Word vs. attitude

March 4th marked an annual awareness day for the Spread the Word to End the R-Word campaign. The campaign, which runs all year, encourages people to take the pledge to stop using the r-word, which is retarded.  The initiative is a good one, as the word is offensive and has become very insulting to people with intellectual disabilities.  However, I have often wondered if changing words really makes a difference, if we do not change attitudes.

Over the years, there have been various words to describe people with disabilities.  There has been crippled, handicapped, disabled, physically challenged, differently abled, person with a disability and perhaps my personal favorite, exceptional person or person with exceptionalities.

I think we can probably all agree that crippled is offensive.  The challenge (pardon the pun) with the term handicapped is handicapped means put at a disadvantage, which would only make sense in certain circumstances.  Admittedly, there are some circumstances, such as if I were to run a marathon, where I would be at a disadvantage.  However, that does not apply to every circumstance.  I haved always found the word challenged odd, because we all face challenges in life.  If we all face challenges, then that means we are all challenged.  If we all are challenged, then where the heck am I going to park?

While not a big fan of political correctness, differently abled would probably be somewhat more accurate, because for the most part, we can do most things, maybe just differently.  That being said, it is somewhat of a strange term as we all have our own unique abilities and our own way of doing things.   However, I think the most bizarre term is exceptional people or person with exceptionalities.  While I appreciate the vote of confidence, that is a lot of pressure to live up to.  Furthermore, while I am certainly proud of many of my accomplishments, we have gone from one extreme to another.  As opposed to assuming that there is nothing a person with a disability can do, we have gone to the other extreme of a person with a disability can do no wrong, and everything they do is remarkable, because of the disability.  Why not simply evaluate the person as an individual, as you would anyone else?

In 2006 the Federal government in Canada came out with a guide indicating the proper terminology to use.  The idea was, for example, I was not an amputee but rather a person with an amputation, because I am a person first, and the amputation does not define me.  Don't get me wrong.  I appreciate being considered a person.  However, having lived in Montreal at the time, my thought was that I have gone from being an amputee who could not get on the Metro system to a person with an amputation...who could not get on the Metero system...which sort of begged the question would it not have been more helpful to scrap the guide and put the money into putting elevators in the Metro system?

Here's my issue.  If someone were to say they cannot hire me because I am disabled, challenged or a person with a disability, or if a girl were to say I cannot date him because he is disabled, challenged or a person with a disability, the end result is the same.  So perhaps we should focus on changing attitudes instead of words, because I tend to go by Michael as opposed to a generic label.