I discovered another Politically Correct term today: Ableism. It was made up sometime between 1985 and 1990. According to dictionary.com, Ableism is discrimination against disabled people.

I’m against discriminating against disabled people. I think everyone has the right to work, take care of themselves, and be a productive part of society. What I am against is the way some people turn every word, every phrase, and any imagined act into an act of discrimination.

A website called Disabled Feminists takes issue with the word lame. According to the Urban Dictionary, “lame” has a lot of definitions, only one of which means “a person who can’t walk.” The political correctness cops don’t care about that. They want to grip the original definition in a language vise, and force people to only use that word when referring to someone who can’t walk. Which confuses me, because we’re not supposed to use the word lame or disabled, either, so what is the fuzzy term we can use? I think a few years ago it was otherwise-abled, or handi-capable, but those are probably not in fashion anaymore.

From the thread:

“It’s a bit unclear when people started using the word in the context of events/situations/objects, although it appears to have started around the 18th century.”

So, is this the evolution of language, or 300 years of oppression? I’m saying the former.

Find me one instance within the past 10 years where the word has been used in common conversation to mean a person who can’t walk.

“This usage is highly divorced from its origin and needs to stop.”

Words evolve over time. In American English, many words have evolved from their original usage. To use words only as defined when they originated will remove the color and variety that make up the American English language.

“Weak is ableist because weakness is part and parcel of some disabilities.”

Perhaps they mean weak, as in weak tea. (definition: deficient in the essential or usual properties or ingredients). Using that definition, there is no way that calling something else weak is ableist.

“Political Correctness” is the practice of censoring all the words that certain groups don’t want the rest of society to use in any way. More and more, people are concerned that anything and everything they say will bring down the wrath of the political correctness enforcers. Whether anyone was really insulted, or hurt by the words doesn’t matter. The language cops want us all to only think and speak in politically-approved ways.

There are certainly words that are meant to be perjorative, and were from first use. We should avoid those. But what about words that were never meant to harm, that some group has decided are harmful, because they want them to be ?

Should we all speak in Olde English. Should words only be used in their most literal definition, even if that word has multiple definitions? Should we shun every one who speaks differently from us, and embrace only those who speak exactly the way we do, and have the same values and prejudices? Yes, prejudices. Because choosing to be offended by the word usage of others, and expecting them to act as we wish, is a definite prejudice.

I have a disability. I don’t define myself by it. Being self-focused, and insulted every time someone uses a word that can be remotely related to my disability is a waste of time and energy. I have challenges I work with and through, and am more interested in associating with people I like who also like me. The more I call attention to our differences, the more negative attention I receive, and the more uncomfortable others become.

Lighten up. Relax. I choose to embrace the evolution of language, and stop looking for offense where none is truly given. If everyone chose to do the same, we’d no longer have to ask, “Can’t we all just get along?”