Name: 私は『特別』なんだ!// アイデンティティファースト対パーソンファースト言語[CC] (I'm 'Special'! // Identity First vs. Person First Language [CC])
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T10:17:30.000Z
Duration: 11 min 27 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

Hello, lovely people! Welcome back to a new video!

I've missed you while I was on holiday, but it did give me an idea for a new video.

So let's talk about why the word "special" is problematic.

You should probably also talk about why the word problematic is problematic, but that's for another day.

In the meantime, if you're new here remember to please click the subscribe button,

and if you're not new, still check that the bell notification is actually switched on

Also, exciting news, this Friday is International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia,

I will be bringing back the "Because Gay" merch by popular demand!

I know some of you weren't able to pick up anything when it was available last time,

so I'm going to keep it going until after Pride season. But today we are going to be talking about my other

Spoiler: the title is ironic. Whenever I travel by air, I use something called

"Special Assistance." In the EU, if you're a passenger with a disability or reduced mobility

you are legally entitled to support when traveling for free. You don't have to be disabled

lots of older people use it, or people who have issues

interacting and communicating with the general public. If you can't walk far, they'll bring you a wheelchair.

If you can't hear well, they'll provide either a little device that flashes when an announcement about your plane goes out,

or they'll have a person to help guide you around.

It's really amazingly helpful, and it means you'll have a less stressful journey.

It's part of EU law, but similar passenger rights apply in other countries that I have been to, including the United States.

we did have some troubles with it while we were flying between countries in Asia, as they either

didn't have the service, or wanted a fee, or needed some kind of verification of disability,

which... no! They don't give you a badge when you get diagnosed. My doctor didn't staple a letter to my forehead

It made me think about the word "special," though, particularly the term "special needs."

I'm going to do a lot of air quoting and I'm really sorry about that.

It's a phrase that a lot of disabled people take issue with. Think about it: when I say

"special needs student," we tend to think of a child with a disability. When I say

"special needs teacher," we tend to think of an adult who teaches children with disabilities, rather than a disabled teacher.

"Special kids find special parents" is the same thing: the idea that you need to be a

amazing superhuman to care for a person with a disability.

It's not great. People say my wife is special for loving a disabled person, as if that's something that

99.9% of humanity just wouldn't be able to do.

Thanks. It's a real ego boost. When we think about it, "special" is a very othering word in any sense

To say that a person has "special needs" implies that you have to go above and beyond for them,

celebrity guest who requests that you pick out all the green sweets, provide a basket of puppies, and sprinkle glitter in their path.

Okay, that actually sounds amazing. Please do that for me.

But "special" might just reveal a rather tragic view of people with disabilities.

I mean, when we call someone "special," we dissociate from them as much as we do from that celebrity.

It's just, "I'm normal, but you're special!"

I'm like, "the celebrity is not special in a good way." Are these needs really so special, though? Is needing a ramp any

different to the vegetarian asking for no meat on their plate?

Well, okay, yes. In some ways; disabled people did not make an active choice, and they cannot pop out to the [?] shop to buy

a replacement. "Special" people - or even the "superhumans" of the Paralympics - advertising subtly

dehumanizes those disabilities. And I'm not saying that it's intentional, but inevitably

authoring language creates a form of ranking. People with disabilities are often seen as less valuable

than those who aren't disabled, and language reflects that, even if that isn't the intention.

Of course, we can also see it in the way that language is used: for example, speaking to a person in a wheelchair

I am the last person to say that we should be ignoring the extra needs of people with disabilities, and pretending that we're all

the same! Because... we're definitely not.

Yes, we say a child has "special needs" because they are not the same things that every child will face.

And yes, the intention is to be kind. But we need to reconsider how we're classifying things.

Why does "classify" never sound good when it's in the context of people? Look, language is deeply deeply confusing. I get it.

I mean, you may be yelling "Am I even allowed to say 'disabled person' anymore?"

or "Why is 'person with a disability' offensive? What am I meant to say?"

Again, it's a minefield, and yes, "disabled people" is considered offensive to some, who prefer "person with a disability."

But some prefer it along with "the disabled," which, to my mind, is completely different and also *awful.*

"The [identity]" never sounds good. Oh, sure, we reclaimed "the gays," thanks to irony,

but "the blacks?" No, no, no, no, no, don't do that!

The main argument when it comes to terminology around disability centers on identity-first versus person-first language.

Quick explainer: Identity-first language is where a part of a person's identity - a descriptor - is used as a noun.

For example, "redhead" or "lesbian." this frames

This frames the identity as being an important part of who the person is.

Person-first language puts the identity or descriptor second after their personhood.

For example, "girl with red hair," or "girl who is a homosexual."

just part of who that person is. When we're talking about these two types of language in the framework of disability,

we're discussing whether disability is something that you have, or something that is at the core of your identity.

Okay. So the last one which will come out, person-first language, is the terminology many in North America will have heard of.

Person with a disability. Person of color. Person with diabetes. Person who is homeless.

It was formed as part of a shift away from outdated terms, like handicapped or retarded.

Which, yes, is still offensive, even if you think it's funny.

Equally, "spaz" and "mong." Shut your face.

These older terms were once part of disability organization and government agency names, awkwardly.

For example, in 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was passed by Congress

to mandate the inclusion of disabled children in public schools.

individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The same year, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed.

The ADA provides broad civil rights to the disability community, and mechanisms to fight discrimination

against people with disabilities. Thanks.

This prominent disability rights legislation helped to promote the change to people-first language.

It was a shift in terminology that came from the government and many North American disability organizations.

However, it was not universally liked. Disabled people do not engage in groupthink,

Or, if we do, no one's invited me yet, and I'm actually gonna be quite hurt about it.

Geography also affects the debate, as in Britain

our preference has always been for identity-first language.

Disabled person. Diabetic. Autistic person. And broadening that, "black person" or "short person." Description!

Obviously, "deaf person" is kind of its own little section of this argument, as deaf-with-a-big-D isn't just a descriptor,

it's also a culture. People who prefer identity-first language -

- like it, as they consider their disabilities to be inseparable parts of who they are.

字幕リスト動画再生

私は『特別』なんだ!// アイデンティティファースト対パーソンファースト言語[CC] (I'm 'Special'! // Identity First vs. Person First Language [CC])

context

quote

debate

term