Yeeess....I guess it feels like you're setting up a straw man argument. I think we're arguing past each other: yes, it's important not to heedlessly follow the opinions of a vocal minority who claim to represent a whole group but don't. There's certainly a lot of extreme radical feminist doctrine I disagree with. And yes, you have to modify your approach depending on circumstances.
But you said I do find it difficult to credit certain terms as giving offence -- one example is a generic pejorative term like "crazy". And I was arguing that it does give offense to some people with mental illness, and on this point we now agree.
I do also think that this means it's probably worth avoiding all things being equal. The fact it doesn't bother all mentally ill people doesn't stop it bothering the ones it does. If it turned out that it bothered like ONE mentally ill person and NOONE ELSE minded then I might not try so hard. But...
The point of my post was not the individual use of particular words, but that the existence of ableist language is a symptom of deeper problems in attitude. By putting in a "Do you really want to use that word?" filter I'm forced to consider the (often very ableist) implications of what I'm saying. I mean that's the thing with "tone deaf": I don't think tone deaf people are really going to care, but using that metaphor is still problematic because it reinforces a POV I'm trying to move past. Similarly, stopping myself from using "crazy" has made me confront some deep seated issues with the way I view mental illness. (Of course relying on this argument alone ignores the effect on disabled people and makes it all about the Journey Of Self Discovery, which is not so good. But hey)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Joint reply to make the conversation easier to keep track of
But you said I do find it difficult to credit certain terms as giving offence -- one example is a generic pejorative term like "crazy". And I was arguing that it does give offense to some people with mental illness, and on this point we now agree.
I do also think that this means it's probably worth avoiding all things being equal. The fact it doesn't bother all mentally ill people doesn't stop it bothering the ones it does. If it turned out that it bothered like ONE mentally ill person and NOONE ELSE minded then I might not try so hard. But...
The point of my post was not the individual use of particular words, but that the existence of ableist language is a symptom of deeper problems in attitude. By putting in a "Do you really want to use that word?" filter I'm forced to consider the (often very ableist) implications of what I'm saying. I mean that's the thing with "tone deaf": I don't think tone deaf people are really going to care, but using that metaphor is still problematic because it reinforces a POV I'm trying to move past. Similarly, stopping myself from using "crazy" has made me confront some deep seated issues with the way I view mental illness. (Of course relying on this argument alone ignores the effect on disabled people and makes it all about the Journey Of Self Discovery, which is not so good. But hey)