Can someone explain to me “homeless” vs “unhoused”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shelters, weekly motel rentals, living on a friend's couch, all unhoused but not homeless.

This seems the opposite of intuitive to me - those people are "housed" in some type of situation, but are "homeless" in that they lack their own permanent home.

In many cases, they have made a home - you know, a place for their family to gather together and be loved, in less than ideal circumstances. It’s a motel, their car, couch surfing, etc. it is their home, but not adequate housing for actual human needs.

The problem with “homeless” is it somehow implies that people are sleeping their nights out on benches in the cold, or in a shelter, when that is simply not the reality for many people who need access to affordable, safe housing. In many places, having a friends house that you can sleep in temporarily, or money to rent a motel room for your family means that you are not “homeless” enough to qualify for services and assistance and access that helps you get safe, adequate, permanent housing and shelter.

[Anonymous]

Lot of pages on this and most of the answers are wrong. It’s not about person-first or identity. The issue is that some people who do not have a house consider the place where they are residing to be a “home” that they consider themselves to have an attachment to and want that to be recognized by others. So someone that lives in a tent city in Franklin Square may consider that to be their home and want some recognition of that fact, even though they don’t have a house.
In my experience, this is something of a minority of the unhoused/homeless community—most of them want an actual residence, be that a house or apartment, and do not consider their alternative lodging to be a “home” and therefore do not object to the term “homeless.” It’s the radical fringe like the “homeless homeboy” that used to live on 16th street that viewed himself as having some property rights on that corner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lot of pages on this and most of the answers are wrong. It’s not about person-first or identity. The issue is that some people who do not have a house consider the place where they are residing to be a “home” that they consider themselves to have an attachment to and want that to be recognized by others. So someone that lives in a tent city in Franklin Square may consider that to be their home and want some recognition of that fact, even though they don’t have a house.
In my experience, this is something of a minority of the unhoused/homeless community—most of them want an actual residence, be that a house or apartment, and do not consider their alternative lodging to be a “home” and therefore do not object to the term “homeless.” It’s the radical fringe like the “homeless homeboy” that used to live on 16th street that viewed himself as having some property rights on that corner.

It doesn't matter what "they consider." Franklin Square is not available as a private property housing site.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shelters, weekly motel rentals, living on a friend's couch, all unhoused but not homeless.

This seems the opposite of intuitive to me - those people are "housed" in some type of situation, but are "homeless" in that they lack their own permanent home.

In many cases, they have made a home - you know, a place for their family to gather together and be loved, in less than ideal circumstances. It’s a motel, their car, couch surfing, etc. it is their home, but not adequate housing for actual human needs.

The problem with “homeless” is it somehow implies that people are sleeping their nights out on benches in the cold, or in a shelter, when that is simply not the reality for many people who need access to affordable, safe housing. In many places, having a friends house that you can sleep in temporarily, or money to rent a motel room for your family means that you are not “homeless” enough to qualify for services and assistance and access that helps you get safe, adequate, permanent housing and shelter.

Okay, that's your view, but the fact that it is unclear and open to different interpretations does not really serve anyone's cause.

What about "home-free," like "child-free?" If you don't want an actual home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Words get retired because of stigma and a new term is adopted until it also eventually becomes stigmatized.

Hobo, bum >>>>homeless>>>>unhoused>>>>???

Don't forget "vagrant," a beloved term of railroad enthusiasts of the period between WWI and WW2

[Anonymous]

Enjoy the newspeak, citizen! Report to the nearest reeducation camp to have your thoughts adjusted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Person first language means that you consider the person first, then describe the situation. Person who uses a wheelchair, not “she is in a wheelchair”. Person with a disability, not a cripple. Person who is undocumented, not an illegal alien. Person who is unhoused, not a homeless person etc.

This...is just ridiculous.

What's next? Person who plays sports (not "athlete"), person who moved from another country (not "immigrant"), person who is addicted to alcohol (not "alcoholic"), person who lacks privilege (not "under-privileged"), person who doesn't have a job (not "unemployed"), etc....

Exactly. I am not a woman, I am a person with a vagina and uterus. Please refer to me as that moving forward.

You are an unpenised person.

[Anonymous]

You use unhoused if you want to signal that you support the homeless but not actually take any action. The term unhoused assumes there is a system or program waiting to provide housing but something just happens to be preventing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You use unhoused if you want to signal that you support the homeless but not actually take any action. The term unhoused assumes there is a system or program waiting to provide housing but something just happens to be preventing it.

Exactly, always using other people's money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me these sound like the same thing. I want to understand the push towards “unhoused”. I feel like ultimately if we aren’t doing anything to help these people, why are we harping on words?

I agree in general that actions speak far louder than words. Using one name or another is not important if the underlying problem and causes are getting worse.

To your subtle phrasing point - I the difference in terms is trying to make the point that people in transition out of homelessness/ unhoused people are people with feelings. We all need a sense of home and will create that for ourselves in different ways whether it is a mansion or a shanty under a bypass. There is a severe housing crisis in the US especially in big cities. The biggest subgroup of u housed people in DC are children. It is extremely difficult for many single mothers facing systematic racism and inter generational Poverty to work, pay rent, utilities, food, clothes, medicine etc plus there is not enough low income housing.

Words do matter. They are how we communicate our thoughts and feelings with each other. Language is living and evolving like all of us.

Our church collaborates with local organization that works to give families in transition out of homelessness supports and skills they need to secure housing, employment and educational stability for their client families. Obviously, such piece meal efforts won’t solve the expanding crisis. We need more affordable housing, affordable Child care and safer short term shelters that are often dangerous for women and children.

Be honest, racism didn't cause mothers and their children to live in poverty and becone homeless. They had children that they knew they could not support. They failed to educate themselves. They failed at birth control. They failed at choosing a husband who could support the children.

You have fallen for the victimhood excuse. These women know they can get a voucher for everything so there's no need to educate themselves, work or be responsible. They pass this mentality down to their children and the cycle continues.

Teach them about birth control. Provide information on placing their children up for adoption so they can be raised to be productive members of society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anosnymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shelters, weekly motel rentals, living on a friend's couch, all unhoused but not homeless.

Yes, they are. They lack a home.

+1
I agree.

Unhoused may just be the new politically correct term for “homeless.”
I have also heard the term “unsheltered individuals” as well too.



These terms tend to change as the world evolves.
Back when I was a kid - some people referred to homeless people as “hobos.”

Remember in the '80s when kids Halloween costumes were hobos (homeless man)?

Imagine how those costumes would blend in so well in DC today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To me these sound like the same thing. I want to understand the push towards “unhoused”. I feel like ultimately if we aren’t doing anything to help these people, why are we harping on words?

So how exactly are you assisting the homeless, OP?

Why does the OP have to be doing anything? Just asking.

For myself, I focus my efforts in a different area. It doesn't mean that I don't support someone else's physical efforts or financial support to help the homeless or unhoused, but it does mean that I spend my volunteer time and money in a different area. Gonna ding me on that? Really? Because then I will ask you what you're doing to prevent the murder of babies in our country? Or how you're helping minors who live below the poverty level? Or how you're helping foster children? Or how you're helping the elderly living below the poverty level? All equally worthy causes.

See how that works, PP?

Sigh. I am willing to bet a lot of money that you're a one trick chorale response pony so you don't, unfortunately. Having more than a tunnel vision is tough for you, isn't it?

[Anonymous]

To me, it's the difference between being (1) a crazy person/drug addict and living on a park bench or under a bridge in a tent ("homeless") and (2) losing your job, sleeping in your car, and bouncing between friends/relatives homes ("unhoused")

It's actually a really important distinction and I think it deserves differing terms. People in situation #2 can and do end up back in a permanent home and with a job. #1 and #2 require way different levels of resources and solution. #2 is a more recent widespread phenomena as we real estate prices go into the stratosphere.

PS - what's up with all the people in this thread angry about the modern evolution of the English language?!?! Unclench, people. This is the history of language in action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Words get retired because of stigma and a new term is adopted until it also eventually becomes stigmatized.

Hobo, bum >>>>homeless>>>>unhoused>>>>???

Yes. Congratulations. Welcome to language.

moron --> retarded --> learning disabled

Same thing happened with the "n-word" and other combinations of letters and sounds that had or took on derogatory meanings. That is what language does, then the people who use it care about the effects of words.

Moron, retarded, idiot are all medically conceived words.

Sure. And there was initially no stigma to them, because they were technical terms only. But then there was stigma, and language changed.

I'm not sure how much you want me to spell out the analogy to "homeless" and "unhoused" without sounding like I am being condescending.

You should really think about that statement (bolded); it's an intelligent one. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it is because your very position on the topic is condescending?

Oh, I'm trying my best. My deepest apologies for insulting your feelings.

You didn't insult me. But then, I don't live my life looking to conduct performative actions that are pretend solutions for real problems, and judging other people for not "caring" as much as I do.

This right here. It’s so effing annoying. Changing the language is literally helping no one.

It is also hurting no one to change the language. Quit being precious about having to learn to use a new term. You are an adult - theoretically it’s not the first time you’ve experienced there being a new term in use for a familiar thing.

It is so effing annoying that people like you and your PP comrades get extremely worked up when asked to use language geared toward inclusivity and sensitivity. I myself don’t entirely agree with the hair-splitting terminology evolution going on here and it’s fairly clear from existing in the world that there isn’t total agreement on this particular issue. But it’s not that far off from asking folks to call other folks by their preferred pronouns. You’d think folks were being asked to gouge out their own eyes with the “so can I just identify as anything I want now?” red herring arguments. Language changes. Often to be more respectful. It’s only a big deal if you make it a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Words get retired because of stigma and a new term is adopted until it also eventually becomes stigmatized.

Hobo, bum >>>>homeless>>>>unhoused>>>>???

Yes. Congratulations. Welcome to language.

moron --> retarded --> learning disabled

Same thing happened with the "n-word" and other combinations of letters and sounds that had or took on derogatory meanings. That is what language does, then the people who use it care about the effects of words.

Moron, retarded, idiot are all medically conceived words.

Sure. And there was initially no stigma to them, because they were technical terms only. But then there was stigma, and language changed.

I'm not sure how much you want me to spell out the analogy to "homeless" and "unhoused" without sounding like I am being condescending.

You should really think about that statement (bolded); it's an intelligent one. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps it is because your very position on the topic is condescending?

Oh, I'm trying my best. My deepest apologies for insulting your feelings.

You didn't insult me. But then, I don't live my life looking to conduct performative actions that are pretend solutions for real problems, and judging other people for not "caring" as much as I do.

This right here. It’s so effing annoying. Changing the language is literally helping no one.

It is also hurting no one to change the language. Quit being precious about having to learn to use a new term. You are an adult - theoretically it’s not the first time you’ve experienced there being a new term in use for a familiar thing.

It is so effing annoying that people like you and your PP comrades get extremely worked up when asked to use language geared toward inclusivity and sensitivity. I myself don’t entirely agree with the hair-splitting terminology evolution going on here and it’s fairly clear from existing in the world that there isn’t total agreement on this particular issue. But it’s not that far off from asking folks to call other folks by their preferred pronouns. You’d think folks were being asked to gouge out their own eyes with the “so can I just identify as anything I want now?” red herring arguments. Language changes. Often to be more respectful. It’s only a big deal if you make it a big deal.

But the problem is that "unhoused" as a term is unclear. Different people on this thread are talking about different meanings.