It’s Time To Stop Even Casually Misusing Disability Words

Content warning: This article mentions and discusses offensive words related to people with disabilities.

It’s not “oversensitive,” or too “new” of a concern for organizations and businesses to take a hard look at reforming ableist language. Ableism itself is not a new phenomenon, even if “ableism” is a new word to some of us. And avoiding offensive language throughout organizations isn’t just about preventing bad publicity. Curbing use of stigmatizing and problematic language makes workplaces safer for diversity, more productive for employees, and friendlier to customers and clients.

This should certainly include identifying and ending use of universally offensive disability slurs, like the word “retarded.” Few would seriously argue that it is okay for any organization to tolerate either intentionally insulting or casual use of this word, now widely referred to as “The R Word.” But the effort to reduce ableist language should also include rethinking more commonly-used and traditionally-accepted disability words and expressions that while not always offensive, tend to reinforce ableist thinking.

Start with abusive, corrosive slurs to avoid in all cases, effective yesterday.

• “Retarded,” “moron,” “idiot”

These words are peppered throughout some people’s everyday conversation, and have many different shades of contextual meaning. However, they are all terms that have historically been used to label people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. And while these and similar words were at one time considered technical or “scientific” labels, they have always also carried a heavy social stigma and power to inflict real harm. Most people with these disabilities have intensely painful experiences being called “retarded,” “moron,” or “idiot” in clearly insulting ways. The fact that a people still use such terms without intending to hurt disabled people doesn’t matter. They are harmful in all cases.

People with intellectual and developmental disabilities, particularly those actively involved in self-advocacy, are strikingly clear that they do not accept use of these terms, especially “retarded,” under any circumstances. That should be reason enough for any of us to banish these words from our vocabularies.

• “Cripple” or “invalid,” “crazy,” “insane,” or “mad.”

Other disabilities are widely stigmatized too, including physical and mobility impairments, and mental illness. When we use “cripple,” “invalid,” “crazy,” “insane,” or “stupid” to refer to a person, either face to face or indirectly, there is really no way to interpret it as neutral or socially acceptable, particularly in anything like a public or professional environment. So we should stop using them to refer to any person, no matter what we think of them.

True, there are exceptions where people with certain disabilities use derogatory terms among themselves – like a disabled person referring to themselves with irony or pride as a “cripple” or “crip,” and people with mental illness calling themselves “mad.” But even when we “reclaim” such terms for ourselves, we do so with a great deal of care and discretion. And this is not a privilege open to people outside our disability communities.

As a general rule, these are words that should never be applied to a person, certainly not in public and professional settings. Organizations can feel confident adopting a “zero tolerance” policy on these terms, with no need for elaborate nuance or justifications.

Next, rethink how we use more casual, everyday disability words.

• “Crippled,” “crazy,” “stupid,” “insane,” “blind,” “lame,” “deaf.”

But what about disability words that are used in more ordinary conversation when you’re not even talking about a person?

Until fairly recently, even disability advocates typically agreed to an informal deal. The general public would stop using a small handful of the most harmful disability slurs, while more causal disability adjectives and metaphors would be regarded as acceptable because of their long use and relative lack of personal offense.

That may have been a workable deal 25 years ago. Now is a good time to revisit that bargain. And this is where things become a little more complex and open to interpretation. It’s also where examining disability language provokes the most pushback.

Is it really offensive or harmful to call a damaged ship or a slumping economy “crippled?” Is it really a problem to call a chaotic situation “crazy,” a futile or badly designed routine as “stupid” or “insane?” What’s wrong with calling a questionable excuse “lame,” or an oblivious or obstinate person “deaf” to criticism?

The harm of terms and uses like this is indirect, but no less real. They all reinforce the idea that a good way to describe bad things is to compare them to disabilities, or to disabled people. They may not be personally offensive against any particular disabled person. But they contribute to ableism, which harms disabled people by validating discriminatory assumptions about disabled people. At the very least, we should rethink how we use these terms, including in situations where it may seem harmless.

Attempt at a general rule ...

Language is flexible and fluid by nature. But many people crave rules, and organizations seem to thrive on them. So here is a shot at a general rule for use of disability words and expressions:

• First, don’t use the small handful of terms that disabled people themselves consistently tell us are entirely off limits. Don’t argue the point or try to come up with logical inconsistencies. Just do as asked, because it’s the decent, respectful thing to do.

• Second, try not to use disability-related words to describe any person, thing, idea, or situation as in any way bad. Doing this reinforces the ableist habit of thinking that disabilities are always negative. This is harmful even if the specific use of these words isn’t directed at a person, or intended to offend or insult anyone.

Alternatives and cautions ...

All of this will inevitably raise the question – often expressed with some exasperation or resentment – “If we aren’t allowed to use these words anymore, what can we say?”

Two helpful resources by disability justice advocate Lydia Brown offer practical answers. In a 2012 blog post titled Ableism/Language, updated in June, 2020, Brown thoroughly explores the subject of ableist words and expressions, and offers a helpful list of alternatives for a wide variety of words and situations. A followup pos from 2014t, Violence in Language: Circling Back to Lingusitic Ableism,revisits the first essay, reflecting on its reception, use, and potential for misunderstanding and misuse.

In both articles, Brown emphasizes that the listed ableist terms and suggested alternatives should not be considered definitive, or grounds for denouncing people. This partially answers the most common objection to the entire conversation, which is that it is all just “language policing” designed to create grounds for “canceling” people we don’t like or disagree with, for common things that most people say everyday. But whether or not this is true for some who criticize use of ableist language, it is decidedly not true for Brown. And it doesn’t have to be part of good-faith efforts to reform how we use disability words and expressions.

Read more