Sorry! Disable is not a good choice of words because it is an ableism. It is a way of saying “not able” or “unable.” But could also be insinuating that being not able is inferior to being able which would also be an ableism. I don’t know how to write this without offending somebody.
So what is ableism? A general definition is “discrimination or prejudice against individuals with disabilities” (from Merriam Webster). Can you not use an idiom without discriminating against or being prejudiced against all people when you are talking about one person who really does not have the disability but acts like they do? The Wokes have added to the definition “based on the belief that typical abilities are superior. At its heart, ableism is rooted in the assumption that disabled people require ‘fixing’ and define people by their disability.” First, let me point out that there is a difference between defining people and describing people. Drop me a note if you do not understand that difference. Second, my sister-in-law was born with a birth defect. My guess is she would say that not having it is superior to having it. She also had an operation when she was young to “fix” certain problems with her muscles and nerves as a result of the birth defect. I guess she would not be allowed to be fixed today.
The idea behind ableism is that mentioning a disability offends someone who has that disability. I don’t use social media and rarely look at the news, so ableism snuck up on me. I saw an article about it on BBC News last week. Apparently, the concept has been around since the 1980’s feminist movement but has cropped up again recently. So I have over three decades of offences to apologize for.
How did I unknowingly commit an ableism? According to the BBC article:
This kind of ‘ableist’ language is omnipresent in conversation: making a “dumb” choice, turning a “blind” eye to a problem, acting “crazy”, calling a boss “psychopathic”, having a “bipolar” day. And, for the most part, people who utter these phrases aren’t intending to hurt anyone ¬– more commonly, they don’t have any idea they’re engaging in anything hurtful at all.
It also includes idioms like “deaf as a stone”, “fall on deaf ears”, “blind leading the blind”, “you must be crazy”, and asking someone, “How did you become disabled?” Guess you are not supposed to notice if someone is missing a leg. Nobody uses these kinds of idioms when talking to someone who has the particular disability. So if it is not used about disabled people and within their hearing why is it offensive.
Notice it says above people “utter these phrases without intending to hurt anyone – more commonly they don’t have any idea they’re engaging in anything hurtful.” The article goes on to point out that ableism can be indirect, even unintentional. Intent to offend is what disarms (is that an ableism) ableism. It should determine if it is an offense or not. In law, the criminal intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm to someone determines if it is murder or not. You cannot be guilty of murder unless you intended to kill the person. Killing unintentionally is not murder. Apparently that doesn’t apply to ableism. Good thing ableism is not a capital offense.
It is called ableism but is really talking about people that are disabled so it should be called disableism. But then again, that would be an ableism and would be offensive. It seems to me that ableism is another lame excuse to be offended when no offense is intended.