Argentina is facing outrage following the controversial changes made by President Javier Milei's administration to the classification of individuals with disabilities. The new norms, published officially on January 14, 2025, by the Agencia Nacional de Discapacidad (ANDis), have drawn widespread condemnation for the use of outdated and derogatory terminology such as "idiot," "imbecile," and "profound mental weakness" to describe various levels of cognitive disability.
The resolution categorized individuals based on their intellectual quotient (IQ), defining those with IQs ranging from 0 to 30 as "idiots" — individuals who "did not reach the glottic stage, cannot read or write, do not understand money, cannot control bodily functions, do not attend to basic needs, and cannot survive independently." Those classified as "imbeciles" have IQs between 30 and 50 and are described as unable to read or write but able to manage basic needs and perform rudimentary tasks. Lastly, individuals with IQs from 50 to 60 fall under "profound mental weakness," where they might only be able to sign their names and possess limited vocabulary.
This reclassification, deemed archaic and discriminatory, led to swift backlash from numerous advocacy organizations representing the rights of people with disabilities. Seven of these organizations, including the Asociación Civil por la Igualdad y la Justicia (ACIJ), submitted formal complaints to the government urging the immediate repeal of the regulation, branding it as contrary to fundamental rights and discriminatory practices.
Critics assert these new standards reflect what they call the "medical model of disability," which overlooks the social model embraced by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This social model understands disability as the result of interactions between individuals and social barriers rather than merely medical conditions. Agostina Quiroz, a lawyer from ACIJ, articulated this concern, stating, "The resolution reproduces and reinforces historical prejudices... it is particularly problematic for the state to resort to such discourse, as it is precisely the entity responsible for combating these stereotypes."
The introduction of these terms by the government has been criticized for not only being deeply offensive but also for potentially violating international human rights agreements to which Argentina is bound. These agreements and conventions have been established to protect the dignity and rights of individuals with disabilities, underscoring the necessity for language and policies to reflect respect and inclusivity.
Milei's administration, asserting its commitment to auditing non-contributory pensions for disabilities, previously revoked decrees from the previous administration aimed at allowing individuals to work without losing their pensions. The current government argues such reforms were necessary to combat what they perceive as clientelistic use of disability benefits. Federico Sturzenegger, the Minister of Deregulation and State Transformation, stated, "The norm eliminates flexibilities which turned this benefit system to political patronage." Yet, the move has ignited fiery debate about the criteria being used to assess disability.
Social media platforms quickly exploded with outrage as various posts went viral, exposing the new regulations and drawing attention to what many view as a regressive step for the nation. Prominent public reactions included social media campaigners who emphasized, "This is insane. The government has just decreed to classify people with disabilities as 'IDIOT,' 'IMBECILE,' and..." highlighting the urgency and significance of the discontent. Amidst this growing backlash, organizations and advocates are determined to push back against the legislation, asserting the need for revisions grounded firmly in human dignity.
Historically, terms like those recently revived by Milei's government have long been deemed inappropriate and harmful. The insult-laden vocabulary, familiar from the rhetoric used even by Milei himself to disparage opponents, has now been adopted as official policy, raising alarms concerning how such terms may influence societal views and treatment of individuals with disabilities.
Legal experts and activists agree the language used by state entities holds substantial power, often shaping perceptions and lived experiences for marginalized communities. Quiroz mentioned, "The language and modes of referring to these individuals have concrete impacts on collective policies, practices, and cultures, as well as on individual identities." This linguistic shift, they argue, reinforces harmful stereotypes and obstructs the path toward equitable community building.
Advocates for individuals with disabilities are calling for policymakers to engage directly with persons impacted by these regulations, arguing it is both their right and necessary for developing inclusive policies. They assert there is no set of individuals deemed unfit for work; rather, they contend all can contribute when provided the appropriate support.
The situation remains fluid as advocacy groups actively mobilize for the repeal of these regulations, demanding action from the Milei administration. Grievances echoing around the world from human rights councils and local activists resonate with the urgency to restore dignity and respect for individuals with disabilities through language and policy reforms. This moment may yet present Argentina with the opportunity to reclaim its commitment to human rights and the well-being of all citizens.