Words matter. And for disabled and neurodivergent people, the language used to describe us — especially by people in positions of authority — can either be a tool of inclusion or a weapon of exclusion.
When terms like “bombardment,” “overwhelming,” “too intense,” or “aggressive” are casually attached to disabled individuals simply for expressing distress or asserting their rights, that isn’t just unhelpful. It’s stigmatising. And in many cases, it’s discriminatory.
What Is Stigmatising Language?
Stigmatising language refers to words or phrases that reinforce negative stereotypes or prejudices about a person’s identity — often in subtle or coded ways. When applied to disabled people, it frames our access needs, emotional responses, or communication styles as inherently problematic.
For example:
- “Bombarding with emails” — when someone is trying to follow up on a safeguarding concern
- “Too difficult to work with” — when someone requests reasonable adjustments
- “Not engaging appropriately” — when someone communicates differently due to neurodivergence
This kind of language isn’t neutral. It shapes how others perceive us. And more importantly, it’s often used to justify exclusion, withdrawal of support, or the dismissal of legitimate concerns.
The Harm It Causes
When professionals or organisations use stigmatising language to describe someone seeking help, the consequences are far-reaching:
- Psychological harm — reinforcing internalised shame, rejection, or trauma
- Discriminatory impact — denying services or support based on biased perceptions
- Safeguarding failure — framing a distress response as a threat rather than a symptom of unmet need
In safeguarding law — including the Care Act 2014 — professionals have a duty to work in ways that are trauma-informed, respectful, and inclusive. That includes language. When terms are used to delegitimise or silence someone in distress, that isn’t professionalism. It’s emotional neglect. In some cases, it borders on psychological abuse.
The Weaponisation of “Harassment”
Another common tactic is to label someone’s persistence — especially around complaint processes, subject access requests, or safeguarding concerns — as “harassment.” This is especially common when the individual is autistic, mentally ill, or otherwise marginalised.
This reframing shifts attention away from the issue and onto the individual. It protects institutional comfort instead of vulnerable people. And when this tactic is used against those already socially excluded, it causes lasting harm.
What Trauma-Informed Really Means
If an organisation claims to be trauma-informed, Christian, compassionate, or values-led, then its language must reflect that — even when challenged. Especially when challenged.
That means:
- Respecting communication differences
- Understanding distress as a valid response to unmet needs
- Not pathologising reasonable follow-up or disagreement
Disabled people don’t need to be spoken about as burdens to manage. We need to be spoken to — and treated — as equals with rights.
Final Thoughts
If an email pointing out contradictions is labelled “bombardment,” ask who benefits from that framing. If a disabled person’s pushback is seen as aggression, ask who gets protected by that narrative.
Because when words are used to deflect scrutiny and silence dissent, they stop being descriptive — and start becoming destructive.
We’re not too much. We’re not difficult. We’re not bombarding anyone. We’re advocating. And that should never be a punishable act.
— Kieron JH
Be First to Comment