Read on Twitter
I& #39;m eating lunch at three in the afternoon because time is fake so I want to talk for a sec about ableist language and a personal shift in my perspective in how I talk and think about other people.
I think I was in college the first time I encountered the notion that the words "dumb" and "stupid" were ableist and best avoided. Like most folks, my first reaction was, "but we need words to describe a lack of intelligence!"
My second reaction was, "do we, though?"
My second reaction was, "do we, though?"
Because intelligence, as a concept, is...kinda fake.
I found that notion threatening when my identity was extremely tied up in Being Very Smart, because if intelligence is fake then I had nothing going for me.
But our definitions of intelligence are socially constructed.
I found that notion threatening when my identity was extremely tied up in Being Very Smart, because if intelligence is fake then I had nothing going for me.
But our definitions of intelligence are socially constructed.
And my "need" to be able to label people& #39;s intelligence--to be able to mark people as not as smart as me--had a lot more to do with my own issues around how I viewed myself and my worth than it had to do with other people.
I& #39;m not going to assert that I had this epiphany and have never called anyone unintelligent ever again. But when I started thinking about how I use that language, I discovered that there is almost always a more specific description that doesn& #39;t pin behavior to innate qualities.
When we call people names that mean unintelligent or mentally ill, we usually mean they& #39;re being cruel, careless, ignorant, hateful, or reckless.
All of those are words that describe someone& #39;s behavior without buying into the notion that behavior implies innate inferiority.
All of those are words that describe someone& #39;s behavior without buying into the notion that behavior implies innate inferiority.
A lot of folks react to discussions around this language with "don& #39;t be so sensitive" and with "I/someone I know is mentally ill/neurodiverse and I/they am not offended."
But this shift in thinking isn& #39;t even about whether or not we& #39;re offending individual people. Not really.
But this shift in thinking isn& #39;t even about whether or not we& #39;re offending individual people. Not really.
Yes, we should be kind to people and choose language that hasn& #39;t been used to dehumanize marginalized people where we can.
But choosing language that refers to behavior rather than innate qualities has broader implications for what we& #39;re saying about people and the world.
But choosing language that refers to behavior rather than innate qualities has broader implications for what we& #39;re saying about people and the world.
Choosing to address how people behave instead of who they are is both kinder to other people who may share their innate qualities, and also expects more of people who are choosing to behave badly.
Because it almost always is a choice that we& #39;re criticizing, and a worldview that ascribes choices to innate qualities is saying that people cannot make better choices.
This in turn is used to absolve some people of responsibility while dehumanizing and criminalizing others.
This in turn is used to absolve some people of responsibility while dehumanizing and criminalizing others.
So it& #39;s not just that we& #39;re being inconsiderate towards disabled people. We also constantly see this worldview used to absolve the powerful-- "men can& #39;t help it" about mistreating women and "mental illness" coming up when and only when a violent person is white.
And of course we see the opposite, in ascribing innate qualities to marginalized people in ways too numerous to name. I& #39;m not going to repeat those. It all ties back to the notion of innate qualities that can be measured, ranked, and judged.
