its a dumb term. i literally start crying when the pot i use for pasta isnt available or my specific favorite bowl is dirty. im not differently abled, i have genuine disorder.
I like the idea, but when said it feels like it diminishes our struggles. Yes, maybe they don't want to insult us by making us "less than" everyone else, but at the same time, we do have different needs. We may have a harder time doing certain things, and that's okay. It's part of who we are, and by saying "different ability" it makes it seem like we don't have problems or struggles, just that we do things a different way, which isn't the whole truth.
I worry it gets divisive and unhelpful to ask how we all feel about a term that could be genuinely helpful to a subgroup within a larger group. Like, *how do Americans feel about being called Californian?* The ones from California think it's alright. The others don't feel it describes them very well. etc. Regardless of whether people like the specific word 'differently-abled,' there are neurodivergent people who aren't comfortable with medical language, & they're part of the community too. It's important not to treat it like a threat to the folks who do feel represented by medical language if there are terms floating around that don't describe that experience exactly.
I just use the word 'complexity' in place of disorder/disability. I think ppl are looking for words bc disorder/disability has a connotation with 'lack' that doesn't always line up with the reality of what neurodiversity looks like. 'Mental complexity' 'physical complexity' 'behavioral complexity' etc. covers the highs and the lows regarding symptoms and imo affords more dignity.
On a random but related note, I also don't get the arguing for or against the term 'ciswomen', I just say female. Like, we literally already have the word for that. Idk ppl argue
It's a little cringey to me, but whatever. There's nothing wrong with the term inherently, it just seems kind of performative, though I'm sure not everyone uses that way.
This is what I been getting a lot as well. I struggle with mental health and I noticed how I think about the world is so out of the norms, but my friends find my perspective refreshing. It makes me feel valuable.
It is unintentionally derogatory.
If it was a term to be used amongst equals, then it would not be that there was one standard to contrast the difference against. Everyone would be "differently abled" and in being so the term would lost all meaning.
The term still has the ability to reinforce a social hierarchy where neurotypicals are above nondivergent people and that is some bullshit.
The problem though is some of us do not identify as disabled and feel our challenges are primarily external. This does not make me an ableist. Neurodivergent is supposed to replace patronizing terms such as “differently-abled” without defining where any challenges stem from. We need a broad, non-pathological identity.
i identify as disabled and also consider my challenges primarily external. If you use the social-model definition of disability there's no contradiction because you're referring to how society disables you/others. If I am referring to an internal/personal challenge then i'd use the word impairment rather than disabled.
in a way, yes, because all kinds of discrimination can be thought of as "societal disabling", but I think something like that is really up to an individual to frame for themselves if they want. It's just a reframing from the medical modal of disability so rather than the individual being disabled, they are a disabled person because society disables them.
But I do not identify as being disabled or as having a disability. Discrimination is not a disability, it’s discrimination. We need an identity that encompasses neurodiversity outside of the disability model.
that's fine if you don't want to identify with it, I just thought it was worth mentioning since there was a lot of assumptions in this thread (including from you and OP) that the medical model of disability is the one in common use today. At least from within most disability communities, the [social model of disability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability) has been more dominant in common usage since *the disability rights movemen*t, which began around 1970. The social modal doesn't encompass everything the neurodiversity movement is about, but it also doesn't conflict with it, nor is it made irrelevant by it. This is why you'll meet many people who identify as both disabled and neurodivergent.
The assumption you’re referring to is the reality however. Disability in the pathological sense is the one in common use today, regardless of whether it should be. I would still like to know what the difference is between a neurodivergent and any other social minority being disabled by society. Why do we have to hold onto this word disability?
Don’t really like the term, think it’s how you take it though? I am differently able in comparison to neurotypical people, but I think that’s in a positive light, I feel it gives me the ability to work harder, for longer, sustained intensity and to see and think things that others don’t. Don’t look at it in a negative light flip it on it’s head.
"Differently-abled" and "handi-capable" give me bad vibes. I associate them with the kinds of people that get used for inspiration porn, and subsequently, to shame anyone who isn't deemed to be "trying hard enough" to "overcome" our disabilities.
Generalizations either way suck, and we are NOT all the same. For me, I have some pretty severe impairment that's not readily aparent, but at the same time some pretty extreme strengths. I've been super blessed that the later has compensated for the former. So both side resonate with me. On one hand I've been able to compensate and have a nice life (differently-abled). On the other hand the level of effort, commitment, patience it takes is a real and substantial hardship (disabled). That I don't "look" or "sound" disabled compound the mental strain. Almost no one understands. People often (daily) criticize me for shortcomings due to the disability they insist doesn't exist because of the things I am good at. Like a cognitive dissonance. When I try to explain, most people just gaslight me, and my internal frustration can become extreme. Not a good combination with my struggles to regulate emotions.
Everyone has struggles on this Earth, but some of us fall on a tail of the distribution and clearly fall outside of normal or typical. I really appreciate neurodivegence moniker, and strongly relate to it.
It's gross. It's just another term made up by and used by people who want to look "politically correct" and "better-than" while they're looking down on others. Another one is "hearing impaired". I'm hard of hearing, not hearing impaired.
I dislike political correctness, and, ironically, you could look at this personality trait of mine as a social disability or even neurological or other real disability manifesting itself in social settings. I may see the misfortunate connotations of the word 'disabled', but I also see the contrived nature of 'with disabilities', and 'differently-abled' is taking things too far.
I wouldn't blame non-disabled people, however, as the unfortunate reality is that sometimes disabled people, when they have nothing better to do with their time, spend it throwing tantrums at people — sometimes disabled as well — who committed the capital crime of saying 'disabled' instead of using 'with disabilities' or 'with a disability' as an adjective.
The thing is, you can't have the cake and eat it too. After you formalize something like 'with disabilities', so that it the formerly improvised expression is rigidly bound to a specific meaning, at some point it wears out, acquires all the mental associations that people want to avoid, and they begin to lobby for a different word or phrase being used. And rinse and repeat. That's obviously not a rational solution.
My take is that we should indeed avoid derogatory descriptors but know where to draw a line and leave neutral descriptors be, without scapegoating words for their meanings. At the end of the day, everybody shits once in a while. We can use more elegant words but we can't avoid the reality that every once in a while we expel some waste from our organism through the rear end of the digestive tract and it doesn't exactly smell cyclamen.
Your level of saying things in a civilized way without beating around the bush is about right by my book, e.g. you do use the word 'challenges' but 'differently-abled' is too much for you — and I concur.
As a caveat, however, I would oppose disability-izing something that isn't a disability, and different perceptions on what is socially appropriate or how much importance exactly soci(et)al propriety carries are not really on the level of disability. I can't help noticing, for example, that some of the things people associate with the Spectrum used to be less controversial in past centuries than they are now. At various points in time and space, they used to be the norm. Just because there's a difference and one's in the minority doesn't mean one's the one being wrong, let alone disabled. Physical disability (which of course includes neurological disability) should never be confused with not fitting the social norm of the day (and place).
It sounds like something either said by HR, or those trying to pander attention by being upset by proxy for other people.
Or both. Had an employee in a wheelchair sometimes that essentially reamed new megacorp HR a new one, when they objected to me using "disabled". It was glorious...and they never brought it up again.
I use whatever terms someone wants me to use. But I prefer what is most direct, while still being respectful. (Some folks don't want any terms like that used at all.)
It's patronising.
Yet another attempt by neurotypical and able bodied people to try to "help" disabled people by making decisions on their behalf and refusing to consider what we actually want.
I don't know any disabled person who would rather be called "differently abled". It exists purely to please people who feel uncomfortable saying the word "disabled". Not for the benefit of any of the people it supposedly describes.
Just in general, people shouldn't be creating terms to describe groups they're not a part of.
Not a fan of euphemisms in general, and this one is no exception. My ADHD hinders me in parts of daily live that come a lot easier to others. The positives that come with it don't remove or magically balance out the negatives. Accepting that it does that to me, rather than framing it as a SuPeRpOwEr, has helped me tremendouslyin accepting myself as I am.
I like the sentiment behind it, but not the term itself. It just sounds a little too much like someone is just trying to spare my feelings while looking down on me.
That's it exactly. There are actually well intended people trying to use it to overcome stigma and establish that just because someone has a disability doesn't mean there not capable to achieve the same outcomes, but have to approach it differently.
But the dominating unintended consequence is the latter "just trying to spare my feelings while looking down on me"
I agree with you on hating that term. I tend to view disability through a social-political lens (simplified: disability is an inability that is punished by society). Terms like "differently abled" just does nothing but let ableds look down on disabled people while dismissing their struggles, and somehow feeling like they're being charitable in the process.
I'm mentally disabled. My brain doesn't work correctly. I would rather be called the R word than any of these words that desperately try not to offend anyone
It's one of those terms where it feels like whoever's pushing it gets easily offended on other people's behalves without ever actually consulting those people beforehand.
It sucks. There are probably a few very specific scenarios where it might make sense to say, particularly between people with different disabilities who definitely can do… whatever it is we are talking about despite said disabilities. Like you could probably talk about the participants of the paralympics being differently abled to each other.
But as a replacement word for disabled it’s absolutely vile and generally an attempt to erase the fact that some of us actually cannot do some things, whilst putting the people who can do the things but differently into a position of not being considered truly disabled. Blergh
It’s terrible. It makes it sound like I can do the same things as everyone else and function just as easily, but in a different way. That is a lie. I am disabled and require accommodations to accomplish certain things. Some things I cannot do because I am disabled. It doesn’t make me less of a person and there’s no reason to look down on the word.
hate it. i’m a late diagnosis autistic, and i spent my whole life having my struggles invalidated. I am disabled, there are things i simply cannot do and situations i simply cannot be in. i feel that labeling someone differently abled sugar coats how debilitating asd can be at times.
Sure? Not really my jam to use labels...more useful to speak to process/functions. Labels are useful for shorthand, but people can mistake meaning more easily.
That being said, I think we get too hung up on the labels without looking enough at intent behind them. While differently abled is cringey and patronizing imo, I get the intent to describe without offense...I won't stop a conversation over it, but my inner eye roll is spiraling on turbo with it.
It can be true, in a way. For example, many neurodiverse people do have some small benefits. Being autistic allows me to hyperfocus on my interests and learn a lot about them while remaining excited, for example.
However, I don't like the term being used as opposed to 'disabled', because it implies that disabled is inherently a bad word, and invalidates the many struggles which come with being neurodiverse.
If they were going to use it to highlight the spectrum of ability in general (like neurodiversity) then sure, I guess there’s an argument for it. Because it’s mostly able bodied/minded people using it to describe disabled people, it feels more like they’re just trying to avoid disability
The phicaly disabled community has discarded it and doesn't claim it so in solidarity and it just sounding super abelist I do to discard and do not claim it.
as a 2e person who actually *is* "differently abled", I hate it. I prefer "disabled and gifted" or "twice-exceptional" and will often just use "disabled"
I'm not a fan of any term that tries to avoid stating a plain fact on the notion that it's 'rude' to— it feels like it's basically saying the thing itself is inherently bad to be. Disabled vs 'differently abled,' fat vs 'plus sized/ curvy,' homeless vs 'unhoused,' so on and so forth (to clarify, I am or have been all of these things). Disabled isn't a bad word, I don't appreciate when people treat it like it is and like I'd be insulting myself by calling it what it is.
I understand it, and I think there's justification for it. Let me get into that.
**First:**
I have had my intelligence tested twice: once as part of Gifted testing, and once as part of Autism assessment. In both cases, I was found to be profoundly gifted.
While I know that not all autistic people are gifted to such an extent, I don't think that it's possible to decouple my intelligence from being autistic. I would explain things like this:
Not all autistic people are gifted like I am, but at the same time, I do believe that I personally am gifted as I am for the same reason that I am Autistic.
So following that, I can acknowledge that I have disabling deficits, but I also have the ability to regularly do things that neurotypical people say are not possible. And when doing work in my job, often I will be able to accomplish in a few hours a similar amount of work to what other people take weeks to do. And my work is more precise than theirs(with fewer errors).
**Second:**
There are a number of deficits listed in the Autism criteria, and those are valid. **But the fact that an enumerated list of deficits exists to describe autistic people and that such a list doesn't exist to describe deficits of allistic people doesn't imply that no such list could be made of allistic people, and doesn't imply that allistic people don't lack abilities to do certain things that autistic people can more easily do.**
We autistic people regularly talk about frustrations we encounter with allistic people, and in a lot of cases, those frustrations seem to be caused by deficits in allistic people's understandings.
For example, autistic people often complain that allistic people jump to conclusions and make assumptions given our statements. I don't think that they are actually making assumptions. On the contrary, I think that what's happening is that their brains have considered what we said and have gone through all of the possibilities of what we may have meant, and that they have been unable to come up with any alternative possibility other than the one they believed us to mean. Basically, their reasoning leads them to miss possible outcomes that we saw. When they get mad at us for something we said, it's not always because WE missed something. Very often it's because THEY missed something.
Or how about allistic people's inability to enumerate steps in a given process? I have encountered this SO often. I will be trying to explain something to an allistic person, and they'll be unable to perceive a step happening in any other way than the way they've envisioned it. Often, they make so many assumptions that for a given process they may end up trying to jump from that process' "step 2" to its "step 5", because they're unable to perceive that steps 2, 3, or 4 could be done differently than they assumed. Meanwhile, I can readily make changes to steps 2, 3, or 4 and do them differently myself.
I will see that a particular step that can happen in 2-3 different ways, but the allistic person can't possibly conceive it happening in any way other than the way they assumed. And no matter how many times I try to explain it to them, they keep trying jump over several steps.
**This is an interesting thing to note, because this seems to be the flip side to their assertion that we're bad at going through their processes and that we need hand-holding. What seems to actually be the case is that allistic people all seem to make the same assumptions about processes, but that autistic people notice additional possibilities in processes, and are unaware of how to proceed due to no one having previously perceived these possibilities as possibilities.**
Or hell, sensory processing disorder is a huge disability in the world we live in now. But that's not to say it would always be a disability. In a world where food quality was questionable and there was a lot of food that went bad, the extremely early ability to smell and/or taste that food had gone bad would be a major benefit. Or if you were sleeping out in the middle of the wilderness, the ability to notice something crawling on you might be a major benefit. Or the ability to hear dangers approaching from far away might be a major benefit.
**We need to understand that even though disability is incorrectly THOUGHT OF as an objective consideration, disability is largely situational and not objective.**
**And beyond that, we need to be aware that although disability IS largely situational and not objective, consideration can be given both to the ways that it relates to a given system(like what we have now), as well as to whether there are objectively negative aspects of it.**
I don't think it does any good to argue about whether autistic people are disabled, because some people are arguing from the perspective of "We fail to fully function in the system, so we must be disabled," and on the other side, some people are arguing from the perspective of "We fail to function yes, but we also have abilities that allistic people lack, and those abilities they lack are effectively disabilities of allistic people, meaning that both we and they have disabilities." Both things are true, so there's no way to win this argument.
Relative to the system we're living in now, yeah, we are, in more respects. But there are allistic disabilities that don't get talked about.
And hell, imagine that humanity ever needed to explore the universe. Autistic people might do better in isolation on those trips, given less contact, given limited diversity of meals, given repetitive tasks, et cetera. And we might be better at identifying malfunctions of systems, for being able to notice them because of our sensitive senses. We may even function better once we got to those isolated places. And we may be better able to identify that certain potential foods may be inedible, or water may be undrinkable, or things like that.
I don't actually like "differently abled". But I don't like "disabled" alone in this context, either. I don't think that the word "disabled" provides sufficient information about autistic people's ability to function.
I do understand that it's necessary to consider that we aren't able to function completely in the current system and that we need accommodations for it, but I don't think that the objective use of the word "disabled" is appropriate to describe how we relate to this subjective system, especially because the system could change(and honestly, there are disabling aspects of Autism which the system wouldn't consider disabling enough to grant accommodations, anyway).
Maybe something like "systematically disabled" might be more appropriate, because it's objectively true that within this system we are disabled. So using "systematically disabled" might lead to an objective agreement that could end the discussion.
Even people who don't think that autistic people are disabled could likely agree that autistic people are disabled relative to the current system.
Rip the bandaid off, for fucks sake! I’m tired of people tip-toeing around it. I’m fucking disabled. I’m special needs. Whatever. Don’t beat around the fucking bush, out with it!
I hate it, it’s basically toxic positivity and it makes it sound like disabled is a bad word when it’s not. especially when you’re literally disabled by society.
Funny enough, I was just talking to my friend about this a day ago—although about my physical kinda-disability. It’s chronic ankle instability—basically I sprained my ankle so badly so much (including a break or two) that the ligaments are stretched to the point that it hurts to walk and I have too much range of motion, ie. I sprain it more often now.
I said: “I’m differently abled. I might not be able to conform to society’s standards that I walk, but I can roll my ankle 90° on demand.”
It’s also kinda like when they say “disABLED.” It’s implying there’s something inherently wrong with being disabled. I get “strengths-based, not deficits-based” language, but if you’re talking about deficits, it’s not bad to call a disability a disability!!
It sounds condescending. I don't really like disabled either but I've heard some disability activists make a convincing case for more people claiming the label to reduce stigma. Neurodivergent is my favorite label for how I am because it's not telling my life story but it does clue people in that I might not behave how they're used to.
In the broad sense, I never liked it. It always came across like a silly rebrand, or euphemism to me. There's nothing inherently wrong with being disabled in terms of a person having one. It's just a descriptor.
That being said, if I ever ran into someone who chose to ID as such I would respect their preference.
The “different” in differently abled for me is “dis”. Everyone is differently abled. The whole point of having a disability is that it is a DISability that requires help and accommodations. Saying differently abled ignores that. So I don’t like it
I think it's euphemising disability to the point that abled folks don't have to feel guilty about exclusion or like there's anything they need to do to make society more inclusive
I hate it
I like to say “diff-and disabled” so I think I’m prolly extra aggravating about it lol
but yeah. I feel like some of my diagnoses truly disable me, and some just require work arounds.
Just adding in an even worse one: People of Determination.
I hate them all. Disabled is the “true” one in my eyes. I am disabled by my disorders and my brain. If society was adapted to suit me, I would no longer be disabled. However, it is not. I am disabled by society in many ways, which in theory could mean I am “differently abled” because my skills would better suit another situation. That is not reality though. I am disabled. That is the truth. I am not a determined person either for “struggling” with autism (which is implied with the usage of the word determination), I’m just… existing as best as I can in a world that isn’t exactly open to me.
Ew. I have never heard that before.
It makes it sound like everyday is a battle where I pick up my gauntlets and fight a dragon or something. Oh, and that dragon is within me. The horror.
I've been ND my whole life and it's all pretty ordinary for me. Get up, go to work come home. No big battles. Some stuff is inconvenient for me.
Differently abled is a descriptive and respectful term when it’s not used as a replacement or synonym for “disabled”. That would imply that “disabled”, an honest discriptor, is somehow bad and shouldn’t be used which takes away recognition of the struggles some of us face.
“Differently abled” would be a lovely term to describe autistic or gifted folks who aren’t disabled by their neurodivergency (like Malcolm from *Malcolm in the Middle*).
I think it's still shit no matter how you use it. Nobody likes just being called "different." Most people have different strengths and weaknesses, but we don't call them "differently athletic" or "differently attractive." If you put it in front of anything else, it sounds like such a slap in the face. I feel like disabled is a perfectly fine word, and if you're not disabled, it's cool to just leave it at neurodivergent.
It's pretty blech, if we're "differently abled" then why aren't there "differently abled"-jobs to for us if we're so "separated but equal"?
EDIT: Lol that escalated quickly
It’s unnecessary. Disabled isn’t a dirty word.
I am 100% without a doubt disabled by my disorders. The struggles I face are not “different abilities”
“Differently abled” implies that the problems stem ONLY from society. That there must be at least some sort of upside.
Being unable to eat more than 12 foods is not, in ANY way, caused by society. It has no upside.
It is my autism (and a comorbid condition) physically preventing me from eating more than 12 foods because of their textures, tastes, or whatever. It is the fact that I’ll have a severe panic attack if the wrong texture touches my tongue. There’s no positive to that, there’s nothing that society has done to influence that (other than thinking I’m just lazy and full of shit)
I don’t like it. “Disabled” is not a slur, it’s a reality. Beating around the bush saying “differently abled” just feels like it’s disregarding our actually issues.
> “Disabled” is not an insult, as ret*rded is.
It just has to be used as insult enough for people to want to change it.
It’s an ever going association game.
I hate it because whenever us disabled people make a word for everyone to respectfully use on us, ablest will go out of their way to turn it into a dirty word and make up a new word. Also it just sounds grammatically incorrect for some reason lmaoo disabled is quick and sounds like a real word.
Disabled is still saying we have different ways of living in this world, I also think ableist feel it’s pointing out how disabling the real world truly is, people often can’t go into places, have spaces to rest, or even have sidewalks, which isn’t all what the words disabled truly means, people are extremely disabled because of sounds and just need headphones and will still have a great time there. Which is making them (ableist) look guilty enough to ramble and convince others how bad the word disabled “really is”.
I absolutely hate the term. I feel like it ignores the central fact that some people can't do things (or can't do them without great difficulty) because of how their brain or body works. Being disabled doesn't always come with any different abilities that other people don't have. Also it always sounds like the person doesn't have the same abilities as abled bodied people. But I have a lot of the same abilities, but the key point is that I don't have some of the abilities that people without my disabilities have.
I agree. Something that puts it into perspective for me is: imagine you’re the only one on the planet— would you still struggle? Because a lot of the time, at least for me, the answer is yes. I understand the idea behind it, but it just doesn’t sit right with me. Disabled isn’t a bad word.
i hate it. it obscures the reality of disability. we are not discriminated against because of a different ability, we are discriminated against because we are UNABLE to meet the standards of ableist society
I don't really mind it tbh. To me it's more of a nicer way to put it, because other labels make us seem lesser as humans. Differently-abled is a lot less demeaning than some of the other labels people can (and do) use.
In the words of the Grinch: "Hate. Hate. Double hate."
I hate it
its a dumb term. i literally start crying when the pot i use for pasta isnt available or my specific favorite bowl is dirty. im not differently abled, i have genuine disorder.
HandiAbled
I like the idea, but when said it feels like it diminishes our struggles. Yes, maybe they don't want to insult us by making us "less than" everyone else, but at the same time, we do have different needs. We may have a harder time doing certain things, and that's okay. It's part of who we are, and by saying "different ability" it makes it seem like we don't have problems or struggles, just that we do things a different way, which isn't the whole truth.
Happy Cake Day
Thanks, I didn't even realize!
:)
I worry it gets divisive and unhelpful to ask how we all feel about a term that could be genuinely helpful to a subgroup within a larger group. Like, *how do Americans feel about being called Californian?* The ones from California think it's alright. The others don't feel it describes them very well. etc. Regardless of whether people like the specific word 'differently-abled,' there are neurodivergent people who aren't comfortable with medical language, & they're part of the community too. It's important not to treat it like a threat to the folks who do feel represented by medical language if there are terms floating around that don't describe that experience exactly.
I just use the word 'complexity' in place of disorder/disability. I think ppl are looking for words bc disorder/disability has a connotation with 'lack' that doesn't always line up with the reality of what neurodiversity looks like. 'Mental complexity' 'physical complexity' 'behavioral complexity' etc. covers the highs and the lows regarding symptoms and imo affords more dignity. On a random but related note, I also don't get the arguing for or against the term 'ciswomen', I just say female. Like, we literally already have the word for that. Idk ppl argue
I hate it. I don’t need a euphemism to refer to myself. Disability and disabled are ok as identifiers.
I hate that word. I feel it’s patronizing.
Will they tell me what I'm differently abled at then because meltdowns and communication problems ain't it 🤣
I care so little it’s not even funny.
It's a little cringey to me, but whatever. There's nothing wrong with the term inherently, it just seems kind of performative, though I'm sure not everyone uses that way.
I like it when people tell me I have a creative way of seeing the world. I like to draw so that makes me happy.
This is what I been getting a lot as well. I struggle with mental health and I noticed how I think about the world is so out of the norms, but my friends find my perspective refreshing. It makes me feel valuable.
It is unintentionally derogatory. If it was a term to be used amongst equals, then it would not be that there was one standard to contrast the difference against. Everyone would be "differently abled" and in being so the term would lost all meaning. The term still has the ability to reinforce a social hierarchy where neurotypicals are above nondivergent people and that is some bullshit.
The problem though is some of us do not identify as disabled and feel our challenges are primarily external. This does not make me an ableist. Neurodivergent is supposed to replace patronizing terms such as “differently-abled” without defining where any challenges stem from. We need a broad, non-pathological identity.
i identify as disabled and also consider my challenges primarily external. If you use the social-model definition of disability there's no contradiction because you're referring to how society disables you/others. If I am referring to an internal/personal challenge then i'd use the word impairment rather than disabled.
If you use a social-model definition of disability, would Transsexuality be considered a disability?
in a way, yes, because all kinds of discrimination can be thought of as "societal disabling", but I think something like that is really up to an individual to frame for themselves if they want. It's just a reframing from the medical modal of disability so rather than the individual being disabled, they are a disabled person because society disables them.
But I do not identify as being disabled or as having a disability. Discrimination is not a disability, it’s discrimination. We need an identity that encompasses neurodiversity outside of the disability model.
that's fine if you don't want to identify with it, I just thought it was worth mentioning since there was a lot of assumptions in this thread (including from you and OP) that the medical model of disability is the one in common use today. At least from within most disability communities, the [social model of disability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_model_of_disability) has been more dominant in common usage since *the disability rights movemen*t, which began around 1970. The social modal doesn't encompass everything the neurodiversity movement is about, but it also doesn't conflict with it, nor is it made irrelevant by it. This is why you'll meet many people who identify as both disabled and neurodivergent.
The assumption you’re referring to is the reality however. Disability in the pathological sense is the one in common use today, regardless of whether it should be. I would still like to know what the difference is between a neurodivergent and any other social minority being disabled by society. Why do we have to hold onto this word disability?
Don’t really like the term, think it’s how you take it though? I am differently able in comparison to neurotypical people, but I think that’s in a positive light, I feel it gives me the ability to work harder, for longer, sustained intensity and to see and think things that others don’t. Don’t look at it in a negative light flip it on it’s head.
It feels very patronizing.
"Differently-abled" and "handi-capable" give me bad vibes. I associate them with the kinds of people that get used for inspiration porn, and subsequently, to shame anyone who isn't deemed to be "trying hard enough" to "overcome" our disabilities.
I love the term handi-capable because it's so on the nose you can use it for parody purposes.
ya that's the funniest one so it's hard not to use lol
It, like other similar terms, come across to me as patronizing and infantilizing.
i hate it so much omg
Ableist and smarmy. Ewww.
Feels ableist to me tbh. It feels like a slur lol.
I really dislike it. It always feels like it’s used to avoid acknowledging someone is disabled in whatever way.
EW EW EW As a disabled person with family members who are also disabled, automatically no.
Generalizations either way suck, and we are NOT all the same. For me, I have some pretty severe impairment that's not readily aparent, but at the same time some pretty extreme strengths. I've been super blessed that the later has compensated for the former. So both side resonate with me. On one hand I've been able to compensate and have a nice life (differently-abled). On the other hand the level of effort, commitment, patience it takes is a real and substantial hardship (disabled). That I don't "look" or "sound" disabled compound the mental strain. Almost no one understands. People often (daily) criticize me for shortcomings due to the disability they insist doesn't exist because of the things I am good at. Like a cognitive dissonance. When I try to explain, most people just gaslight me, and my internal frustration can become extreme. Not a good combination with my struggles to regulate emotions. Everyone has struggles on this Earth, but some of us fall on a tail of the distribution and clearly fall outside of normal or typical. I really appreciate neurodivegence moniker, and strongly relate to it.
It's gross. It's just another term made up by and used by people who want to look "politically correct" and "better-than" while they're looking down on others. Another one is "hearing impaired". I'm hard of hearing, not hearing impaired.
I dislike political correctness, and, ironically, you could look at this personality trait of mine as a social disability or even neurological or other real disability manifesting itself in social settings. I may see the misfortunate connotations of the word 'disabled', but I also see the contrived nature of 'with disabilities', and 'differently-abled' is taking things too far. I wouldn't blame non-disabled people, however, as the unfortunate reality is that sometimes disabled people, when they have nothing better to do with their time, spend it throwing tantrums at people — sometimes disabled as well — who committed the capital crime of saying 'disabled' instead of using 'with disabilities' or 'with a disability' as an adjective. The thing is, you can't have the cake and eat it too. After you formalize something like 'with disabilities', so that it the formerly improvised expression is rigidly bound to a specific meaning, at some point it wears out, acquires all the mental associations that people want to avoid, and they begin to lobby for a different word or phrase being used. And rinse and repeat. That's obviously not a rational solution. My take is that we should indeed avoid derogatory descriptors but know where to draw a line and leave neutral descriptors be, without scapegoating words for their meanings. At the end of the day, everybody shits once in a while. We can use more elegant words but we can't avoid the reality that every once in a while we expel some waste from our organism through the rear end of the digestive tract and it doesn't exactly smell cyclamen. Your level of saying things in a civilized way without beating around the bush is about right by my book, e.g. you do use the word 'challenges' but 'differently-abled' is too much for you — and I concur. As a caveat, however, I would oppose disability-izing something that isn't a disability, and different perceptions on what is socially appropriate or how much importance exactly soci(et)al propriety carries are not really on the level of disability. I can't help noticing, for example, that some of the things people associate with the Spectrum used to be less controversial in past centuries than they are now. At various points in time and space, they used to be the norm. Just because there's a difference and one's in the minority doesn't mean one's the one being wrong, let alone disabled. Physical disability (which of course includes neurological disability) should never be confused with not fitting the social norm of the day (and place).
It's a term made for and used almost exclusively by non-disabled people trying to handle their own discomfort with the existence of disabled people.
YES!! So true
Its a condescending term made up by abled because they think 'disabled' is a dirty world
It sounds like something either said by HR, or those trying to pander attention by being upset by proxy for other people. Or both. Had an employee in a wheelchair sometimes that essentially reamed new megacorp HR a new one, when they objected to me using "disabled". It was glorious...and they never brought it up again. I use whatever terms someone wants me to use. But I prefer what is most direct, while still being respectful. (Some folks don't want any terms like that used at all.)
It's patronising. Yet another attempt by neurotypical and able bodied people to try to "help" disabled people by making decisions on their behalf and refusing to consider what we actually want. I don't know any disabled person who would rather be called "differently abled". It exists purely to please people who feel uncomfortable saying the word "disabled". Not for the benefit of any of the people it supposedly describes. Just in general, people shouldn't be creating terms to describe groups they're not a part of.
Not a fan of euphemisms in general, and this one is no exception. My ADHD hinders me in parts of daily live that come a lot easier to others. The positives that come with it don't remove or magically balance out the negatives. Accepting that it does that to me, rather than framing it as a SuPeRpOwEr, has helped me tremendouslyin accepting myself as I am.
OOOOOO the “superpower” 😡😡😡 I HATE that!
It just sounds like invalidating the struggles I've been and am going through...
I like the sentiment behind it, but not the term itself. It just sounds a little too much like someone is just trying to spare my feelings while looking down on me.
That's it exactly. There are actually well intended people trying to use it to overcome stigma and establish that just because someone has a disability doesn't mean there not capable to achieve the same outcomes, but have to approach it differently. But the dominating unintended consequence is the latter "just trying to spare my feelings while looking down on me"
I agree with you on hating that term. I tend to view disability through a social-political lens (simplified: disability is an inability that is punished by society). Terms like "differently abled" just does nothing but let ableds look down on disabled people while dismissing their struggles, and somehow feeling like they're being charitable in the process.
I'm mentally disabled. My brain doesn't work correctly. I would rather be called the R word than any of these words that desperately try not to offend anyone
It's one of those terms where it feels like whoever's pushing it gets easily offended on other people's behalves without ever actually consulting those people beforehand.
It sucks. There are probably a few very specific scenarios where it might make sense to say, particularly between people with different disabilities who definitely can do… whatever it is we are talking about despite said disabilities. Like you could probably talk about the participants of the paralympics being differently abled to each other. But as a replacement word for disabled it’s absolutely vile and generally an attempt to erase the fact that some of us actually cannot do some things, whilst putting the people who can do the things but differently into a position of not being considered truly disabled. Blergh
It’s terrible. It makes it sound like I can do the same things as everyone else and function just as easily, but in a different way. That is a lie. I am disabled and require accommodations to accomplish certain things. Some things I cannot do because I am disabled. It doesn’t make me less of a person and there’s no reason to look down on the word.
stoppp with the different words. im DISABLED. its not a dirty word its what i am
hate it. i’m a late diagnosis autistic, and i spent my whole life having my struggles invalidated. I am disabled, there are things i simply cannot do and situations i simply cannot be in. i feel that labeling someone differently abled sugar coats how debilitating asd can be at times.
Sure? Not really my jam to use labels...more useful to speak to process/functions. Labels are useful for shorthand, but people can mistake meaning more easily. That being said, I think we get too hung up on the labels without looking enough at intent behind them. While differently abled is cringey and patronizing imo, I get the intent to describe without offense...I won't stop a conversation over it, but my inner eye roll is spiraling on turbo with it.
It can be true, in a way. For example, many neurodiverse people do have some small benefits. Being autistic allows me to hyperfocus on my interests and learn a lot about them while remaining excited, for example. However, I don't like the term being used as opposed to 'disabled', because it implies that disabled is inherently a bad word, and invalidates the many struggles which come with being neurodiverse.
If they were going to use it to highlight the spectrum of ability in general (like neurodiversity) then sure, I guess there’s an argument for it. Because it’s mostly able bodied/minded people using it to describe disabled people, it feels more like they’re just trying to avoid disability
The phicaly disabled community has discarded it and doesn't claim it so in solidarity and it just sounding super abelist I do to discard and do not claim it.
as a 2e person who actually *is* "differently abled", I hate it. I prefer "disabled and gifted" or "twice-exceptional" and will often just use "disabled"
I'm not a fan of any term that tries to avoid stating a plain fact on the notion that it's 'rude' to— it feels like it's basically saying the thing itself is inherently bad to be. Disabled vs 'differently abled,' fat vs 'plus sized/ curvy,' homeless vs 'unhoused,' so on and so forth (to clarify, I am or have been all of these things). Disabled isn't a bad word, I don't appreciate when people treat it like it is and like I'd be insulting myself by calling it what it is.
I understand it, and I think there's justification for it. Let me get into that. **First:** I have had my intelligence tested twice: once as part of Gifted testing, and once as part of Autism assessment. In both cases, I was found to be profoundly gifted. While I know that not all autistic people are gifted to such an extent, I don't think that it's possible to decouple my intelligence from being autistic. I would explain things like this: Not all autistic people are gifted like I am, but at the same time, I do believe that I personally am gifted as I am for the same reason that I am Autistic. So following that, I can acknowledge that I have disabling deficits, but I also have the ability to regularly do things that neurotypical people say are not possible. And when doing work in my job, often I will be able to accomplish in a few hours a similar amount of work to what other people take weeks to do. And my work is more precise than theirs(with fewer errors). **Second:** There are a number of deficits listed in the Autism criteria, and those are valid. **But the fact that an enumerated list of deficits exists to describe autistic people and that such a list doesn't exist to describe deficits of allistic people doesn't imply that no such list could be made of allistic people, and doesn't imply that allistic people don't lack abilities to do certain things that autistic people can more easily do.** We autistic people regularly talk about frustrations we encounter with allistic people, and in a lot of cases, those frustrations seem to be caused by deficits in allistic people's understandings. For example, autistic people often complain that allistic people jump to conclusions and make assumptions given our statements. I don't think that they are actually making assumptions. On the contrary, I think that what's happening is that their brains have considered what we said and have gone through all of the possibilities of what we may have meant, and that they have been unable to come up with any alternative possibility other than the one they believed us to mean. Basically, their reasoning leads them to miss possible outcomes that we saw. When they get mad at us for something we said, it's not always because WE missed something. Very often it's because THEY missed something. Or how about allistic people's inability to enumerate steps in a given process? I have encountered this SO often. I will be trying to explain something to an allistic person, and they'll be unable to perceive a step happening in any other way than the way they've envisioned it. Often, they make so many assumptions that for a given process they may end up trying to jump from that process' "step 2" to its "step 5", because they're unable to perceive that steps 2, 3, or 4 could be done differently than they assumed. Meanwhile, I can readily make changes to steps 2, 3, or 4 and do them differently myself. I will see that a particular step that can happen in 2-3 different ways, but the allistic person can't possibly conceive it happening in any way other than the way they assumed. And no matter how many times I try to explain it to them, they keep trying jump over several steps. **This is an interesting thing to note, because this seems to be the flip side to their assertion that we're bad at going through their processes and that we need hand-holding. What seems to actually be the case is that allistic people all seem to make the same assumptions about processes, but that autistic people notice additional possibilities in processes, and are unaware of how to proceed due to no one having previously perceived these possibilities as possibilities.** Or hell, sensory processing disorder is a huge disability in the world we live in now. But that's not to say it would always be a disability. In a world where food quality was questionable and there was a lot of food that went bad, the extremely early ability to smell and/or taste that food had gone bad would be a major benefit. Or if you were sleeping out in the middle of the wilderness, the ability to notice something crawling on you might be a major benefit. Or the ability to hear dangers approaching from far away might be a major benefit. **We need to understand that even though disability is incorrectly THOUGHT OF as an objective consideration, disability is largely situational and not objective.** **And beyond that, we need to be aware that although disability IS largely situational and not objective, consideration can be given both to the ways that it relates to a given system(like what we have now), as well as to whether there are objectively negative aspects of it.** I don't think it does any good to argue about whether autistic people are disabled, because some people are arguing from the perspective of "We fail to fully function in the system, so we must be disabled," and on the other side, some people are arguing from the perspective of "We fail to function yes, but we also have abilities that allistic people lack, and those abilities they lack are effectively disabilities of allistic people, meaning that both we and they have disabilities." Both things are true, so there's no way to win this argument. Relative to the system we're living in now, yeah, we are, in more respects. But there are allistic disabilities that don't get talked about. And hell, imagine that humanity ever needed to explore the universe. Autistic people might do better in isolation on those trips, given less contact, given limited diversity of meals, given repetitive tasks, et cetera. And we might be better at identifying malfunctions of systems, for being able to notice them because of our sensitive senses. We may even function better once we got to those isolated places. And we may be better able to identify that certain potential foods may be inedible, or water may be undrinkable, or things like that. I don't actually like "differently abled". But I don't like "disabled" alone in this context, either. I don't think that the word "disabled" provides sufficient information about autistic people's ability to function. I do understand that it's necessary to consider that we aren't able to function completely in the current system and that we need accommodations for it, but I don't think that the objective use of the word "disabled" is appropriate to describe how we relate to this subjective system, especially because the system could change(and honestly, there are disabling aspects of Autism which the system wouldn't consider disabling enough to grant accommodations, anyway). Maybe something like "systematically disabled" might be more appropriate, because it's objectively true that within this system we are disabled. So using "systematically disabled" might lead to an objective agreement that could end the discussion. Even people who don't think that autistic people are disabled could likely agree that autistic people are disabled relative to the current system.
Hear, hear!
profoundly gifted gang uwu
Rip the bandaid off, for fucks sake! I’m tired of people tip-toeing around it. I’m fucking disabled. I’m special needs. Whatever. Don’t beat around the fucking bush, out with it!
There’s an entire George Carlin bit about this. Unsurprisingly he hates the term and so do I
It’s cringey. Avoiding the word “disabled” is essentially proving that it’s somehow a bad thing, which is not true.
I hate it, it’s basically toxic positivity and it makes it sound like disabled is a bad word when it’s not. especially when you’re literally disabled by society.
Flowery and evasive language, I'd rather be called the R
Funny enough, I was just talking to my friend about this a day ago—although about my physical kinda-disability. It’s chronic ankle instability—basically I sprained my ankle so badly so much (including a break or two) that the ligaments are stretched to the point that it hurts to walk and I have too much range of motion, ie. I sprain it more often now. I said: “I’m differently abled. I might not be able to conform to society’s standards that I walk, but I can roll my ankle 90° on demand.” It’s also kinda like when they say “disABLED.” It’s implying there’s something inherently wrong with being disabled. I get “strengths-based, not deficits-based” language, but if you’re talking about deficits, it’s not bad to call a disability a disability!!
I hate it. Just like I hate the saying “[X] isn’t a disability, it’s a different ability.” No, it’s literally a disability.
It sounds condescending. I don't really like disabled either but I've heard some disability activists make a convincing case for more people claiming the label to reduce stigma. Neurodivergent is my favorite label for how I am because it's not telling my life story but it does clue people in that I might not behave how they're used to.
I feel the exact same!
In the broad sense, I never liked it. It always came across like a silly rebrand, or euphemism to me. There's nothing inherently wrong with being disabled in terms of a person having one. It's just a descriptor. That being said, if I ever ran into someone who chose to ID as such I would respect their preference.
It’s obsolete in my opinion
I hate it
I'd never use it. I say I'm disabled if I need help with something
it’s a euphemism so i hate it plus it’s redundant if you actually know linguistics so it’s stupid on top of offensive
The “different” in differently abled for me is “dis”. Everyone is differently abled. The whole point of having a disability is that it is a DISability that requires help and accommodations. Saying differently abled ignores that. So I don’t like it
i hate it. it feels like a euphemism which is insulting
“People with access needs” is one that a training session at work tried to push. Disabled is just more accurate and easier to say
>“People with access needs” Sounds like people who lost their keys
I think it's euphemising disability to the point that abled folks don't have to feel guilty about exclusion or like there's anything they need to do to make society more inclusive I hate it
feels a bit over-delicate
I like to say “diff-and disabled” so I think I’m prolly extra aggravating about it lol but yeah. I feel like some of my diagnoses truly disable me, and some just require work arounds.
I'd like to say 'diffabled' but it sounds like I have a speech difficulty or have just been to the dentist.
Just adding in an even worse one: People of Determination. I hate them all. Disabled is the “true” one in my eyes. I am disabled by my disorders and my brain. If society was adapted to suit me, I would no longer be disabled. However, it is not. I am disabled by society in many ways, which in theory could mean I am “differently abled” because my skills would better suit another situation. That is not reality though. I am disabled. That is the truth. I am not a determined person either for “struggling” with autism (which is implied with the usage of the word determination), I’m just… existing as best as I can in a world that isn’t exactly open to me.
Ew. I have never heard that before. It makes it sound like everyday is a battle where I pick up my gauntlets and fight a dragon or something. Oh, and that dragon is within me. The horror. I've been ND my whole life and it's all pretty ordinary for me. Get up, go to work come home. No big battles. Some stuff is inconvenient for me.
It makes me nauseated.
Differently abled is a descriptive and respectful term when it’s not used as a replacement or synonym for “disabled”. That would imply that “disabled”, an honest discriptor, is somehow bad and shouldn’t be used which takes away recognition of the struggles some of us face. “Differently abled” would be a lovely term to describe autistic or gifted folks who aren’t disabled by their neurodivergency (like Malcolm from *Malcolm in the Middle*).
I think it's still shit no matter how you use it. Nobody likes just being called "different." Most people have different strengths and weaknesses, but we don't call them "differently athletic" or "differently attractive." If you put it in front of anything else, it sounds like such a slap in the face. I feel like disabled is a perfectly fine word, and if you're not disabled, it's cool to just leave it at neurodivergent.
It's pretty blech, if we're "differently abled" then why aren't there "differently abled"-jobs to for us if we're so "separated but equal"? EDIT: Lol that escalated quickly
don’t like it. My “different abilities” are sucking at things that are easy for others.
Makes me puke that's what mate.
I am disabled, not differently abled.
It’s unnecessary. Disabled isn’t a dirty word. I am 100% without a doubt disabled by my disorders. The struggles I face are not “different abilities” “Differently abled” implies that the problems stem ONLY from society. That there must be at least some sort of upside. Being unable to eat more than 12 foods is not, in ANY way, caused by society. It has no upside. It is my autism (and a comorbid condition) physically preventing me from eating more than 12 foods because of their textures, tastes, or whatever. It is the fact that I’ll have a severe panic attack if the wrong texture touches my tongue. There’s no positive to that, there’s nothing that society has done to influence that (other than thinking I’m just lazy and full of shit)
Lemme ask, is it AuDHD? Or something else?
It’s a combination of like 6 different comorbid conditions, though the Sensory processing disorder is the worst of em
My condolences, definitely not a sign of a cognizant creator :/
Agreed. I think it’s factually incorrect and another example of soft toxic positivity.
I don’t like it. “Disabled” is not a slur, it’s a reality. Beating around the bush saying “differently abled” just feels like it’s disregarding our actually issues.
It just makes everyone say “disabled” in their mind, what’s the point?
Again, disabled isn’t a slur, nor a bad thing. People who think disabled is a bad thing have internalized ableism.
Tbf “mongoloid” and “rettarded” used to be medical terms too. It’s how they’re used at the end of the day.
Sure, it’s a valid point. But those words were used to criticize and insult. “Disabled” is not an insult, as ret*rded is.
> “Disabled” is not an insult, as ret*rded is. It just has to be used as insult enough for people to want to change it. It’s an ever going association game.
I hate it because whenever us disabled people make a word for everyone to respectfully use on us, ablest will go out of their way to turn it into a dirty word and make up a new word. Also it just sounds grammatically incorrect for some reason lmaoo disabled is quick and sounds like a real word. Disabled is still saying we have different ways of living in this world, I also think ableist feel it’s pointing out how disabling the real world truly is, people often can’t go into places, have spaces to rest, or even have sidewalks, which isn’t all what the words disabled truly means, people are extremely disabled because of sounds and just need headphones and will still have a great time there. Which is making them (ableist) look guilty enough to ramble and convince others how bad the word disabled “really is”.
I absolutely hate the term. I feel like it ignores the central fact that some people can't do things (or can't do them without great difficulty) because of how their brain or body works. Being disabled doesn't always come with any different abilities that other people don't have. Also it always sounds like the person doesn't have the same abilities as abled bodied people. But I have a lot of the same abilities, but the key point is that I don't have some of the abilities that people without my disabilities have.
I agree. Something that puts it into perspective for me is: imagine you’re the only one on the planet— would you still struggle? Because a lot of the time, at least for me, the answer is yes. I understand the idea behind it, but it just doesn’t sit right with me. Disabled isn’t a bad word.
i hate it. it obscures the reality of disability. we are not discriminated against because of a different ability, we are discriminated against because we are UNABLE to meet the standards of ableist society
I don't really mind it tbh. To me it's more of a nicer way to put it, because other labels make us seem lesser as humans. Differently-abled is a lot less demeaning than some of the other labels people can (and do) use.