About This
Report
This report lays out a set of recommendations for brands and organizations seeking to live more fully into the promise of accessibility and inclusion for all. The report is rooted in the perspectives of 200+ leading voices – people with disabilities and demonstrated allies – whose experiences you’ll find in the themes and takeaways that follow. We set out to be practical and precise, ultimately delivering a set of actionable guidelines for decision-makers committed to more inclusive language, programs, hiring, internal initiatives, campaigns and products.
The report is a collaboration of Gauge – a first-of-its-kind insights platform diverse, experts voices like those you see here – and Diversability, TBD description. In delivering it, we aim to support brands, organizations and nonprofits in pursuit of genuine inclusion, belonging and care.
Methodology
SECTION ONE
Language
Euphemisms are harmful; many respondents choose “disabled” to self-describe
The language surrounding disability is continually evolving, and non-disabled people should be open to learning and evolving as well
The
Bottom
Line
Language
The majority of thought leaders surveyed prefer the word “disabled” to describe themselves, and emphasize their desire to see the word used as a neutral descriptor, without the negative connotations non-disabled people often ascribe to it. The majority of respondents find euphemisms (terms like “special needs” or “differently-abled”) offensive because they imply that disability is an inherently negative condition in need of positive spin.
For people outside the community referring to those within it, most respondents prefer “disabled people,” or “people with disabilities.'' Of course, respondents also emphasize that the community of people with disabilities is diverse and complex, and what some find offensive may be preferred by others. What frustrates many is when those without disabilities make assertions about what terminology is best. Many respondents have witnessed non-disabled people correcting the language that disabled people use to describe themselves >– a painful, diminishing experience.
Importantly, appropriate language is only a starting point. People with disabilities see using respectful language as the floor, not the ceiling, for genuine allyship and advocacy.
SECTION TWO
Perspectives on Being “Disabled and Proud”
The notion of “pride” regarding one’s disability status generates a range of responses from thought leaders. In this section, we’ll see a nuanced but navigable set of attitudes on this topic.
While many respondents express deep pride in being disabled, the concept of "disability pride" is personal — it is not a one-size-fits all mentality for people with disabilities
The
Bottom
Line
In the face of a society that is inherently ableist — that is, designed for non-disabled people — many of the thought leaders engaged share a deep, abiding sense of pride in being disabled. Naturally then, these leaders express a pronounced desire to “reclaim” the word “disabled” from any pejorative connotations.
Importantly though, some respondents are either unfamiliar with the term “disability pride,” or don’t feel that the concept applies to their own experience. For many whose disability/disabilities cause them suffering, “pride” doesn’t feel like precisely the right word. Some say that they are proud of themselves, but not necessarily of their disability, per se. For many in this camp, “disability neutrality” feels like a better goal.
Across viewpoints, we also hear a strong emphasis on the necessity of highlighting the diversity and intersectionality of the disability community – a particular point of pride and empowerment for many. Taken all together, the perspectives point to the importance of ensuring that members of the disability community are empowered to speak for themselves — a theme we’ll turn to in the next section.
SECTION THREE
Lessons of the Pandemic