Alexis Kestler
Recently, two of music‘s biggest stars, Beyoncé and Lizzo, announced plans to re-record new tracks after being criticized for including ableist language. Specifically, disability advocates called out the artists‘ use of the word "spaz" in their songs "Heated" and "Grrrls" respectively. This sparked impassioned debate around hurtful speech, political correctness, and the responsibilities that come with an influential platform. As a technology and music enthusiast, I wanted to dig deeper into this complex issue. Join me in examining the origins of this controversy, the harms of ableist language, and the challenges of avoiding unintentional offense in our rapidly evolving cultural landscape.
How Did This Controversy Begin?
To start unraveling this issue, let‘s look at how Beyoncé and Lizzo initially ended up including the word "spaz" in their new music. In June 2022, Lizzo released a single called "Grrrls" off her upcoming album Special, which featured the lyric: "Hold my bag, btch, hold my bag. Do you see this sht? I‘m a spaz."
Around the same time, a leaked snippet of Beyoncé‘s track "Heated" off her album Renaissance revealed she sang the line: "Spazzin‘ on that a, spazz on that a."
Shortly after the songs debuted, disability advocate Hannah Diviney tweeted that hearing Lizzo use the phrase "I‘m a spaz" felt like "a slap in the face." She explained that "spaz" comes from the word "spastic", which has been medically used to describe certain cerebral palsy impairments but also co-opted as an offensive slur. Critics quickly called out Beyoncé for the same problematic language in her single.
Both artists responded by announcing plans to re-record the tracks without the original lyrics. But why was this word met with such outrage in the first place?
Examining the Harmful History of "Spaz"
To fully understand the pushback against this terminology, we need to explore the word‘s origins and evolution. "Spaz" emerged as derivative slang from the term "spastic", which arose in a medical context.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), cerebral palsy is a group of neurological disorders that affect balance, movement, and muscle tone. Spastic cerebral palsy is characterized by muscle stiffness and awkward, jerky motions. In the late 19th century, doctors began using the word "spastic" to describe these muscle impairments clinically.
Over time though, "spastic" morphed into a pejorative insult, used to mock and ostracize people with neuromuscular disabilities. Comedians, public figures, and even medical professionals began wielding "spastic" as a derogatory label. The term took on profoundly negative connotations related to physical irregularity and lack of control.
Out of this climate, "spaz" also emerged as a casual slang abbreviation. On the surface, calling someone a "spaz" can seem harmless – just a playful way of saying they are acting wild or erratic in the moment. However, disability advocates point out this glosses over the word‘s disturbing history as a taunt directed at people with limited muscle coordination and mobility.
According to the CDC, about 1 in 323 children have been identified with cerebral palsy. So for members of this community, hearing the word "spaz" thrown around casually resurfaces traumatic ableist bullying and mistreatment.
Disability scholar Rachel Adams wrote: "When popular culture represents disabled people as spastic, malicious, pitiable, or objects of violence, it provides tacit affirmation for the daily harassment and exclusion that many disabled people continue to face."
Reducing human beings down to abusive terms erases dignity and personhood. Even when not directly weaponized, disablist language implicitly reinforces marginalization.
Tracing Ableism in Popular Music
Lizzo and Beyoncé are far from the first mainstream artists to face backlash over ableist lyrics. In 2003, the Black Eyed Peas‘ hit song "Let‘s Get Retarded" sparked protests for its flippant use of a profoundly dehumanizing slur. In response, the band re-recorded the track as "Let‘s Get It Started."
Rapper TI attracted similar criticism in 2008 for the lyric "That‘s why I‘m regimen, so I can be ahead of the game like a retard." After disability rights groups including the Special Olympics condemned the language, TI agreed to rework the verse.
In 2011, Billboard‘s Rising Star winner James Durbin apologized for using the word "retarded" in his song. He later edited the lyric to "hated", saying he was "oblivious" to the pain the original version caused.
Just last year, singer Billie Eilish was slammed for mouthing an ableist slur in a resurfaced video. She quickly issued a statement saying: “I am appalled and embarrassed…I want to barf that I ever mouthed along to that word."
These examples illustrate that even when not used with cruel intent, ableist language has seeped deeply into culture. Artists may include such words casually without considering their loaded implications. But increased advocacy is bringing overdue attention to the real damage disablist rhetoric in music reinforces.
According to communications scholar Steve Brown, ableism in lyrics “can heavily influence societal attitudes and behaviours” toward marginalized groups. He emphasizes that the most popular, visible musicians have a duty to be more conscientious.
The Challenge of Avoiding Unintentional Offense
So how should artists walk the line between free self-expression and responsible representation?
Incidents like the "spaz" controversy reveal just how tricky it can be to navigate this terrain. Language is constantly evolving. Terms that seemed innocuous historically take on newfound power to demean and exclude.
Philosopher Judith Butler notes that speech always exceeds the speaker‘s intent. Words do not exist in isolation—they pick up meanings from broader social contexts that artists cannot single-handedly control.
Lizzo herself reflected in a tweet: “It’s been brought to my attention that there is a harmful word in my song “GRRRLS.” Let me make one thing clear: I never want to promote derogatory language.”
As someone who grew up loving Lizzo‘s bold, unfiltered artistry, I do believe she did not foresee this hurt. Unfortunately, the impacts of our speech often reach beyond what we consciously anticipate.
But this reality offers pathways for positive change too. Controversies like this provide openings to increase mutual understanding. When artists demonstrates accountability, it sets standards that help build a more inclusive, thoughtful cultural landscape.
Evaluating Artistic License and Social Obligation
Behind the debate around lyrics like "spaz" lies a bigger philosophical divide on the duties that accompany free speech.
On one side are those who claim policing language too aggressively stifles creativity and demonizes innocent mistakes. They argue that punishing artists for unintentional offenses will make musicians afraid to take risks or express themselves fully.
On the other side are advocates saying creative freedom does not absolve public figures from considering how their work impacts marginalized communities. They contend that when women, people of color, disabled people and other groups tell us, "this particular language causes real harm"—the compassionate response is to listen, even when it means changing course.
Personally, I find myself sympathetic to the latter perspective. Music is incredibly powerful in shaping culture and social norms. With great influence comes great responsibility, as they say.
Prominent artists have massive platforms that disabled voices historically lack. So when there is disagreement about the impact of certain words, I believe the kind thing is to give more credence to the people who experience its harm directly.
Does this mean musicians should have to self-censor and tiptoe around every phrase? Not necessarily. But promoting inclusion sometimes requires us to absorb critiques gracefully, reflect, and perhaps edit our language accordingly.
Looking to the Future: The Need for Thoughtful Criticism
Though the process is often messy, controversies like the backlash over "spaz" shine important light on issues that have gone overlooked for too long.
According to the CDC, 61 million adults in the United States live with a disability—that‘s 1 in 4 people. Yet disabled people remain extremely underrepresented in media, music, and popular culture more broadly.
A recent report by Nielsen found that only 2.3% of regular TV characters have disabilities. The numbers look similarly dismal across other entertainment platforms.
This lack of representation renders the disabilities community largely invisible to the wider populace. It enables offensive speech to go unquestioned, because the voices with most at stake lack the cultural microphone.
Constructive criticism plays a vital role in changing this landscape to be more inclusive. Though doing so can provoke discomfort, the results move us toward a more just, thoughtful, and accessible society.
When prominent musicians demonstrate accountability by removing problematic lyrics, it creates powerful ripples. Beyoncé and Lizzo‘s willingness to listen signals to other artists and content creators that inclusive representations matters.
Of course, the process is far from perfect. There are rarely easy consensus answers when balancing free speech against social harm. But the more space we make for open, nuanced dialogue, the more mutual understanding we build over time.
If hearing language like "spaz" hurts those it targets, even unintentionally, why not err on the side of compassion and choose words that empower instead? The key is to keep listening across differences, thinking critically about impacts, and challenging ourselves to grow.
The lyric controversy with Beyoncé and Lizzo illustrates just how high the linguistic stakes are in our era. As music continues reflecting and shaping culture, mindful speech and thoughtful criticism will remain cornerstones of positive change. There is still so much room for progress when it comes to fair, accurate representation. But if artists and audiences stay engaged in thoughtful dialogue, I remain hopeful about the inclusive future ahead.
