[Exoseq]

While I Agree with giraffe in principle, there is certainly a distinction, as there are people who are "disabled" due to the nature of their disabilities, so in this way it is fundamentally different from a racial slur, insofar as it reflects a matter of degree.

Also, by definition, "having a disability" implies being "disabled" in some degree.

That said, calling all people with disabilities categorically "disabled", while lexically and logically correct, does carry a clearly inaccurate and prejudicial -implication- that a person with a disability is somehow -less capable-. In this, giraffe is correct, that the use of "disabled" in this way can easily convey an inaccurate connotation of reduced capability, an thus its usage in this way is both unenlightened and potentially prejudicial - but I could hardly put it into the same category as a racial slur, which is clearly intended to diminish or marginalize.

[GiraffeNecktie]

Most of us are "disabled" to some degree (i.e. there's some normal ability which we completely suck at) but physical disabilities are more obvious and striking to the casual observer so it's easy and rather lazy for people to think "he's disabled and I'm not". Whether or not the intention is there, this still diminishes and marginalizes the person with a physical disability.

[ehutch79]

> , an thus its usage in this way is both unenlightened and potentially prejudicial - but I could hardly put it into the same category as a racial slur, which is clearly intended to diminish or marginalize.

which was kind of my point.