremely outdated medical term which is offensive and should absolutely never be used to describe a person, wheelchair user or otherwise.

Dwarves, people with dwarfism, people of small stature or little people (as the individual might prefer) are absolutely never to be referred to as ‘m*dgets’ which is an extremely offensive term. It’s advisable to eliminate this term from all of your language today (whether referring to people or not) and never look back.

It‘s important to note here that Dwarfism isn’t just about height, and other medical issues can arise due to dwarfism, however if there are no medical issues arising, dwarfism isn’t necessarily viewed as a disability. A little person may not identify as having a disability or be part of the disabled community.

REFLECTION

Consider James, a person with a disability, who is fruitfully employed, is an active participant in his community, has a loving family and is grateful for his disability as it’s brought much success and contentment to his life. James would not change any part of his disability for anything, and nor would his family, friends or community.

Now consider using each one of the terms below to describe James or his disability:
Suffers from -
Lives with a condition called -
Illness -
Defect -
Problem -
Confined to -
Normal -
Abnormal -

• How do you think each of these terms above might make a person like James feel?

• What do you think a person like James’s view of a person using some of these terms about him would be?

Next consider the following questions that people (including strangers and colleagues) might be tempted to ask a person like James:
(addressing the person James is with) What’s wrong with him?
What’s wrong with you?
What happened to you?
Can you still (e.g. have children) -
How do you (e.g. go to the toilet) -
Can I see your (e.g. limb difference) -
Can I touch your (e.g. limb difference) -
What does it feel like to (e.g. have sex, kiss) -

• Which of these do you think are appropriate questions to ask a stranger (disabled or non disabled)?

• Which would you yourself feel comfortable being asked by a stranger?

• Is simply staring at a person like James more appropriate than asking these questions?

Help and assistance

Often non disabled people might notice a disabled person and wonder whether there is anything they can do to help - especially in situations like travel where there is often luggage and logistical issues like lifts and escalators, stairs, steps, uneven surfaces, noise, ramps and crowds.

REFLECTION

Consider the array of disabilities and neurodiverity that exists, from blindness to wheelchair and mobility aid users, autistic people, people who are non verbal, and a vast spectrum in between. Concern for others’ welfare and offering assistance isn’t ever a bad thing - but language and behaviours around offers of help need to be inclusive and not ableist.

Compare the following sets of offers of assistance:

Are you alright with that?
Do you need any assistance?
Can I help at all?

Let me help
I’ll take this
Let me take this for you

• What do you notice about the two sets?

• Consider the two sets when coupled with non consensual touching of people or their property (e.g. taking hold of someone’s arm or suitcase or pushing a wheelchair without asking).

• Consider both sets again in lots of different circumstances (e.g a crowded platform and an empty airport, daytime and night time, an empty subway and a busy, well lit street, a lone woman being approached by a man).

Always feel that you can offer assistance but do just that - offer, rather than assume that they want help. Never touch another person or their property without their enthusiastic consent. If mobility help or guidance is required, always offer your arm instead of taking hold of somebody.
Above all, be prepared for your offer of help to be refused - and prepare to accept refusals graciously.