When the World Shut Down, They Saw It Open

August 26, 2020 11:15 AM

The pandemic has made work and social life more accessible for many, but people with disabilities are wondering whether virtual accommodations will last (NYT)
posted by adrianhon (16 comments total)

This is wonderful. I hope that when the pandemic is gone people will continue to socialize more with people who have disabilities, and that people with disabilities will feel more empowered to ask to be included in social gatherings.
posted by mareli at 11:42 AM on August 26, 2020 [1 favorite]

They won't.

Twice this week my school has told me to do things in-person when 1) they previously agreed that I would be able to stay completely virtual due to my health risks, and 2) these were things that were done virtually during the lockdowns, so it's not like they have to adjust anything or create new content/processes.

The information about curbside pickup has disappeared off my local pet store's website. Everyone's stopped using the Discords set up to keep clubs and cohorts in touch during lockdown. Virtual doctor's appointments are booking out months, but we can see you in-person this week!

I'm not trying to be pessimistic. But I always suspected it wasn't going to last. I just kind of hoped these options would stay around through the actual pandemic, at least.
posted by brook horse at 12:07 PM on August 26, 2020 [39 favorites]

(Er, that 'they won't' was directed at the sentence in the original post, not you mareli. I have some people still willing to socialize with me virtually, so I think the social aspect may be more likely to stick around, but anything that requires adjustments to businesses or schools is likely not to.)
posted by brook horse at 12:09 PM on August 26, 2020 [2 favorites]

I think some things will remain virtual, but it'll be the things that are cheaper or more profitable that way, not the ones that most benefit disabled people.
posted by jacquilynne at 1:15 PM on August 26, 2020 [12 favorites]

It's a shame that an article about disabled people repeatedly uses the inaccurate and unpleasant would-be euphemism "people with disabilities". The social model of disability has existed for at least four decades. Disabled people don't "have disabilities": we are disabled by a global society adapted to the specific and narrow range of attributes possessed by abled people.

Being disabled is not a disease, and it is not our failing. Calling us disabled people is not an insult: it's an admission of societal responsibility.

Would the NYT publish an article that discussed "people with homosexuality"?
posted by howfar at 1:21 PM on August 26, 2020 [21 favorites]

They won't.

Agreed. And as for the real world, all the plastic barriers aren't ever going away either. This hearing impaired guy is having a splendid time negotiating those.

(Keep those shields, absolutely -- it's just that not a lot of consideration went into their design, but what else is new?)
posted by Capt. Renault at 1:47 PM on August 26, 2020 [7 favorites]

I agree that there is no shame in being disabled or in having any impairment of function. One of my objections to talking about "people with disabilities" is that it implies shame. Its prevalence is derived from the idea that calling a disabled person "a disabled person" isn't respectful.

As one illustration of what I mean, compare the Google search return rates for "short-sighted people" and "people with short-sightedness", and you'll note that you get about 10 times more hits for the former than the latter. Try the same with "disabled people" and "people with disabilities" and you'll see a much greater disparity in the other direction. This is because, although short-sightedness is an impairment, in most cases it falls within the range of attributes that society is adapted to cater for, so we don't feel the urge to fence it off from people in our language, for fear that it is somehow insulting or belittling. It reflects the fact that society thinks of being disabled, by virtue of having certain impairments, as inferior and other, just as it thinks of being a member of any marginalised group as inferior and other.

My other major problem with "people with disabilities" is that it avoids the valuable word "disabled". It obscures the fact that disabled people are actively being disabled by the choices that are made in the interest of a privileged group. It maintains the pretence that "disabilities" are free-floating entities independent of disabled people, the world we live in, and the experience of living in that world. That is to say that it conceals structural ableism.

All people have impairments, but only some impairments result in people being disabled. Being disabled is not inherent to particular impairments, but rather consequent on the choices made by a society about which impairments should be adjusted to and catered for without question and as a matter of course. Talking about "people with disabilities", and so treating "impairment" and "disability" as synonyms, is a means of reifying those choices: it conflates certain impairments with the consequences of living in a society that is not adapted to being someone who has those impairments.
posted by howfar at 4:38 PM on August 26, 2020 [10 favorites]

howfar, as someone who writes about accessibility tech sometimes, you've given me somewhat to think about. I have used "people with disabilities" certainly, partly because I feel I remember hearing another argument in the other direction, something along the lines that you say "disabled machine" or the like only when it is completely out of action, or deliberately made so.

I use "deaf people," which seems correct in most cases, but "blind people" I generally avoid or replace with "people with low or no vision" or something like that, because usually it's applicable to both, etc. ("Low vision people" doesn't sound right. Nor "the vision impaired.")

I'm also wary of being too specific with physical disabilities. For instance talking about why curb cuts aren't marked on Google Maps, that's obviously an issue for someone with a broken leg as much as someone who's quadriplegic. So I've written, "people with impaired mobility" or, for a gadget that needs accessibility work, "people with motor impairments." Same for a wheelchair accessory that lets someone see behind them or control a laser pointer with their gaze.

Anyway! I'm not trying to get you to spot check me. Like I said you've given me more to think about and I hope I'll be able to be descriptive but also inclusive and considerate in the future. I write in a hurry but have been trying to take the, literally, seconds it takes to not make the obviously wrong choice. More information is always welcome!
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 5:21 PM on August 26, 2020

If you'd like to learn more about what howfar is talking about, a search for "identity-first language" may be helpful!

(You're also welcome to message me--I talk about identity vs person first language all the time, I'm just too tired to do so right now. But if you remind me sometime on the weekend I'd be happy to chat about it.)
posted by brook horse at 5:48 PM on August 26, 2020 [7 favorites]

It's a shame that an article about disabled people repeatedly uses the inaccurate and unpleasant would-be euphemism "people with disabilities".

I don’t want to sound like I’m trying to argue with you because I agree with you - I’ve never been a fan of the “people first” thing in the contexts in which it could be applied to me. But in my experience there are still a lot of people who will tell you you’re wrong for not using it so it feels like a no-win situation a lot of the time.
posted by atoxyl at 2:29 AM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]

Though it sounds like maybe you’re more specifically objecting to “people with disabilities” than to “people with [impairment]?” I don’t really like the enforced use of the latter, either, but that view hinges more on identity and lack of shame and a feeling that these circumlocutions are condescending.
posted by atoxyl at 2:43 AM on August 27, 2020

It's interesting to think about how the pandemic has made things easier for lots of people, especially the disabled. I hadn't considered that because while certain things are easier for me (my job can be fully done remotely with no cange whatsoever), my 3rd grader is a different story. He's autistic and possibly has ADHD, and remote learning is not working for him in any way whatsoever. It's almost like the people on the screen don't register as real people at all. This is in stark contrast to in-school learning, where he was doing very well. I hope the takeaway will eventually be to keep remote options in place and continue to have in-person options.
posted by JenMarie at 6:35 PM on August 27, 2020 [1 favorite]

@atoxyl, in my experience the two pushbacks come from different sources. Disabled people themselves pushing back against person-first language, and non-disabled people who have been taught that identity-first is insensitive pushing back against it. I'm hoping you wouldn't reduce that to "no-win".

The tilt of people want does vary by what you're talking about, so listen to them. I don't personally know any autistic people who prefer "person with autism", though I'm sure some exist. But I know at least two people who prefer "I'm bipolar" and at least one who prefers "I have bipolar disorder", and at least one who's indifferent.
posted by away for regrooving at 1:22 AM on August 29, 2020

@JenMarie, oh gosh I feel this one specifically. Never did video calls, even with familiar relatives.
He's autistic and possibly has ADHD, and remote learning is not working for him in any way whatsoever. It's almost like the people on the screen don't register as real people at all.

From what I see, though maybe the happy ones aren't speaking up, remote ~learning~ is a tire fire for autistic students and students on IEPs generally. The already-shoddy Special Ed is now a complete handwave in the direction of "please don't sue us." I cannot imagine how bad this is for students whose parents don't have the capacity to act as an in-home IA, and didn't have the privilege to get a diagnostic label applied anyway.
posted by away for regrooving at 1:29 AM on August 29, 2020 [1 favorite]

It took me a fair while at the beginning of lockdown to shake off the anger I felt when the remote work accommodations I had to fight to get over the past three years were suddenly easily available to everyone, managed to shake that off thankfully and now I just hope they stay.
posted by ellieBOA at 11:02 PM on August 29, 2020 [4 favorites]

howfar, BlackLeotardFront, brook horse, atoxyl and away for regrooving: As a journalist whose job involves a lot of copy editing, I might be able to clarify why reporters, photographers, editors and copy editors use "people-first" language. (FYI: Copy editors write headlines and captions -- reporters get blamed for inaccurate and/or clickbait headlines that aren't their fault.)

The Associated Press Stylebook is the bible of spelling, grammar, punctuation, style and usage for U.S. journalists. After disability advocacy groups developed the concept of "people-first language" in the 1980s, institutions like the AP implemented "people first" language as an unassailable rule for writing about, as the AP would say, "people with disabilities."

But as Alex Kapitan of Radical Copyeditor pointed out in a 2017 blog post,

When a language rule—which was created specifically to respect people’s agency and personhood—gets in the way of actually respecting the person in front of you, it’s time to ditch the rule. ...

In the words of Emily Ladau:

Ultimately, the key is to ask, whenever possible, how a person chooses to identify, rather than making assumptions or imposing your own beliefs. Each person’s relationship to language and identity are deeply personal, and everyone’s identity choices are worthy of respect. … Being who you choose to be—who you are—is something no language rule should ever take away.

Let’s practice person-centered language instead of person-first language, and remind each other that the point is to put the actual person first—to remember that all people are people and should be treated as the first and foremost experts on themselves.

Not surprisingly Kapitan heard from a lot of people who basically said, "Well, now what am I supposed to do?" His answer boiled down to: It's complicated. Talk to the people you're covering, and to organizations led by them. There's no one right answer.

And this seems to be the direction in which the Associated Press is moving, according to Merrill Perlman, who reported in the May 6 Columbia Journalism Review, in "2020 AP Stylebook changes: Person-first language, and the great ‘pled’ debate":

Many of the changes in style continue AP’s move toward what is called “person-first language,” which uses descriptions rather than labels. Calling someone a “senior” or “elderly” is “identity-first language,” for example, because it says nothing about the specific person, and one person’s idea of what constitutes “elderly” might not be another’s. Mentioning someone’s age, when relevant, can replace the label. So the stylebook now prefers “older adults” or “older person,” Froke said, acknowledging that those terms are also imprecise.

As the stylebook frequently mentions, using specifics for the individual is less likely to fall into stereotypes or offend. (We also believe that labels can be hurtful and misunderstood.)

One twist to that: the entry previously labeled “disabled, handicapped” has been changed to be simply “disabilities.” That entry, which advises being specific about the type of disability, has now added this section:

When possible, ask people how they prefer to be described (when the description is relevant).

Some people, for example, refer to themselves as "a disabled person" or simply "disabled," using identity-first language.

Others prefer "person with a disability," using person-first language. In describing groups of people, use person-first language.

posted by virago at 4:35 PM on August 31, 2020 [1 favorite]