I got my shit handed to me because I said someone is mentally challenged. But apparently where I work that is considered hate speech. Is there a place where I can read the new terms? Like do we call all people from South America something or is it like Spanish American or Mexican American and so forth?
In my experience the best thing to do is ask. You won’t please everyone and your not expected to. Just try your best. No such list would be universally acceptable to everyone. Everyone is different. That APA list someone posted had some good suggestion (some not so great IMHO too). See the person not the “classification”
The APA publishes an inclusive language guide, and guidelines for bias-free language.
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?
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. :)
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.
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.
Intent SHOULD matter most here. Generally that’s true. I’ve also seen some folks go apeshit on people for using the wrong terms while the person speaking was actively trying to use the correct terms but just isn’t up-to-date. People of all groups, nationalities, genders etc can be dickheads, even when I agree with them broadly politically
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.
Wouldn’t you need to specify their actual need, rather than the broad term?
There’s likely multiple needs, and a broad term is an effective way to communicate all those needs in one sentence. It would be silly to stand there and list off all of the things they might need help with.
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.
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, if possible.
Sure I get that. I’m thinking just in a situation where I am describing a stranger. Like “hey front desk person, a dark skinned man with a blue hat dropped his keys but I didnt see what room he went in. I have to leave so I’m leaving them with you”
I’m probably being overly semantic but perhaps saying “A person with a blue hat and dark skin” would be the least abrasive way of putting it? That said, obsessing over endless semantic refinement and searching for a flawless alternative that does not exist for fear of hypothetical offense will lead to recursive over-correction ad nauseam
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.
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!
in swedish it’s “indian” for native north american, and “indier” for someone from india.
I feel like one could come up with a similar distinction in english but the best i can come up with is “indie” which is unfortunately already taken and slightly sounds like a slur when used for an ethnic group.In Canada they use “First Nations”, which I really like, so I use that a lot of the time (of the rare times the subject arises). :)
He’s an Indian American. An American Indian would be an Indian of American descent.
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.
