A Statement About Words

 Greetings,

There is a subject that I have not broached before and I believe it is time, especially with all the talk about Inclusivity being thrown about. I am going to be specific about some words and how I feel about them. In regard to some words I am going to make a statement about how I would prefer to be addressed, in much the same way as a person of a different gender might, but we must discuss this so my intent here is clear.

First, I have no intention of belittling the importance of those of different gender expressing themselves. I believe that every human being has a right to a good and happy life, regardless of their situation. This is regardless of their gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic position, or any other way some interest group may decide to divide people. Part of this is expressing themselves and being known in the way that they prefer, appropriate to their situation. 

Second, those individuals who are not progressive enough to accept change in society, who are so dogged they would prefer to hold on to old ideals, old ways of doing things, there are many historical examples that could be cited which resulted in the fall of these societies due to them not changing with the times. We must move with the times and change as they change, accept what cannot be changed, change what can be changed, and be wise enough to know the difference.

Thirdly, in the pursuit of Inclusivity, as I have previously spoken, society has not done the fine job that it has thought it has, because there is a group of individuals who has been left behind. Maybe it is because they were recognised previously, in laws and so forth, but they are still marginalised. I speak of those with disabilities. To call a society "inclusive" means that consideration has been made for the disabled as well, which for the most part aside from some access changes and statements made, it has not. To achieve this the inherent ableism in the system must be removed.

Fourthly, changing the word does not change the situation, it does not soften the situation that the individual is in. Previously people were called "handicapped", then "disabled", now some call such individuals "differently abled", all in some measure to soften the words. To soften them so the people can be pushed aside, as though they have been dealt with, so people can feel better about themselves. No. The term is inaccurate and offensive.

Here is my statement: I do not accept the definition as "differently abled". I refuse to be called such and find such a term offensive in its nature. Has a person suddenly gained some different ability due to their disability? No. The term is inaccurate, the term is offensive. I am disabled, a part of my person does not function as well as it does in a "normal" human being, this is the accurate term.

Fifthly, I will continue to raise these points and complain in this fashion about the use of such words and their inaccuracies until they are fixed, or until the system truly is inclusive as it claims to be.

Lastly, in regards to "identification" I would most prefer to be referred to as a human being first, as it is the most important characteristic I possess. It is a term of unity. I am a #humanbeingfirst. The divisions weaken us, distract us from the unity which we could all have together. I know that I am one voice, mostly unread on this blog raging into the wind, but it is a cry that I will maintain. It is our only hope to survive. #humanbeingfirst

Regards,

Henry Walker

Identifying Feature

Greetings,

People are described to one another using their identifying features. We do not get to choose how we are described to a third party, that is up to the person doing the describing. This post discusses the different identifying features that we may be described by and looks at how they may, or may not, describe who we are. Some descriptions are accurate, some are not, some features used are appropriate, some are not. This question goes to who we are as human beings.

How do you think someone would describe you? What identifying features do you think a person would use to differentiate you from the next person in the crowd? Consider this and you begin to consider how you are perceived by other people. Just think according to this, you are a list of identifying features, at least until you meet and talk with the individual, and then that list may or may not grow.

Consider a police description of an individual that they are seeking. Sex, racial profile, height, hair cut, hair colour, clothing; then there are any distinguishing marks or features, here they are talking about scars, tattoos, whether they were wearing glasses, difference in gait, method of speech, posture and so forth. Here is another list by which an individual can be defined, is this what defines them, is this who they are?

Each individual can be defined by a simple list of characteristics, a list of boxes that can be ticked or not ticked as the case may be. The same process is used for the medical profession to describe a patient and their symptoms, again they are looking for the identifying features of the malady which the individual is suffering from so they can help them, but first there are other details that are required. These details are personal details, more so than the police description. Anyone who has been to see a medical professional has a file about them listing physical characteristics, maybe this is who we are?

Then there are social characteristics and identifying features that can be identified to highlight one person from the other. Have a look at any survey and you will find a list of questions designed to put a person under a list of characteristics for classification. Gender, age, occupation, these are some very basic ones. If we go deeper then there are family questions, brother, sister, daughter, son, orphan. Even more there are cousin, grandchild, each is a defining characteristic. Friend, enemy, nationality, social class, expanding out into the wider world. Do these things define who we are?

How about titles and ranks? These are also identifying features. Doctor, captain, colonel, general, knight, each of these is a title which is linked to something in the wider world. Some of these titles are earned some of theme are bestowed, given by someone else's decree, because you were thought to be worthy. Worthy because something among your characteristics has reached their ears, and allowed them to make a determination that you deserve to be known, separated from others, separated from the "mere" Mr, Mrs, Ms, and Mx. Do these titles define who we are?  

Maybe we are defined by a combination of all these identifying features all coming together and other elements not mentioned. We are more than a person of a particular race, a person of a particular gender, a person of a particular educational level, a person of a particular occupational status, a person of a particular religious status. We are all human beings first and foremost, and this is what people forget the most easily. Beyond all of these "features" there is a core individual; a human being. Should this not be our first identifying feature and our first concern? Should we not be defined by what sort of human being we are to others?

Cheers,

Henry