And, like I've said, word lists aren't really enough or the point.

You can think you're not ableist because you've memorized the word lists and faithfully substitute okay'ed words, but you can still say the same ableist things without the verboten words.

Like "sick" or "disturbed." Those aren't going to be on lists of words you should never ever use because they're, you know, not ableist by default.

But you can use them to say ableist things about neurodivergent people.

I just said this elsewhere but, to me, I use unpacking ableist language as an entry point to unpack ableist attitudes.

If I can show you where your language is telling on you, I can get you to think about your language and your ableism.

The goal is to get you to have a sort of internal... net.

Like, you attach trackers to certain ableist language and when that language turns up in your head, your net gets activated.

You catch the language and you examine it.

You ask yourself why that was the word you went for and what it says about what you believe and how that influences your behavior.

You get in the habit of thinking about what you think and why you think it. And you learn to do better.

Hopefully you get used to thinking, "I went for cr*zy because I've been taught to equate mental illness with irrationality or things being out of control, but I could just say 'out of control' or 'irrational'."

You get in a habit of decoupling negative ideas from Disability.

This isn't the approach that's going to work for everyone but it doesn't mean this is a bad approach to confronting and dismantling internalized ableism.

It's just one approach that works for some people.

Which is why I think the "ableist language debate" is bullshit. People think it's a waste of time to focus on ableist language because there are "more important things."

I think a lot of the barriers to those "more important things" are how people THINK about Disability.

And one very effective way to get a fair number of people to deal with their ableism is to get them to think critically about the words they use.

We already know that you can have protective laws in place for Disabled people—

but unless you get people who want to enforce them and who have dealt seriously with their ableism, the laws are just ink on paper and pixels on screens.

The ableist language thing doesn't have to be where you put your energy or focus, but you don't have to undermine those of us doing the work in this area by saying it's less important.

Getting people to think critically about their own ableism & structural ableism is good work.

Teaching people to think critically about ableism is easing the way for folks to push for more of the practical things Disabled folks need.

It's not my fault if you don't appreciate that work.

I'm not sitting here saying, "Big physical public protests are such a huge waste of time" because of course they're not.

Just because they're not where I put my energy doesn't mean they're not important. They're one part of the picture.

And, by the way, I might not get recognized for it and I don't NEED to be recognized for it, but I recognize my influence out there.

I can see where I've made some deep impacts. Just fat little me on my laptop in bed shouting into the void.

So anyway. I just don't think there's a debate to be had.

There are people who need to get over themselves and realize there are a lot of ways to achieve the same goals and usually there needs to be more than one angle for the really big ones.

To clarify, I think there are conversations to be had about ableist language. But framing those conversations as "debates" hits me wrong.

What do you want to debate? That ableist language matters and is a problem? That combatting ableist language is important?

No debate.

We can certainly talk about ableist language and differences of opinion in terms of which language is ableist.

But "debate" implies that all perspectives are equally valid. And that's not true.

The perspectives of people who are directly affected by the language are most valid.

Anyone who thinks there can be a debate had about ableist language as a whole is really not paying attention.

Ableist language exists. It is bad. In general, people should not use it. (Reclamation is an entirely different conversation.)

This is why I say there is no debate.

Like, I'm not in a debate. There is no room for an argument that ableist language doesn't exist or doesn't matter.

If your perspective is that ableist language doesn't exist or doesn't matter, we're not in a debate. I'm not wasting my time arguing with you.

You're just wrong and need to catch up to the decent folks.