so much meaning in one capital letter

[cellio]

My synagogue has been focusing (to varying degrees) on disability inclusion for the last couple years. They have recently taken to writing the word as "disAbility". I find it patronizing, trite, and a huge step backwards. It reeks of "special!", of having no expectations -- which to me is not validating but repelling. It replaces dealing with individual people, with all their complexities with feel-good promotional slogans.

Do not claim that my disability is some kind of special "ability". It's not. It's just part of how God made me, a thing I deal with and mostly manage pretty well, sometimes by asking for specific help, sometimes by acknowledging my limitations and not taking certain paths, same as everybody else. I don't obsess over my disability; why should you? I expect you to not place stumbling-blocks before me. I expect you to listen and do your best to accommodate when I make reasonable requests. I neither expect nor want you to make a fuss over me, to somehow claim that I have "different abilities", or to give me a free pass on things that are otherwise required of everybody. That's stuff some people do with children. I am not a child; do not treat me like one.

And even if my disability does somehow come with a special ability? (Technically I suppose it might.) If so, it's just an "ability". Not an "Ability", and certainly not a "disAbility". That just feels like spin, and ineffective spin at that. And that brings us back to "patronizing".

Don't. Just don't.

Surely in Jewish Disability Awareness Month, we can do better.

Comments

[minoanmiss]

Oh ffs how condescending. You are so right.

[cellio]

Condescending -- *that's* the word I was looking for. Yes, that.

[minoanmiss]

Having a bit more time -- there is a pattern here that often happens when people who have often referred disparagingly to an aspect think it's the mention that is the problem, not the disparagement. SO they try to ignore the aspect or downplay it instead of accepting it and figuring out what the situation needs. I hope that framing can help you explain to them why this is a mistake, if you want to do so. (SOmetimes it's worth trying to teach people, sometimes not, only the person on the ground can evaluate the situation.)

hugs you supportively

[conuly]

Yo, we aren't all Professor X.

[eub]

Huh, what is "disAbility" even supposed to mean? I'm failing at Googling for [disability spelled "capital a"] and so on. I mean, yes, the word is derived from "ability", is the idea with this spelling I shortcut straight there and forget that pesky "dis"? I don't think this is how etymology works very much.

[cellio]

Yeah, this is not how etymology works. I, too, tried to find out where it comes from using Google, and also failed. I haven't directly asked one of the people responsible. The main driver of this in my congregation makes all conversations on the subject massively unpleasant, but maybe there's someone else I could ask.

[madfilkentist]

Kari Maaren recently wrote a piece on writing about people with disabilities. I like it, and I'm guessing you will too.

[cellio]

Thank you! I do in fact like it, and had not seen it before.

[gingicat]

Truth.

[kayre]

And I suppose it's a bunch of normally abled folk doing this, right? Which should be a red flag to begin with.

[cellio]

Most are. The main driver has selective interest; disabilities that affect people she cares about matter, but others are much lower priority. (She has repeatedly and knowingly created barriers for the vision-impaired while accepting kudos for all she does for inclusion (sic).) At least people without disabilities but who are interested in providing help would presumably have broader sensibilities.

[magid]

Wow, that is condescending.

[osewalrus]

We see this bit of misguided but highly annoying nonsense surface every now and then. It appears to flow from the idea that by observing that someone does not have the same physical abilities as we expect to find in the default, that we are somehow diminishing or demeaning the person.

I class this with the fallacy of those who cannot distinguish between criticism of an idea or argument and criticism of the individual making the argument. As you observe, it is incredibly patronizing and annoying.