(~4 minutes to read)

My name is Kelvin, and I’m an asthmatic.

And I don’t care if people call me “an asthmatic”.

Last week, I wrote about the trials and tribulations of Mrs. H. having to observe a six-week period of mandatory voice rest. In that piece, I wanted to use the word “mute” as a noun to refer to the person who is not talking (or who cannot talk).

Mrs. H. was concerned that referring to someone as “a mute” might be offensive these days, so off I went into the research vortex.

The OED notes that is dated and offensive.

An organization called “Inclusion in the Arts” notes that the word “mute” is still used, but it is generally not preferred. (It doesn’t say if it is the adjective or noun form that they’re referring to.)

According to Wikipedia, the terms “muteness” and “mutism” both refer to the inability to speak, but make no comment on the correctness of any associated terminology.

Several word, language and grammar forums include opinions from professionals and lay people, but needless to say, there is little, if any, consensus.

There’s no advice that I can find in the Chicago Manual of Style, The Canadian Press Stylebook, The Canadian Style, or New Hart’s Rules.

So in an attempt at compromise, Mrs. H. suggested that I use “the muted one” as a humorous label.

But I was vexed at being unable to use yet another civilized word.

Offence by Proxy

My personal opinion is that many so-called “incorrect” or “non-inclusive” or “offensive” terms are labelled as such by those to whom the term in question doesn’t apply, but who are expressing offence on behalf of those who are. I suspect though, that those people haven’t necessarily consulted with a cross-section of the group to whom the term does apply. (In fairness, nor have I though.)

Cultural appropriation seems to be one such category where my opinion may apply. I’m pretty sure I’ve written previously on this, so I won’t go any further.

During my research on “mute” as a noun, I came across an article that gives examples of terms that might be inappropriate, one of which was “asthmatic”. The article states, “Sure the people might be asthmatic… but that’s not who the people are. Their disease does not define them.”

I call BS. It does define them. But not on its own. Let me explain, using my own disease/disability/condition to illustrate.

Labels

I have asthma. But even writing “I have asthma” seems weird to me. I’ve had it since I was 18, and likely before then. It’s a chronic condition/disease; it’s not something I have—it’s something that I live with—it’s something that I “am”. Saying that “I have asthma” doesn’t seem to me to fit the circumstance. I normally say, “I’m asthmatic”, or occasionally, “I’m an asthmatic.”

I’m an asthmatic, but I’m not only an asthmatic. And that’s where I think people are allowing themselves to get their noses put out of joint. (I was going to use the phrase “bent out of shape” but thought that someone might look for an unintended pun in the use of the phrase and get all offended and such.)

It really is time that people stopped reading unintended meaning into such terms. I’m a Cub Scout leader, and people refer to me as that, but it doesn’t define me; it identifies one demographic grouping to which I belong. I’m a control freak, and people refer to me as such, but it doesn’t define me; it identifies another demographic group that I belong to.

To put it another way, we all have roles, attributes, peculiarities, and other defining characteristics. Being an asthmatic is one of mine, as are being a Cub Scout leader, control freak, male, father, husband, back sufferer, Canadian, worrywart/worryguts, and curmudgeon. It seems ridiculous to say that I’m a person with control issues, or a person with male chromosomes, or a person with parental or spousal responsibilities or a person with curmudgeonness…

To use yet another illustration, imagine drawing a Venn diagram showing Asthmatics, Curmudgeons, Cub Scout Leaders and Canadians people who are asthmatic, people who are curmudgeonly, people who are Cub Scout leaders, and people who are Canadian. I would be one of the people represented by the area where all four circles overlap.

There. I’ve defined myself with four attributes. And I don’t mind people using nouns to describe me as a member of each of those four categories.

My asthma is a fact. It’s one of hundreds of defining characteristics. Calling me an asthmatic is a linguistic convenience, not an insult.

There’s a beautiful Christmas song called, “Mary Did You Know”. The lyrics include the lines, “The blind will see / The deaf will hear / The dead will live again / The lame will leap / The dumb will speak…” The words are succinct. But by today’s standards, they must surely be offensive. What’s the PC Brigade’s take on this one?

And do they happen to know how the dead people who are dead feel about being defined by their deadness? Have they consulted them? Would they care to speak on their behalf?

BTW: I was born in the UK. If you must refer to my Britishness, please do so by calling me “a recovering Brit”. But call me just a Brit, and I will be offended.