The Argentine government has sparked outrage and international criticism with a new decree that reclassifies individuals with intellectual disabilities using archaic and derogatory terms. The government, under the leadership of Javier Milei, has introduced a new scale that labels individuals with intellectual disabilities as “idiots,” “imbeciles,” or “mentally weak,” reviving terminology that was long deemed offensive and outdated.

The controversial decree, drafted by the National Disability Agency (Andis), has been met with resolute repudiation from disability rights organizations. These groups have criticized the new scale as archaic and discriminatory, citing resolutions from the United Nations Organization (UN) that Argentina has formally adopted. Argentina has historically adhered to UN conventions, which advocate for respectful and inclusive language when discussing disability.

Milei, known for his blunt and sometimes offensive rhetoric, has been an outspoken critic of what he terms the “woke culture,” viewing it as a “cancer” that promotes political correctness and hinders straightforward communication. His criticism often extends to those who use politically correct or euphemistic terms, including referring to people with disabilities.

This past January 14, the Government published the new scale in its Official Gazette, marking a shift in evaluation criteria for disability pensions. The new standards include levels of intellectual disability as “idiot,” “imbecile,” or “mentally weak.” The newly implemented categories are widely seen not only as archaic and derogatory but also as a direct violation of human rights as enshrined in UN conventions, which are legally binding in Argentina. According to disability activists, the terminology reflects a discriminatory and outdated mindset that treats individuals with disabilities as inferior and incapable.

The revised classification system is a stark return to a 1998 decree signed by President Carlos Menem, an ultraliberal Peronist to whom Milei frequently refers for inspiration. Menem’s original legislation detailed a detailed evaluation methodology that allowed for a uniform determination of disability. While initially harsh, it was later amended to align with stricter UN guidelines.

The repercussions of these changes have been far-reaching. Disability rights advocates argue that the decree undermines the progress made in disability inclusivity, echoing concerns voiced in the United States where similar battles for respectful and accurate language have been waged. Organizations like the Civil Association for Equality and Justice (ACIJ) and six other NGOs have lodged formal complaints calling for the repeal of the new classification system.

Gustavo Aguilar, a disability rights lawyer, emphasizes the political and social significance of respectful and accurate terminology, “Language shapes our perceptions and interactions with others. Using outdated and derogatory terms like ‘idiot’ and ‘imbecile’ not only stigmatizes individuals with disabilities but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes and prejudices.” Aguilar notes that this pertains to broader discussions about disability inclusion internationally, where terms such as “undated” and “impaired” have been widely discarded in favor of “disability” or “individuals with disabilities.

The implications of such language are monumental, affecting policy, societal attitudes, and the psychological well-being of individuals with disabilities. A report by the National Council on Disability highlights how derogatory language can increase instances of bullying, discrimination, and social isolation. For instance, the American Psychological Association underscores the necessity of adopting inclusive and respectful terminology to foster a more equitable and empathetic society.

“‘The idiot did not cross the glyós stage, he does not read or write, he does not know the money, he does not control sphincters, he does not meet his basic needs, I could not subsist alone. The moron does not read or write, attend to their elementary needs, can perform rudimentary tasks. The mental weak only firm, has a simple vocabulary, does not handle money, can perform rudimentary tasks,” says the annex of the decree. “In some cases, the diagnosis may not require the interconsultation of a specialist, as in Down syndrome, demential cadres in the state period, deep mental weaknesses, since the clinical parameters will be sovereign,”

The quoted was read from the new Argentine Government Pensions Decision Guidelines.

The escalating tension over the new terms in Argentina comes at a time when the U.S. is grappling with similar concerns. A recent initiative working against outdated and impolite language in the education sector has illustrated the need for language reforms. For example, legislative measures crafted in the U.S seeks to replace the phrase “mentally retarded” with more inclusive terms, emphasizing consideration and accuracy in discourse.

“This regulation implies a return to the medical model of disability, and therefore a serious setback for the rights of this group. The annex of the resolution assumes that there are people who can never work, and resort to terms such as ‘mental retardation,’ ‘idiot,’ ‘imbecile,’ and ‘mental weak.’ It is unnecessary to delve into the discriminatory, obsolete, and pejorative character that these ways of naming.”

A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 78% of Americans support the use of respectful and accurate language when referring to individuals with disabilities. This overwhelming support indicates a collective shift in societal attitudes toward greater inclusivity and empathy. Organizations such as the National Down Syndrome Society and the American Association of People with Disabilities, advocate for policymakers to reflect these views in their legislation and administrative processes, pointing to examples like Argentina as cautionary tales of governmental negligence in promoting respectful and inclusive language.

The future of disability rights hang in the balance, with both Argentina and international communities relying on collective efforts and advocacy to right these wrongs and advance the dignity and inclusivity of individuals with disabilities. The use of kind and just language in evaluations and public discourse does not merely suffice; it resolvedly demands it.