For obvious reasons, I expect the general population to be uninformed on the purpose of "people first" language, but a recent internet discussion between some parents of children with Down syndrome made me realize just how many people familiar with those who have disabilities are also uneducated on the topic. People first language is simply making a point of putting the person first in your words, spoken or typed. Instead of saying "a Down's kid, Downies, those Down syndrome children," you say, "a child with Down syndrome or children who have Down syndrome." The point is to consider the person first, not the condition or label. It is not only a pointed effort to put the person first, it is a matter of respect that really requires very little effort. This is an issue embraced by many self advocates who publicly state over and over that they wish to be seen as people first, not a disability. The parents on the internet argued that this was just a long list in the effort to avoid using distasteful words, there is nothing wrong with using terms that are accurate. They said this was just another attempt at being "politically correct" and served no real benefit. They argued that you should look at the intent of the speaker, not the words. If the terms used were expressed without malice, they did no harm. They argued that their own children would not know the difference and it would not matter to their child so why bother. First, it appears that some of these parents do forget to take into account that Down syndrome is not the only disability in our world today. It may be our point of reference but we do need to be aware and sensitive to the needs of people who have disabilities other than Down syndrome. Second, there are words relating to Down syndrome that I would prefer no one use, no matter what the intent. Words like "Mongolian idiot" or "retard" may have been accurate or acceptable for use in the past but are not descriptions I want applied to my child today, regardless of the intent or ignorance of the speaker. As to debating whether our own children can tell when we should be using people first language, I think that we give them too little credit. My daughter educated us on the matter when she was about ten. A description of her used by all of us, always affectionately, was "little girl". One day her father called " little girl" down to dinner and she came to him, stood her full forty inches or so to his seventy five and told him "don't call me that!" "don't call you what?" he asked. "don't call me little girl". "Why not?" her dad asked. "Because I am not a little girl anymore," was her response. "What should we call you then? And she looked him straight in the eye and said "call me medium girl." Little is a proper term, little could be accurate when describing my daughter, others may argue, but to her, it was equated with immaturity, and therefore demeaning when applied to her. My daughter was advocating for her own self esteem. We honored her request and based on her upcoming birthday, she has told us the time has come to call her big girl, a request we will also honor. Regardless of whether my child can differentiate between the words, even if no person with a disability could tell the difference, my motivation for using people first language would be the same. It is a matter of respect that we should all honor.
|
|||
 |
2008 Buddy Walk
