A lot of folks have been writing about ableist language and what that means. My semantically obsessed brain starts with the words we as #a11y advocates and pracitioners use. Disabled is a problem. It means "apart" from able. All humans are apart from some "able". In GEnie BBS 1).
3
1
4
The vast majority of Disabled people really prefer the word disabled. So if you’re looking for a consensus on terms you won’t get it trying to remove disabled as the main option.
1
1
2
Replying to @erin
Again, we need focal points. I'm not looking for consensus. I'm simply pointing out the semantics and lack of logic. Who wants a world full of me? Not me, oh hell no. But conversation from many folks? That's interesting to me as new ideas emerge.

Jan 23, 2021 · 12:57 PM UTC

2
1
Replying to @mholzschlag @erin
This is timely, I was recently reading a post by @snowded discussing his dislike of false dichotomies, proposing introducing a 3rd statement which creates an irreconcilable state that forces a drastic reconsideration of the underlying qualities that produced it hence trialectic
2
1
I LOVE that Ahmad. There's logic in this. 2 can conflict or cooperate. But 3 disrupts both. Fascinating to me, thank you so much for the link!
1
1
more replies
Replying to @mholzschlag
Semantics aside, everyone just needs access. What access looks like depending on your medical predicament will vary. Getting some folks to see people who have different access needs as having the same rights to access as they do, tends to be the biggest challenge I’ve found.
1
1
That's very true in my experience as well, and the conflict that solves a problem for one causes another for someone else. That seems more a tech problem than social/linguistic. We know so little about our differences and abilities. And then comorbidities. Multiple needs for one.
1