Submitted 23 hours ago by Patnou@lemmy.world to [deleted]
I was taught that for any form of disability, “put the person first,” never “a mentally disabled person,” always “a person with a mental disability,” making the condition a descriptor rather than the core identity.
I’m not sure that would have helped you but feel like it’s good advice generally
As an autistic person, no, many of us prefer to be called autistic people rather than people with autism. Person with autism makes it sound like an accessory that can be removed from the person. Many autistic people consider autism an intrinsic part of who we are.
You don’t call gay people “people with homosexuality” or black people “people with blackness”
I appreciate you sharing that. I’d never heard of this exactly, but it fits my experiences with the autistic community.
Being a little pedantic, I don’t think gay or black are disabilities, but, on the other hand, why wouldn’t my reasoning apply to any descriptor? “Nobody’s whole identity should be boiled down to a single trait, so wouldn’t the same logic apply?”
This is just something I was taught as part of the secondary education program in university and was culturally popular at the time. There’s no semantic algorithm we can follow that will instantly make us sensitive and kind. In fact, I’m pretty sure virtually every tactic would offend someone somewhere.
The hard work of it all is listening to people and caring about their feelings. So I hear you autistic brother and will try to bear this in mind. I just thought the person first mindset was a good one generally.
I guess many autists wouldn’t even feel adressed by OP because they don’t see autism as a disability.
I heard about that from the unmaking autism book. I think the person d applies more your two things that aren’t party of who you are like autistic vs being in the foster care system. Since both my sons came to us through the system it was a easy example for them. They understood the difference between a foster child and a child in foster care.
Did you use "mentally challenged" as a way to call someone stupid or were you talking about someone with a learning difficulty or developmental disability?
Most of the time if you cause offensive with your words, it's not the specific words as much as the tone, context and implication.
I grew up in australia which has a very different understanding of offensive/acceptable language. Before i say something that might be touchy, i mentally double check - is this information actually relevant? Am i saying this in good faith?
With a humble tone and a clear reason the worst response i've had was a polite "oh i think X is a better word, but yeah". Speak in good faith, people will respond with grace.
I mentally double check
So you’re saying you… mentally challenged yourself?
Mentally challenging is how I refer to the church people making life difficult for servers on a Sunday.
ugh, I’m going to hate myself for making this pun, but you can check my history and see I speak up about the “R” word, but here’s an example of legitimate usage:
So you’re saying you decided to retard your rate of replies until you mentally challenged yourself?
I’ll… see myself out. :)
And on the flip side, if you’re intentionally being offensive, don’t be shocked when people get offended. There’s no polite way to call someone a dipshit or any alternative similar word. Insult is insult. I always find this amusing when the person deliberately causing offense gets offended that other people are offended by them being offensive. Own it or don’t do it to begin with, Don. Speech has consequences.
I’d use
Black instead of African American
Native instead of Indian
Indian for someone from the country of India
[Nothing] for someone with a mental disability unless it was required in the context of the conversation. And then I’d hopefully know what the specific condition is (ie downs syndrome or fetal alcohol syndrome)
Not an exhaustive list. But a start.
Native is fine in North America, but offensive in South America. Better to use Indigenous
I think its better to just bypass all of that unless you actually know where they are from and just say, dark skinned fellow. Light skinned woman. There is nothing wrong with using a descriptor.
Given the history of racism and colorism in the US, reducing a person of color to just their skin color can sometimes cause upset. Using a non-skin-tone related descriptor is generally safer.
dark skinned MAN, you MISANDRIST!
(I kid, I kid)
I met a guy with Indian parents, but he was born and lived in the USA. I asked if that meant he was an American Indian. Nobody would answer me.
He's an Indian American. An American Indian would be an Indian of American descent.
I’ve heard a way to disambiguate “Indian” is to ask “dot or feather?” which is, alas, at least mildly racist. But I remember reading about it a few years ago because someone of - wait for it¹ - native and Indian heritage who worked at a casino on a reservation as tech support - was asked this question and got to answer “BOTH!” (and we were all amused at their job and its location) lol
It sounds made up, and who knows, but at the time I remember the discussion seemed to support that they weren’t lying. :shrug:
¹ but I won’t make you wait long. In fact, if you had skipped this footnote, you’d already know!
ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center has some lists, iirc. Also useful for identifying hate symbols.
Just ask people want they want to be called? There’s no list that’s going to be perfect in every situation.
I got my shit handed to me because I said someone is mentally challenged.
Not to mention that this would get most people in trouble at work regardless of the term used for “mentally challenged”.
Intent matters most here.
For most of life, it is better to stick to objective facts than subjective opinions.
“Mentally challenged” sounds like an opinion.
“They didn’t understand something until i used simple words and plenty of repetition.” – objective fact based on experience.
Black is definitely the most standard term for people of african descent, yes?
For intelectual disability I guess “intelectually disabled” should work fine.
I’m not aware of such a website, unfortunately…
There is a mild push to “emphasize people first”, i.e. not someone who is mentally disabled, but a person with mental disabilities.
Although having worked with clients who were, the term I learned and used as optimal was “adults with cognitive and developmental disabilities”.
:shrug; I’m not suggesting that’s “more correct”, mind.
My nigerian friend swears he’s not black but fair-skinned because one of his ancestors was white. Apparently once the bloodline gets dilluted, they don’t count as black amymore.
Well, maybe in Nigeria…
Then again, race is a social construct anyway! Fair enough I guess (pun intended).
That’s remarkably similar to British colonialism. IIRC, they believed you “removed” that part of their lineage after 3 generations.
Black for Sub-Saharan African descent, sure. Things get a bit more difficult if you want to talk about north Africans.
Yes, fair enough.
The volume of updates would bring a lot of tech to its knees
Before I even asked this i went through 5 pages of google search (and sorry I did) so I came here. I did not know I was so out of date. Hell I don’t even know what a Pokemon is still.
Google’s servers would be screaming for mommy
Did they provide you training and information? Maybe that would help. You could ask them.
Also, terms vary from region to region, so your local diversity organisation probably has information to help.
Also, “HR speak” and common language are different in the way they handle things. “Black person” works in casual speech, and “African American” doesn’t. Also, in Britain, while “Black person” also works in casual speech, the HR phrase is “Afro Carribbean”
I almost got fired because we have cubicle’s. And my boss asked where a co-worker is at and (I meant the hair color) I just flippintly said oh you can see his black head over there. I got a major write up and had to appologize for being insensitive
I think you had a foot in mouth kinda day. Referring to a co worker as a black person is fine, or “you can see his head over there” is fine, but mixing the two makes it seem the wrong thing is being highlighted.
I find nothing wrong with mentally challenged.
Side note, this is one of the biggest reasons people hate the Left. Like, theres bigger shit to worry about than a word.
I think the currently accepted term is “developmentally disabled”.
As far as a racial term for Americans with African heritage, I’ve met some people who prefer African-American, and others you consider it stodgy and misleading and prefer black.
There’s a mild pref to put people first, e.g. “a person with cognitive or developmental disabilities”, but I don’t think yours is offensive, although it might get a comment.
Like when I first became a wheelchair user, I would say I was “chairbound” or “wheelchairbound” - but someone pointed out that some people won’t help people in wheelchairs in emergencies because of a mistaken belief that anyone in a wheelchair can’t be removed from it (many can stand and/or walk some short distance, others can’t). So “chair user” is much better. Not to correct anyone, just because it can help in emergencies or whatever.
No. There is no resource.
I would question what the circumstances were that you needed to point out that someone is mentally challenged. Especially in a workplace, that seems like a rare need.
Anywhere you deal with customers, expressing someone has a special need can be helpful or necessary.
You need a sensible friend to ask.
I don’t make friends anymore. Because they seem to die. So basically I am walking through the valley of the shadow of death alone.
princess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 hours ago
The APA publishes an inclusive language guide, and guidelines for bias-free language.