| The "euphemism treadmill" is interesting, but the goal in changing terminology isn't necessarily to escape previous negative connotations. It usually better reflects our current understanding of a particular disability or state. Saying that it doesn't change the reality is pretty ignorant; many people overcome physical disabilities, only to be looked down upon by society. For example, "retard" is overwhelmingly negative. Saying someone has a learning disability doesn't magically make them learn better, but it does: A) treat them as a person. Imagine if we had a particular term for a person with cancer. They're not a person now, they're a "cancee", or whatever the term is. This is degrading, you're defining them in terms of their illness. The same is true of mental illnesses and physical disabilities. B) affect reality by changing the social situation. Treating someone with a disability with respect and referring to them in the way they prefer doesn't fix all their problems, but it is a contribution you can make to helping them. This is really true of all people; you might not be able to fix everyone's problems, but you should still be nice to them. I agree that the currently able label is a stretch, partially because it's about labeling yourself. If you don't want to be referred to as currently able, that's your choice, and I don't think it negatively impacts other people. Edit: I meant to add that a good counter example for the treadmill is reclamation: see dyke marches, use of the word "nigger" in black culture. There aren't a lot of terms that have come full circle in modern culture, but there also aren't many iterations on the treadmill so far |