JPKAS wrote:I think whining about this is dumb honestly. my initial deep reaction is that this is stupid and that people who worry about language so much are over sensitive whiners.
But I fix it logically by saying some things are important to people even if they are stupid to me.
So as not to offend you I will just say I don't particularly care what you use.
I also think schizoid people are the least likely to give a damn but maybe I am assuming.
Person first identity first- blehck.
I don't care.
-- Tue Jul 28, 2015 7:22 pm --
' a blonde woman
Vs
A woman with blonde hair .
Means the same thing . The only people crying about it are the ones who are sensitive to every little connotation they don't particularly like.
' You're taking my personhood away when you put my features first ! I am a woman not a blonde first'
Yeah but you are also blonde...
I don't even get this question.
I actually did predict that the majority of the people in the poll wouldn't care either way.
I am not at all offended by what you said.
What you are saying about person-first/identity-first language makes me wonder about the actual reason I prefer identity-first. I think that it may have been from frustration due to people insisting on using person-first, while also insisting that disability is this terrible thing and is somehow incompatible with being a person. They just seem like drama queens. I also become afraid of people who say that disability is incompatible with personhood, as people tend to think a living being has to be human to have rights (which doesn't make sense to me, but people do believe that).
I think that it may be more logical to choose the most concise, least awkward sounding way of referring to disability rather than getting involved with the meaning people give to semantics. Besides, if someone has a problem with having to be constantly reminded that a disabled person is a person, different usage of language won't change that.