Food for thought:

[capri0mni]

Over at Rolling Around in my Head, Dave Hingsburger is asking a question that tickles that special lexicography geek place in my heart (It's another "What's a lexical gap in English that you would like to see filled?" discussion). And since I have people in my circles that identify with various forms of queer- and/or Disability Pride, I thought I'd share it here:

Begin Quote:

Several years ago George Hislop, who was a close friend, told me the difference between someone who was 'gay' and someone who was 'homosexual.' He said that a 'homosexual' was someone who had sex with others of the same gender but who did not identify with their sexuality, denied it as often and as loudly as they could and who did nothing to support the political movement regarding the rights for sexual minorities. A gay person, on the other hand, was someone who also had sex with others of the same gender but had an affiliation to the movement to the rights of others to love as they will that went beyond sex. Gay people, he said, identified with their sexuality and with their community. He saw the difference as the same as the difference between shade and sun.

[Snip]

Begin Quote:

Like the woman I spoke to in Maryland who wanted to talk to me about accessibility in Toronto. When this happened it reminded me of being in a gay bar in Milwaukee and being asked how safe it was to be gay in Toronto. In both cases, it was more than strangers asking strangers tourist advice ... both were experiences of the best of community. Where strangers aren't so strange, and where questions are understood at the deepest level of their asking. Community is community but community requires an entrance fee - identity.

So... while I'll be working on other things, today, this question will be running in the background of my thoughts... I'll probably have more to say about it later.

[ETA: Oops! forgot the link to the full post -- here: http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/2013/04/take-notes-theres-quiz-at-end.html ]

Comments

[smw]

This got me on a tangent that doesn’t relate to disability at all, I’m afraid. I hope you don’t mind me putting it down in your comment thread.

I have difficulty accepting definitions of sexuality labels that make a claim on being definitive due to the fact that these words have so many idiosyncratic meanings within particular spaces of the community as a whole. Claiming a label is a very important gesture in queer/LGBTQ culture, and it is something held as a basic right (within the spaces I frequent) that each person can claim whatever they want as part of their self-identity. While this is irritating from a lexical standpoint and it can be argued that these definitions do not exclude a “canonical” meaning outside the spaces in which they are idiosyncratically used, from my standpoint trying to corral labels is antithetical to the inherently outsider position of the community vis-à-vis mainstream society and its efforts to pin down individuals belonging to it.

To sum: within a particular study, discussion, or space, I’m fine with definitive meanings being used to facilitate the discussion—that is, within a conversation you might say “a homosexual is in denial, and a gay person isn’t”. I am not okay with saying that those words have those meanings always, and I am definitely not okay with an individual claiming they have the right to choose which meaning is “right”.

[capri0mni]

I have difficulty accepting definitions of sexuality labels that may claim on being definitive due to the fact that these were so many idiosyncratic meanings within particular spaces of the community as a whole.

… I'm fine with definitive meanings being used to facilitate discussion – that is, within a conversation you might say quote a homosexual is in denial and a gay person isn't". I am not okay with saying those words have those meanings always and I am definitely not okay with an individual claiming they have the right to choose which meaning is "right".

I actually agree. And in the whole blog post, the author never actually asked if there should be a specific word for disability-accepting individuals, or what that word should be – just whether or not readers noticed if the Disability community had a similar cultural divide.

It is I who is wondering about specific words that would be good candidates for general "disability-accepting label." As I said elsewhere in this journal, I've chosen "cripple" as my personal pride word, because deep in my core, my subconscious equates crawling with being true to myself, and walking on crutches and using the wheelchair with trying to fit myself in the cultural norms that don't fit me. But the Disability community is much wider than mobility impairment … And the word "cripple" may have to steep a negative-connotation slope to get over forest of the appropriate communitywide (aside: it was Dragon NaturallySpeaking the decided "communitywide" is one word; I didn't realize that was an option).

But perhaps I could start a semi-serious campaign for the acceptance of "Monster." ;-)

[smw]

Ah, I should've made my original comment clearer—this isn't really a reply to your own question, but to the phrasing attributed to George Hislop. Where the Disability community is concerned, I am not at all as versed in the culture, much less the culture with regards to self-labeling.

I must admit, I personally find labels to be a sticky matter, and my reaction is partially based on that.

I like the term "cripple", myself. It has a good rhythm. As to "monster"—hah! Go forth and disseminate, because it'd be a good choice.

[capri0mni]

I personally find labels to be a sticky matter …

heh! Is that an unintentional pun? Anyway …

I like the term "cripple", myself. It has a good rhythm.

Oh it's a wonderful word, sound-wise, what the c-r beginning, and the p-l-e ending, it's just satisfying all the way around which is probably why it's interred in the language for so long. I'm a stickler (or perhaps just a sucker) for being true to a word's original meaning. Which is why I do like "monster"; it may also have less of a steep negative connotation to overcome (thanks to, at the very least, the genius of Jim Henson).