Offensive disability words
- 23 Nov 05, 12:00 AM
Read this first: OK, I need to begin this entry with a very strong WARNING. See, I've put it in bold capital letters to show you how serious it is. In this blog entry, there's a link to a story in Monday's edition of The Guardian which, for reasons that will become clear, contains a lot of rude words. A lot of them. If you find that kind of thing offensive, or if you're too young to be reading such strong language, please don't click on the link. Got that? Good. Don't say we didn't warn you.
Right then . . .
Ofcom, the regulator for broadcasting and communications, recently released a report entitled . This research looked at what viewers and listeners considered to be offensive language, and the relative strength of a number of supposedly taboo words depending on how people responded to them. Categories included religious words, body parts/body functions, sexual orientation, ethnic words and so on . . . plus, of course, offensive words relating to 'people with disabilities'.
It's this long list of terms that The Guardian summarised in Monday's paper under the title . That's the link, right there, but remember what I said above about clicking it. It's not for the saintly or squeamish.
From the list of disability words, here are some that caught my eye, together with a few brief lines about what the Great British Public thought of them:
Mong: Several haven't heard of this word - polarising - many say is inoffensive, but after discussion see that it could be offensive in the way that 'retard' is.
Retard: Quite polarising: offensive because of it effectively refers to a disability, but many do not see this as an issue. A few do, however; for one it is the new 'spastic'; others find it really objectionable.
Spastic: Recognised as very offensive to most people, though a few think it is okay to use the word 'spas' or spaz.
Here at Ouch we know all about offensive disability words, having conducted the poll to end all polls on the matter a couple of years ago in our Worst Word Vote - where 'retard' came out in pole position, closely followed by 'spastic'. We note that the Ofcom report couldn't, however, find a place for 'window-licker'. Must try harder next time, chaps.
Of course, what would be really interesting to know is how many of the people surveyed by Ofcom were disabled themselves. As our own poll discovered, words like 'brave', 'wheelchair-bound' and 'special' caused us far more upset than they did for the non-disabled. So can we have a breakdown of the research please, Ofcom?
Comments
The context and manner in which words are said, and their apparent intent, is far more significant, in my experience, than the word used; an insulting word said in an affectionate way by an old friend is usually inoffensive, whereas a 'compliment' said in an unpleasant manner by a stranger can be hurtful. This is mentioned in the OfCom report, but in nether your article nor the Guardian report.
I notice the term autism is being used mainly by journalists as a term of abuse for people who are socially inept. The latest user of this was Gary Younge a journalist with the Guardian who used it is a liberal progressive writer who non the less saw nothing wrong with using this term. I emailed to outline its offensive to the autism community. Unfortunately I did not get the courtesy of a reply. Anyone else noticed this?
How ironic that Ouch considers itself to know all about offensive words when I often complain to the message board "Quick I've just seen a disabled person on TV" about the persistant use in messages of the word "spastic".
please amend my comment. It should read Gary Younge a journalist with the Guardian who is a liberal progressive writer.... sorry for error I get overexcited about these things!
I am wondering if the phrase that seems to be floating around is offensieve to others. The word DisABILITY where people want to accentuate the "ability" in disability.
What are the thoughts on that?
Thanks,
Martha