TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: them words From:Pat Madea <madea -at- MMSI -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 8 Jun 1995 10:17:52 MST
I agree with Sue wholeheartedly. I think she hits the nail on the
head with her posting in response to Geoff Hart's earlier post re:
the PC term for persons with handicaps. I appreciated Geoff's
comments, too, but Sue's seemed more on the mark:
>From: SuePStewrt -at- AOL -dot- COM
>
>> I've also had lots of difficulty accepting politically correct
>> language. For example, why do we say disabled (not able to do
>> something, a less-offensive form of "invalid") instead of handicapped
>> (having a disadvantage compared to non-handicapped people)? The latter
>> is both more accurate and less offensive.<<
>
>Actually, none of these *adjectives* is considered appropriate under the ADA
>(Americans with Disabilities Act), because they label the person. To be PC,
>one should say "person with a disability" or "person with a handicap." And
>yes, I've already seen the initialism PWD.
>
>Personally, I just refer to myself as a gimp.
>
>sue stewart
>suepstewrt -at- aol -dot- com
>
