I would love to. Thank you.
It's actually a good point. I won't focus on the word “senior”. I'll actually focus on some of the other language we hear around seniors—that is, “vulnerable”. The concept of vulnerabilization is something that is really important to understand in terms of what you do to somebody's person when you vulnerabilize them through language and through the way you treat or see them.
In the disability community, we have the same problem. One of the things I like to do is pivot people from the concept of vulnerabilization to resilience. Especially when you think of seniors or anybody who's marginalized, it means they are facing more barriers and it means they are likely more resilient. Some of the language we need to use is more positive.
While it might not be intuitive for people to think of this, again in a development context, they say there's a continuum between vulnerabilization and resilience. My argument is to take us beyond any of those concepts to empowerment, regardless of what population you're speaking to.
I know it doesn't actually answer the question. The previous witness really addressed the other issue well, in terms of an “older person” or an “elder” being an important way we show respect for older people.
I appreciate the question, and I do think the concept of vulnerabilization is another way we need to think of how we have to stop using language that takes away from somebody's humanity.