Anita Z Goldschmied I am researching issues related to the working conditions of people with disabilities. I have read various definitions in various articles, and the definition of disability from a social, environmental, and political perspective was interesting to me. In a way, the concept of disability in new models is such that it considers the environment as a disabling factor, not the physical and mental conditions of the individual. However, I am still looking for new definitions with new perspectives. I am very interested in knowing the personal opinions of different people on this phenomenon. Because I myself have a problem with the word disability and I am looking for a newer, more beautiful, more dignified, and of course more meaningful word, and I do not find what I want. Maybe I am expressing my meaning vaguely, but for example, I could never apply the word disabled to someone like Stephen Hawking, even though he was a different person physically.

Hello Seyyed Masih Rajaei Almousavi .

I appreciate the thoughtfulness behind your response and your effort to explore new ways of framing disability. Like you, I sometimes struggle with the word and how best to use it, but I think a key consideration is clarity. If a new term is introduced or an existing one is repurposed, what is the goal? Does it reduce bias? Shift mindsets? Improve how we discuss accessibility and inclusion?

My personal feeling is that alternatives like 'differently abled' or 'diverse ability' often feel like a way of tiptoeing around the subject. And when we avoid a word, we risk unintentionally reinforcing the idea that it is something that should be hidden. There are colloquial examples of words being reclaimed over time, and I believe this was also mentioned in Against Technoableism by Ashley Shew, which, if you haven't read yet, is a relatively quick read with interesting perspectives that may be useful in your research.

From a professional standpoint, I work in digital accessibility, and I find the social model of disability particularly useful because it helps shift the focus from the individual to the environment. In the digital space, barriers are often created through inaccessible design, coding decisions, or content structures. And as easily as they were built, they can be removed. Framing disability in this way empowers those involved in product creation, showing them that accessibility is about fixing barriers, not people.

I understand your point about Stephen Hawking, and I agree that 'disabled' as a label does not fit. However, I wouldn't hesitate to describe him as a 'person with a disability', as I see that as a factual description rather than a defining characteristic. It's an important distinction because labels can feel limiting, whereas descriptors acknowledge reality without reducing a person to it. That, of course, opens a broader discussion about identity-first vs. person-first language. However, that is a complex topic that deserves more attention than I give here.

I felt moved to share my perspective because your post resonated with me. I hope my thoughts are helpful. Wishing you the best in your research!

Hello Christine Maya Sellon ,

Thank you for taking the time to share such a detailed and insightful response. I truly appreciate your perspective, especially given your professional background in digital accessibility. I agree that shifting the focus from the individual to the environment is crucial, particularly in spaces like digital design where barriers can often be removed with thoughtful, inclusive practices.

I also appreciate your candid thoughts on terms like "differently abled" or "diverse ability." I see your point about how avoiding certain words can unintentionally reinforce stigma rather than dismantle it. Language is indeed a powerful tool, and as you mentioned, reclaiming words can be a transformative process. I haven’t yet read Against Technoableism by Ashley Shew, but your recommendation has piqued my interest, and I’ll definitely add it to my reading list. It sounds like it aligns closely with the themes I’m exploring in my research.

Your distinction between labels and descriptors is particularly thought-provoking. I agree that describing someone as a "person with a disability" can be a factual acknowledgment without reducing their identity to that single characteristic. This ties into the broader discussion of identity-first versus person-first language, which, as you noted, is a complex and nuanced topic deserving of deeper exploration. It’s a conversation I hope to engage with more as my research progresses.

Your perspective has given me a lot to reflect on, and I’m grateful for your thoughtful contribution. Wishing you all the best in your work in digital accessibility—it’s such an important and impactful field.