On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:44:59 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:

>"Damsel" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>I disapprove of euphemism. People used to be crippled, then
>>>handicapped, then (god forbid) differently-abled.
>>
>> People with disabilities. They/we are, first and foremost, people.
>
>Yes, but if you are crippled, you are crippled. A fancy name does not
>change the facts. Slang names (such as the "gimp" referred to) are hurtful,
>but our society would rather change names than deal with the fact. Cripple
>has been in the dictionary for a few centuries.

There are many long-standing terms in the dictionary. Doesn't make them
right. There are a lot of disabling conditions, not all of them visible,
and not all of them crippling, in the usual sense of the word.

> What is more demeaning than the "human resources" department instead of the
>personnel department? Are you merely a resource or are you a person?

My last job was as a Human Resource Officer for a state agency.
Rehabilitation Services. I've been trained to be politically correct
(a person isn't in a wheelchair - they are a person who uses a wheelchair),
and political correctness is generally a way to offer dignity to someone.

>If you looked at me you'd say I'm bald. It does not alter the fact if you
>called me a "person of hair growth impairment" instead.

Nah, I'd just say you're Ed. Hair, or lack of it, is only relevant when
filing a police report. Same with race, hair color, weight, etc. People
are people. Some are good, some are bad, and some are a little of each.
I'm more inclined to identify someone according to their personality traits
and attitudes than what's on the outside.

Carol (vertically challenged) LOL!
--
"Years ago my mother used to say to me... She'd say,
'In this world Elwood, you must be oh-so smart or oh-so pleasant.'
Well, for years I was smart.... I recommend pleasant. You may quote me."

*James Stewart* in the 1950 movie, _Harvey_