# Why the Word "Handicapped" Should Be Eliminated From Our Vocabulary



## mark handler (May 25, 2014)

Why the Word "Handicapped" Should Be Eliminated From Our Vocabulary

Jill Layton

http://hellogiggles.com/word-handicapped-eliminated-vocabulary

When we hear the word “handicap,” most people think of a person with a disability. That’s what society has taught us to think. Parking spots that are designated for people with disabilities have always been referred to as “handicap parking spots.” Bathroom stalls that are designed for people who use wheelchairs, or need extra space, have been referred to as “handicap stalls.” So, it’s no surprise that the word “handicap” has been socially accepted for so long. When you think of the word “handicap,” what do you think of? I think of golf. Golfers are given a handicap that is based on their potential playing ability. Handicaps allow players at different levels to play against each other on somewhat equal terms. Most of us don’t think of golf, however.

Disabilities can affect anyone at anytime. There are countless ways to become disabled. It can happen to you, your friends and any of your family members, at any age. It can be a fluke accident, a botched surgery, an illness, etc.. No one is immune. So, why do we segregate an entire group of people (a group that any of us can be members of at any time) by titling them “handicapped?” Would you want to be given that title if you had a disability? Or would you want to do your best to not allow your disability to restrict you from doing the things you want to do, and in return, to not constantly be told you are unequal?

The ADA (American Disability Act) has already enacted the use of the word “disability” in replacement of “handicap,” so it’s time the rest of us follow suit. It will take a conscious effort, but the change is necessary. In addition to removing “handicap” from our vocabulary, here are a few more common terms that have negative connotations and should be avoided:

Disabled person

Referring to someone as a “disabled person” is dehumanizing. It refers to the disability as a characteristic of the person’s identity. If you have to say it at all, say “person with a disability.” Person-first terminology implies that the person’s disability is a part of them, but doesn’t define them. We are all people first. Being rich doesn’t define us, neither does being poor, college educated, a high school dropout, overweight or thin. Same with our ethnicity and religion. We are all human, and that defines our very existence. Most people prefer to go by their name, anyway.

Impaired

Just because someone might not be able to see you well, or at all, doesn’t mean they can’t hear you call them visually impaired. The same goes for someone who is Deaf. The word “impaired” emphasizes what someone can’t do instead of what they can. No need to use fancy words to dance around what may or may not be politically correct. Stick with Blind and Deaf, but remember to use person-first terminology.

Midget

According to the LPA (Little People of America), many people of short stature consider the word “midget” to be a slur. “Dwarf” has had negative connotations in the past as well, but has recently been okayed by the LPA. Other proper language to use is “little person” or “person of short stature.” Or again, saying the person’s name usually works too.

Retarded

It’s not surprising that this word is offensive. It is too often used as a slang word to describe something that is stupid or idiotic, and it makes sense that no human would want to be referred to as stupid. The term “mental retardation” is finally being eliminated from the international classifications of diseases and disorders. Which means, it should no longer be socially acceptable (was it ever?) to use the word. Ever. If you need to describe someone’s cognitive disability, it’s best to say “person with an intellectual disability.”

Victim

Calling someone a victim of a certain ailment is considered demeaning. It’s disempowering to feel like a victim of anything. There is nothing positive about the word “victim,” but there are endless positive things about people who happen to have a disability.

Wheelchair Bound

Let’s say you get into a terrible accident and you’ve lost your ability to walk. How would you get around? A wheelchair, probably, because without a wheelchair, you would be bound to your home. You couldn’t go anywhere unless someone carried you. And that’s not fun or safe for anyone involved. Wheelchairs are legs for those people whose legs don’t work. They are enabling and allow people to have independence and freedom. They increase accessibility and allow for opportunity. That’s the opposite of binding.

While all of these words are universally unaccepted in the disability community, different people prefer different terminology. If you aren’t sure what words to use – ask. The chances of you offending someone by asking are a lot smaller than if you don’t. Every person is unique. Ultimately, if you don’t want to offend someone, just say the person’s name. And throw in a smile, because why not?


----------



## conarb (May 25, 2014)

Mark:

Why is political correctness a building code issue, why is a teenage girl on "Hello Giggles" a cite-able authority?  Are you proposing that building inspectors enforce political correctness, or worse "sensitivity"?  Our first Amendment freedom of speech purportedly allows us to say anything we want, short of Mr. Justice Holmes' "shouting fire in a crowded theater", if our totalitarian state is going to abrogate our freedoms of speech and association I guess we should eliminate our First Amendment freedom of religion too?


----------



## mark handler (May 26, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Mark:Why is political correctness a building code issue, why is a teenage girl on "Hello Giggles" a cite-able authority?  Are you proposing that building inspectors enforce political correctness, or worse "sensitivity"?  Our first Amendment freedom of speech purportedly allows us to say anything we want, short of Mr. Justice Holmes' "shouting fire in a crowded theater", if our totalitarian state is going to abrogate our freedoms of speech and association I guess we should eliminate our First Amendment freedom of religion too?


Already done, state and feds have eliminated it from codes. It is uneducated that still used the "h" word and the "N" word.

Many are still living in the past.


----------



## Mark K (May 26, 2014)

Isn't it just as inappropriate to brand the majority of the population as uneducated just because they do not know a fact.


----------



## mark handler (May 26, 2014)

Oh, we won't give in, let's go living in the past....JETHRO TULL

Many are still living in the past, all changes are an intrusion on my rights and are bad....


----------



## conarb (May 26, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Already done, state and feds have eliminated it from codes. It is uneducated that still used the "h" word and the "N" word. Many are still living in the past.


This is nothing but rampant political correctness, and there is nothing worse than political correctness, it is the mark of the "uneducated" (or those educated in our state indoctrination centers), Peter Theil himself gay thinks that gays should be given no special privileges, he's brilliant and has made fortunes at a young age (criticizing Stanford for multiculturalism and political correctness along the way):



			
				Peter Thiel discussing Leo Strauss said:
			
		

> The problem of political  correctness is a much deeper and more pervasive problem than is  generally believed in the optimistic liberal understanding of the world.  Properly understood, the problem of political correctness is our  greatest problem. ¹


As far as uneducated our University of California is turning out the most indoctrinated graduates in history, myself and many others would not retain a physician, attorney, or any other professional educated there:



			
				SF Gate said:
			
		

> Political activism has drawn the University of California  into an academic death spiral. Too many professors believe their job is  to "advance social justice" rather than teach the subject they were  hired to teach. Groupthink has replaced lively debate. Institutions that  were designed to stir intellectual curiosity aren't challenging young  minds. They're churning out "ignorance." So argues a new report, "A  Crisis of Competence: The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the  University of California," from the conservative California Association of Scholars.²


¹ http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257610/chat-peter-thiel-matthew-shaffer

² http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/saunders/article/University-echo-chamber-drowns-out-diverse-voices-3448206.php


----------



## mark handler (May 26, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> ... those educated in our state indoctrination centers).... University of California is turning out the most indoctrinated graduates in history....


I see, our children are being trained how to serve the Big Brother police state where control freaks run their entire lives.

RFID chips are now being used to monitor the movements of our children

George Orwell


----------



## MASSDRIVER (May 26, 2014)

This is how it works for the small minded. "Handicapped" is descriptive. That is very different from the "N" word, which is a slur. An intelligent person knows the difference.

So at some point the handicapped don't want to be called handicapped, or more accurately, do-gooder bureaucrats see another way to insert themselves into someones life and be more important than they are.

Here is the funny part; The Handicapped require, and sue, to have special dispensation and architecture to meet there needs, but don't want to be identified as needing those special things.

So now we can expect to see a new round of spending based on the politically correct nomenclature regulations sure to come down the pike.

And it wont stop. At some point "disabled" will be considered uncompassionate, then maybe "limited", and who knows what else. What will the little blue placards and handicapped parking signs say?

"Special parking limited to everyday, ordinary people with no limitations that are just like everybody else, but they get this parking spot because they use a wheelchair, or maybe just have a 400 pound a55 they have to lug around, but they are no different that you or me. After all, some of them are just lazy and ran out of unemployment last year, and have erectile disfunction and qualify for the *blue placard for normal people with no special needs* placard."

What a joke.

Brent


----------



## Paul Sweet (May 27, 2014)

The dictionary definition of handicap is:

1.  a race or contest in which an artificial advantage is given or disadvantage imposed on a contestant to equalize chances of winning

2.  an advantage given or disadvantage imposed usually in the form of points, strokes, weight to be carried, or distance from the target or goal

3.  a disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult, especially a physical disability

The statement that it stems from disabled beggars with their cap-in-hand is nonsense.

http://www.snopes.com/language/offense/handicap.asp

It is one thing to be asked to avoid a term that offends many, but inventing spurious reasons to make a word offensive is going to far.


----------



## ADAguy (May 28, 2014)

It all comes down to "awareness" how aware do you chose to be? Unseen disabilities are often ignored and yet the disabled person has a "need" for an accommodation. Without mandates would those accommodations be made? Maybe some of you responders are not yet "old enough" to appreciate the benefits that the ADA provides to us in our built environments. Had we not "started" to make our environment more accessible, we would be even farther behind then we are.

Consider it like infrastructure, it doesn't last forever. Once in place most access improvements last with minimum maintenance, for a long time.


----------



## conarb (May 28, 2014)

ADAGuy said:
			
		

> Maybe some of you responders are not yet "old enough" to appreciate the  benefits that the ADA provides to us in our built environments.


I think I'm old enough, I have friends my age who are wheelchair-bound who say most of it is worthless and not worth the flack they get from all the newspaper articles about the lawsuits.  I am going through it now, my wife turned 80 last month and is using a walker, when I take her to the doctor I don't even use the sidewalk ramps with all the bumps anymore, it's easier to take her to a curb, step up onto the sidewalk and pull the rear wheels of the walker up over the curb.  They recently rebuilt a park across the street, the day before the opening of the "All Abilities Park" the city took a bus load of senior citizens to the park and as I drove by I saw the city employees helping the seniors navigate the bumps in the yellow matts with their walkers.

Much is made of the damages suffered by private business owners forced to comply with absurd requirements, but my understanding is that many trillions of dollars have been spent by government agencies complying, to my knowledge nobody has ever attempted to document the actual costs of compliance.  In many cases government agencies successfully get new and remodeled buildings by using ADA as an excuse to pay for what they really want, city buildings, stadiums etc.  An example is the editorial in today's paper, Kensington has a bond issue on the ballot to remodel their Community Center, they claim they need to remodel the building to comply with accessibility, safety, and health requirements, these are costs that the public would never approve absent the mandates.



			
				Contra Costa Times said:
			
		

> Kensington Measure L on the  June 3 ballot seeks authority to borrow up to $2 million to renovate and  upgrade the community center.
> 
> While we tepidly endorse  Measure L, we are mindful that backers and ballot materials misrepresent  the project's purpose. There is a much less expensive option, with few  or no new taxes, to meet the stated goal of meeting safety,  accessibility and health codes.¹


Seismic and Accessibility requirements are the excuse to tax the public with the threat of having to shut the facilities down.  In the early 80s I was asked by the City of Piedmont's building inspector to serve on a committee to issue a report to convince the voters to pass a bond issue to build a new city hall or remodel the existing one, they asked six well-known residents, two builders, two architects, and two engineers to come up with a report replete with costs.  We were told they had to do something to comply with seismic and accessibility mandates, it was our job to issue a report to convince the voters to approve a bond measure., the voters did approve the most inexpensive option of three proposed.

Life is not fair, I'll never forget sitting in a tiered classroom the day of a constitutional law midterm, the professor walked through the seating tiers passing out the exam, students who had received the exam were gasping, there was one question on the exam and that question had nothing to do with anything that we were taught or studied.  He finally asked: "What's wrong?"  A girl said: "This isn't fair", he responded: "This is to teach you that the law isn't fair, the law isn't fair because life isn't fair, now think about it and write me a good exam explaining the constitutional issues."

All ADA is doing is lining the pockets of those exploiting it and the handicapped, including the government agencies using it to get more taxes out of the population, mostly to fund their enormous obligations to their civil servants and continue to build their "empires". Attempting to regulate speech in an Orwellian world is abominable.

¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/my-town/ci_25818160/contra-costa-times-editorial-tepid-support-kensington-bond


----------



## MASSDRIVER (May 28, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> It all comes down to "awareness" how aware do you chose to be? Unseen disabilities are often ignored and yet the disabled person has a "need" for an accommodation. Without mandates would those accommodations be made? Maybe some of you responders are not yet "old enough" to appreciate the benefits that the ADA provides to us in our built environments. Had we not "started" to make our environment more accessible, we would be even farther behind then we are. Consider it like infrastructure, it doesn't last forever. Once in place most access improvements last with minimum maintenance, for a long time.


That has nothing to do with politically correct nomenclature.

But in the spirit of discussion, the more invisible the handicap, the less likely it is needed. Some things can be considered a matter of convenience than need.

Brent.


----------



## conarb (May 28, 2014)

Handicap spaces have been so successful that *South Korea is patronizing women* with wider longer parking spaces, I guess because women are not considered to be as good at driving as males.  Why are these worldwide agenda?  Because they are part of the United Nations agenda.


----------



## ADAguy (May 28, 2014)

Wow! if invisible its not needed! What kind of a statement is that to make?

I have shortness of breath due to an arrythmia, I benefit from ramps and elevators vs stairs. Many people with pacemakers require closer parking, shall I go on?


----------



## conarb (May 28, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Wow! if invisible its not needed! What kind of a statement is that to make?I have shortness of breath due to an arrythmia, I benefit from ramps and elevators vs stairs. Many people with pacemakers require closer parking, shall I go on?


Why should the rest of us pay for your inadequacies or problems?


----------



## mark handler (May 28, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Why should the rest of us pay for your inadequacies or problems?


Do you think the disabled don't also pay for access?

Why should I pay taxes just so you have a road to drive on, Sidewalk to walk on?

Why can't new construction meet the accessibility requirements?

All of which has nothing to do with the original posting of using "perceived" derogatory words. Many in the disabled community feel the term is derogatory.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (May 28, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> Wow! if invisible its not needed! What kind of a statement is that to make?I have shortness of breath due to an arrythmia, I benefit from ramps and elevators vs stairs. Many people with pacemakers require closer parking, shall I go on?


My wife has arrhythmia, and she runs marathons and has endurance races on horses. She also has a mild scoliosis, But holds several weightlifting records in college. I battle shortness of breath due to a couple bouts of pneumonia, but I labor physically every day. Maybe a few stairs would help you out.

I would benefit, much like you, with a few closer parking spaces at large box stores and malls so I would not have to haul crap so far. I understand the HANDICAPPED need larger spaces for access and mobility, But proximity is a false issue 90% of the time. Those spaces could be in the middle of the parking lot. The argument does not hold when applied to large areas, especially shopping.

And as usual, there is a lack of reading comprehension. I said "less likely", not "not".

Brent


----------



## MASSDRIVER (May 29, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Do you think the disabled don't also pay for access?Why should I pay taxes just so you have a road to drive on, Sidewalk to walk on?
> 
> Why can't new construction meet the accessibility requirements?
> 
> All of which has nothing to do with the original posting of using "perceived" derogatory words. Many in the disabled community feel the term is derogatory.


And at some point "disabled" will become unsatisfactory. After all, there are two negative connotations, "dis", and the the notion they are not abled.

Sometimes you just have to tell people NO. The bureaucracy could easily issue a statement; "We have officially determined that the word 'handicapped' is not derogatory, and will issue no changes."

But that would take balls.

Brent


----------



## steveray (May 29, 2014)

Well played Sir!



			
				mark handler said:
			
		

> Do you think the disabled don't also pay for access?Why should I pay taxes just so you have a road to drive on, Sidewalk to walk on?
> 
> Why can't new construction meet the accessibility requirements?
> 
> All of which has nothing to do with the original posting of using "perceived" derogatory words. Many in the disabled community feel the term is derogatory.


----------



## conarb (May 29, 2014)

Back to the original post:



			
				Mark said:
			
		

> All of which has nothing to do with the original posting of using  "perceived" derogatory words. Many in the disabled community feel the  term is derogatory


What about our First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association?  If we are going to limit those First Amendment rights we should limit the First Amendment right of freedom of religion as well.   This whole civil rights thing is unconstitutional and was only allowed for a time as redress for past grievances suffered by those of African descent. We may get some constitutional direction on this, *Obama has proposed* a separate race-based legal system for native Hawaiians, if this does go through maybe the Supreme Court will address separate preferential rights for select groups.

On Memorial Day I took my family up to the cemetery, I stopped in a shopping center to buy flowers, the front of the center was lined with handicap spaces with only one occupied, I had to park some distance away and we had to walk slowly with the wife and her walker (who wanted to come in with us) to the florist shop because I'm too proud to hang a handicap placard on my car.


----------



## ADAguy (May 29, 2014)

And you would have said "no" to people of color or who speak a different language too?

ACLU is watching (smiling)


----------



## conarb (May 29, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> And you would have said "no" to people of color or who speak a different language too?ACLU is watching (smiling)


The ACLU would take the side of free speech, in the famous *National Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie* the ACLU took the side of free speech and the right of the Socialists to march when they knowingly selected Skokie Illinois, a village with a high percentage of Jews including Holocaust survivors.   As a result the ACLU suffered a large decline in membership since a lot of their members were/are Jewish.


----------



## ICE (May 29, 2014)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Why can't new construction meet the accessibility requirements?


Well for starters, few people understand accessibility requirements.

I recently inspected a new store for a grocery chain.  They were missing the obligatory wheelchair icon sign at the front doors.

They had never heard of those before which made me wonder if I was wrong.  I haven't screwed the pooch in a while so I figure that I'm about due.

The only readily available sign that they could find had the chair and the word "exit".  So the entrance said exit.  Sure as Hell, that would be worth thousands to some insulted person in a wheelchair.

I was asked what size the sign must be.  Like I would know.  I said Shirley check the plans.  Nothing was found.  I said check the Walgreen's down the street.

The store chain has their own ADA inspection team.  The only correction the ADA squad delivered was a drinking fountain that had to be moved sideways three inches.  I remember thinking, "Ain't this a bitch.  A team is employed to double check the ADA and the rest is left to me.  A 1000 amp electrical service is as good as the contractor and inspector turn out but the drinking fountain gets a diploma.


----------



## conarb (May 29, 2014)

Mark said:
			
		

> Why can't new construction meet the accessibility requirements?


That would be an acceptable solution, existing business wouldn't be harmed and cities and other government agencies couldn't invoke ADA to obtain new facilities. For instance, it would not be reason to tax us to build a new city hall, but if the tax payers agreed to a new city hall then it could be required to comply with ADA.


----------



## mark handler (May 29, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> Well for starters, few people understand acessibility .


And that is why I continue to talk of education


----------



## MASSDRIVER (May 29, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> Well for starters, few people understand accessibility requirements..


Marks quote: "Well for starters, few people understand accessibility."

What a huge difference.

Actually, I would think the vast majority of people can understand accessibility. It's the "requirements" part that many have a hard time understanding. The education of accessibility could be relatively simple under normal conditions, but as with everything else regulatory, it undergoes an exponential rate of growth and complexity. There is no way to be thoroughly educated about it without devoting an inordinate amount of time to the subject, or paying someone to guide or educate you, which I think is the actual goal.

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER (May 29, 2014)

ADAguy said:
			
		

> And you would have said "no" to people of color or who speak a different language too?ACLU is watching (smiling)


What are you telling them "no" to? What is your correlation? As I said, there is a difference in description and slur. And how does that have anything to do with people speaking different languages?

The HANDICAPPED are being described, not berated. There are some slurs, but I will not repeat them.

Brent.


----------



## Msradell (May 29, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> On Memorial Day I took my family up to the cemetery, I stopped in a shopping center to buy flowers, the front of the center was lined with handicap spaces with only one occupied, I had to park some distance away and we had to walk slowly with the wife and her walker (who wanted to come in with us) to the florist shop because I'm too proud to hang a handicap placard on my car.


Sounds like she should of been hitting you with the Walker for being too hardheaded to hang the placard!


----------



## Fort (May 29, 2014)

ICE said:
			
		

> Well for starters, few people understand accessibility requirements.I recently inspected a new store for a grocery chain.  They were missing the obligatory wheelchair icon sign at the front doors.
> 
> They had never heard of those before which made me wonder if I was wrong.


Yep, you were wrong.

The ISA is no longer req'd at every entry door in all cases. See 11B-216.6. It is now only required if not all entrances are accessible. If the building has one door that is not accessible, then all doors would need signage, either with ISA, or if not accessible, with directional signage to nearest accessible entry. Since all doors on new construction are required to be accessible, we should not be requiring ISA signs on entry doors for new buildings. Of course remodels and additions will often continue to require them.

I would be grateful if someone reads 11B-216.6 differently to please let us know.


----------



## tmurray (May 29, 2014)

conarb said:
			
		

> Back to the original post:What about our First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of association?  If we are going to limit those First Amendment rights we should limit the First Amendment right of freedom of religion as well.   This whole civil rights thing is unconstitutional and was only allowed for a time as redress for past grievances suffered by those of African descent. We may get some constitutional direction on this, *Obama has proposed* a separate race-based legal system for native Hawaiians, if this does go through maybe the Supreme Court will address separate preferential rights for select groups.
> 
> On Memorial Day I took my family up to the cemetery, I stopped in a shopping center to buy flowers, the front of the center was lined with handicap spaces with only one occupied, I had to park some distance away and we had to walk slowly with the wife and her walker (who wanted to come in with us) to the florist shop because I'm too proud to hang a handicap placard on my car.


I don't think anyone is proposing to criminalize saying derogatory terms, just advising that many feel discriminated against when these terms are used. Ultimately changing my vocabulary costs nothing, so I am fine with it.

If the barrier free spaces had not been there others would have been parked there and you would have likely been walking the same distance. Similar situations where a family member has forced a mobility impaired person to walk long distances out of "principle" were convicted of abuse in Canada.


----------



## ADAguy (May 29, 2014)

Use of derogatory terms has been around since the dawn of time but the scars often created can last forever.

Awarness of this and the terms that them is logical to some and illogical to others, then again we are all "wired" differently so the current flowing through our bodies and "minds" doesn't always make connections seen as acceptable by some and unacceptable by others.

Laws are made to establish controls of the majority but there will always be a minority who take offense to this perceived imposition of controls.

By our "free will" we will rise or perish, each of us individually and/or as a society.


----------

