It’a so funny when people get upset over being called “able-bodied” because you just know what they’re really upset about is not being called “normal.”
“Why do we have to label everyone?” when what they really mean is, “no, you’re the freak, I’m normal.”
Anyway, you can’t begin to imagine the gasket they blow when you start calling them “temporarily abled.”
“Are you threatening me?”
At this point? Yes.
Is this the same reason people freak out when you call them "cis"? I haven't been able to figure that one out.
Likely. I've seen similar backlash to use of the term "allo" to describe "not asexual," and "goyim" for "not jewish."
It's marked vs unmarked language.
"Table" is an unmarked term, when someone reads or hears the word they envision their default normal unremakable table.
"Operating table" is a marked term. This is a special kind of table that's different from the default table, and we have to use the word "operating" to point out that it's not the normal table you were otherwise thinking of.
People don't flip out about "dining table" because they don't think of operating tables as badwrong outliers and just accept that normal default tables sometimes have to be differentiated from other sorts.
"Person" is an unnmarked term, the default normal unremarkable person is abled, cis, etc.
Terms like "trans person" and "disabled person" describe how that person differs from the default.
"Abled person" and "cis person" concede that sometimes we have to point out the default itself to differentiate it from other types of person. These terms acknowledge that a disabled person and a trans person can be the focus of attention or subject of conversation in a way that positions them as normal and acceptable and commonplace and that we might have to clarify that that we're talking about the default.
And people who're wrapped up in the idea that there are two groups, "person" and "unusual kind of person" get all twitchy when the outgroup becomes usual enough that what they think is just a "person" needs a bit of description of clarification.
The same thing in the other direction is happening when someone gets upset that a word like "man" or "woman" includes queer men and women.
No one minds "table" by itself to describe an operating table in a context where you don't need to specify, because they're chill with the idea of operating tables being tables.
But if someone things that the default man or woman is cis and straight, they'll act like they're being lied to when someone is simply a "man" or a "woman" without it being specified that he's gay and she's trans.
Ditto ethnicity.
Someone might not be so overtly ableist, antisemitic, transphobic, etc. to outright say that a disabled woman is not a woman or a jewish man is something other than a man, but they want the deviation from their norm to be more important than the term that is being marked or unmarked.







