I rarely correct people, but perhaps I should do so more.

A close friend of mine is super interested in disability studies and has an invisible disability, and we love conversations like this. This post has really opened my eyes to the fact that while I don’t think I use these metaphors very often, if at all, I am far less conscious of some of the more seemingly-innocuous ones (“lame”, etc). It is important to remember the history of these words and because of this post I hope I will be even more sensitive to the flippant use of ableist language.

We have so many wonderful words at our disposal, there is simply no need to choose the ones that connote ableist privilege.

Thank you for the post!

The term “moron” was coined in 1920 by Henry H. Goddard, best known for his notorious (and discredited) 1912 book, “The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness,” one of the movement’s classics.

D’Antonio’s book details how the boys were encouraged to join a “Science Club” and receive larger rations of oatmeal and tickets to Red Sox games. The oatmeal was given to them with radioactive milk, and, of course, without their informed consent. It was part of an MIT research project to track the absorption of calcium and iron.

Fred Boyce, who spearheaded the class-action suit against MIT and Quaker Oats, had been labeled “moron” when he was admitted to Fernald, and this label stayed in his official records all his life, despite his attempt to have it removed. After he was released from Fernald, he taught himself to read, hired a tutor to improve his literacy, and became a successful operator of a carnival-concessions booth. He discovered that, far from being intellectually dull, he had above-average intelligence. He died in 2006, age 65, of colon cancer, possibly caused by the radioactive oatmeal. Although he forgave his family and the Fernald staff, he knew well how damaging labels can be.

And the thing is that often sighted people don’t realize this, but people actually start to internalize these associations with blindness and then those associations inform how they interact with blind people.

As a blind person, language like this is what leads to people assuming that I really am oblivious to my environment. It’s what leads them to project their idea of blindness as tragic onto me. People regularly suggest I pass off my pet dog as a guide dog because they assume I really am immoral. They’re surprised when I do well in my field of choice because they assume that I really am incompetent. And all of this happens just below the surface. They’re not aware of it and if I try to call them out on it, often they will deny it. But their questions, their comments, strongly point to their subconscious association between blindness and the traits mentioned.

It’s a similar phenomenon where the word “gay” itself isn’t pejorative, but when it’s used to mean “annoying” or “strange” then it becomes pejorative. People have started to understand that language like “that’s so gay” perpetuates heterosexism. This is the same concept–language like “what are you, blind?” perpetuates ableism.

The point here isn’t that people are “bothered” by disability slurs, though systemic issues often get minimized to personal hurt. This isn’t about personal offense. It’s about how words reflect and reinforce ableism in the larger society, with all of the abuses and civil rights violations that flow from that.

Lastly — Telling people that “they must deal” is not welcome here. You’re free to disagree with anything I write, truly, but not on the basis of “people just need to suck it up.” This is a space to discuss representations of disability and their implications for our lives. If you feel that people just need to get over it, this probably isn’t the right blog for you.

On the one hand, language can be used to communicate or to wound… as a pen or as a club. And I prefer it as a pen… but I also don’t like to get wrapped arou d the axel about every use of every word. If you *can’t see* the impact of racism in your actions, you *are* “blind” to it by every meaningful definition. If this bothers people who also literally cannot see concrete objects that others cannot perceive certain things, they must deal. They do not own the inability to perceive just because their eyes do not work. I do not own pain just because I suffer from it chronically. Other people will have other sorts of pain, both physical, mental, emotional, and yes, metaphorical, including but not limited to financial, political, job related, and Internet drama.

Just because society is ablist doesn’t mean I have to internalize it.