Interesting fact

[conuly]

Sometimes we come across people who use datedly offensive terms* that are, nevertheless, not quite slurs, and there's every reason to believe that those particular people aren't trying to offend.

And you might want to say something to them. Fair enough.

If you want this to be a productive use of your time, like, at all, I suggest you try out the word "dispreferred". For some reason, that goes over much better than the other options. Which is weird, because it's niche linguistics jargon and usually people react pretty badly if you use words they don't know (as though you're supposed to magically know which words they do and don't know, except in this case I absolutely do know), but that rule is completely suspended when using this word while telling people "don't use that term, use this one". Which is doubly weird, because of course nobody likes even the gentlest commentary on anything they do.

Except if you use the word "dispreferred" to give it. I don't get it, but I'll take it.

* Lately I've been bumping into a lot of "wheelchair-bound". Why?

Comments

[smokingboot]

It's worth considering whether it is ever a productive use of one's time to police other people's language if it is obvious that they mean no wrong. Exasperation is an eruptive energy.

'Dispreferred' is better in that it removes the personal. But the personal comes back almost immediately with the obvious response: 'Who disprefers it? Do you mean you don't like it? Why should I change the way I speak for you?'

Which, however aggressive it may sound, is still more gentle than the average Londoner's response would be to someone trying to manipulate their vocabulary, datedly offensive or not.

[lilysea]

There's a big difference between kindly saying to

- a friend (whether in person or online)
- a partner
- a parent

"hey, language has moved on, you might want to think about that word"

vs telling a stranger online or in person.

I think it's okay to talk about language use, but the existence of a prior relationship makes it more likely to be taken as a good faith gesture,
rather than being an online troll or an in-person troll.

[smokingboot]

Yes, relationships and context make all the difference.

Talking about language use is not the same as trying to control language use. But care must be taken.

[lilysea]

Ugh, wheelchair bound.

I have seen so many people using that

and so many wheelchair-users pushing back against that phrase.

My favourite response was from a fellow wheelchair user who said "people are only wheelchair bound if they've been tied up in their wheelchair for BDSM purposes"

[moon_custafer]

Pretty sure I once saw an photo of an installation by a disabled artist that mocked the term by consisting of a wheelchair tied up with ropes and possibly suspended from the ceiling.

[sabotabby]

I'm not a wheelchair user and don't get a say, but as a disabled person and a former cane user, I gotta say I prefer "wheelchair bound" to "person who uses a wheelchair." Obviously, "wheelchair user" is better than either.

[moon_custafer]

I've seen various arguments for/against person-first terminology, and the sheer linguistic awkwardness that it often creates doesn't get cited enough by the latter camp (possibly from an understandable fear they'll be accused of frivolity or something).

[conuly]

Oh no, that’s totally valid though. It’s what makes it all worse.

[cellio]

Yeah. Part of getting people to adopt new language is crafting new language that people will actually say. Sorry, but I'm not going to say "person experiencing temporary homelessness" every time I talk about the people camping out in tents who need help. I like to think I'm flexible enough to learn new terms when a need is pointed out (I learned to replace "wheelchair-bound" with "wheelchair user", no problem), but it does have to be practical.

[nancylebov]

What is the preferred term?

[conuly]

Almost anything, I should think, but “so and so uses a wheelchair” doesn’t sound too awkward.

[nancylebov]

Is it worth making a distinction between needing a wheelchair all the time, rather than needing a wheelchair but being able to stand and/or walk a little?

[conuly]

You'd have to ask somebody who uses a wheelchair, but honestly, I can't imagine a situation where it's really necessary to say in casual conversation and where you don't already know what that person prefers.

[low_delta]

Nobody is in a wheelchair 24/7. And "bound" has a certain amount of negative connotation. It's the same connotation as disabled versus differently-abled.

[full_metal_ox]

And the more euphemism you enshroud a condition with, the more you further the impression that it’s shameful. (And until that attitude’s remedied, all you’ve done is introduce a new future slur.)

Another attitude that needs fixing is the notion that all disability is absolute (and, therefore, that someone who can walk a few steps or read the top line on the eye chart is faking or malingering.)

(Fraudulent faith healers also lean heavily into this misperception: a subject’s ability to rise from their wheelchair or correctly name the color of Pastor Mammon’s tie will be declared A MIRACLE!!!)

[cellio]

As someone with a disability, I feel dismissed and patronized when people say "differently abled" to/about me. It feels like the speaker is erasing my very real disability (for which I sometimes need to seek accommodation) in order to "be positive". I am not saying anything about people's intentions here; I'm only describing how I, one person among many, hear it.

All of us have different mixes of abilities, disabilities, and non-abilities, so we're all already "differently-abled". But sometimes some of us need to get attention for specific needs, and direct language feels to me like the more effective path.

(I hope this comment does not come across as criticism of you or anyone else using the phrase. I assume everyone has good intentions here.)

[silveradept]

"Dispreferred" manages to finesse the line between someone reacting to being told about language with "you're accusing me of being am entirely unredeemable human being" and "well, I don't give a shit about what you, individual, think about my language choices" by suggesting that it's more than just you who thinks this, but that it's only a preference than a demand.

At least, that's my guess.

[vvalkyri]

I would agree with this.

A lot of people would instead say something like that's ablest at which point that seems like a value judgment on the person / motives and then they pretend no it isn't.

[conuly]

It's really not, though. If I think the other person's motives are terrible because they're a bad person then why waste my breath saying anything at all?

That's like saying "If somebody says I smell like I stepped in poop, because I stepped in poop, they must mean I did it on purpose".

[med_cat]

I'd like to know what is the preferred term, instead of "wheelchair-bound"?

[conuly]

Almost anything, I think, but you can try saying that so-and-so uses a wheelchair.

A wheelchair is a mobility device. It’s not a weird type of bondage or confinement.

[med_cat]

Mhm yeah...will probably take a long time (it usually does) for medical terminology to change

[conuly]

I haven't heard "wheelchair bound" or "confined to a wheelchair" from any place official, definitely including doctor's offices*, in a very long time.

* I don't use a wheelchair, though in her last few visits my mother needed to borrow one if it was more than a few steps between the car and the office. But I also hear terminology, or read it, in signs and over loudspeakers and so on.

[med_cat]

I see "wheelchair bound" and "bedbound" in the History & Physical, in charts

[conuly]

Well, tell 'em to stop. "Uses wheelchair" will save valuable ink, and thus money.

[med_cat]

I shall see if I can advocate for that :)

[duskpeterson]

I think I'd probably say, "Oh, is that the term they use in your circles? Some people in wheelchairs told me that the term they currently use for themselves is--" But I'd probably not consider it worth my while to do this unless I thought there was a chance the other person was simply ignorant of the current term and would like to learn what it was.