I like “fully able,” myself.

I’ll have to think about this for a while; it will certainly be a welcome respite from all the crap that’s been going down on various blogs as of late.

How about “boring”? Seriously, though – how about “normable”? I think the term “normable” avoids the assumption that there is something normal, complete, more “good” at some level. Instead, this individual at this time can be (is able to be) shaped into something that appears to approximate the (imaginary) “norm”, and can also be grouped in some arbitrary norming process to appear to belong to whatever “able” is.

[...] Link to post located Here [...]

I just found your blog. Although I’ve been struggling with lupus for over 20 years and fibromyalgia since 1999, I am just accepting that I am disabled, limited abled, and temporarily able-bodied and able-minded. I don’t know what to call it, but I have to think of myself in terms of being disabled in order to accept that I’m limited in what I can do otherwise I’ll ignore my limitations and make myself sick.

I’ll cross post and link to your blog.

hagar’s daughters last blog post..Old School Friday: The Choice Is Mine

I rather like “ablenormative” or “able-normative,” because one of the things about “abled” or “able-bodied” that bothers me is that it seems to carry the subtle implication of “better.” Using “ablenormative” would, unfortunately, carry the tendency of erasing certain types of disability, as you discussed above, but perhaps people could be educated over time to think about the wide variety of the disability spectrum.

meloukhia: I think that able-normative doesn’t erase non-physical disabilities as much as TAB does because ablenormative doesn’t specify “body” in the name. (I’m not saying it doesn’t erase them somewhat, thanks to preconceptions about ability/disability, but I think it’s not to the same extent.)

How about “standard-bodied” or “physically typical”?

Meowsers last blog post..What Our Ears Have Been Missing

Obama kept it simple: disabled and not disabled.

Meowser: doesn’t that still disappear non-physical disability?

i’ve been thinking about this a lot since you first posted it. since my disability is mental, not physical, i think that strongly informs my thinking. i don’t really like the term disabled as that focuses entirely on the lack of abilities associated with my craziness (that’s how i think of it, i’m ok with using that term for myself, would never refer to another that way without their request) and totally elides what i see as bonus abilities, or extra abilities, or enhanced abilities. there are a lot of things i can do with my brain that other people can’t.

i’ve become fond on the terms “neurotypical” and “neuroatypical” to describe people without and with craziness. that frames the non-disabled as the “typical” or common rather than the “fully abled” and doesn’t frame the “neuroatypical” as lesser than or lacking. “atypical” is not wholly unpejorative, i realize, but i think infinitely less so than “not fully abled” or “lacking ability.”

commenters above have suggested “physically typical” or “standard-bodied,” which have similar frameworks for discussing physical disability. the problem i see with these terms is finding terms that encompass both physical and mental disabilities. i think having separate terms for physical and mental disabilities reinforces the chasm between physical health and mental health and encourages stigmatizing or diminishing mental health issues.

i also really like the terms that emphasize the potential for someone to move from typical to atypical, either in terms of physical or mental health. those reminders that someone could slide across the line fairly easily also diminish the negative aspects of labels for people with disabilities.

i can say that i wholeheartedly reject “disabled” and “not-disabled,” no matter how simple the terms are. that i was thrilled to hear obama mention disability issues means that there’s a really low bar for federal engagement on these issues, not that we should stick with those terms.

abby jeans last blog post..irreverentandirrelevant:
Not once.

I tried to answer Bald Soprano’s question the other day and had a browser crash, so I’ll try it again. I can see why someone would respond that way, but as someone who is definitely mentally and neurologically interesting, I do consider the brain to be a body part, and the central nervous system is inextricably linked to much disability. (That’s NOT the same thing as saying, “It’s all in your head,” though, as that implies that you can just think your way out of whatever problem you have. I only wish I could have thought my way out of serious depression, so I wouldn’t have to take these annoying drugs.)

Meowsers last blog post..My Seat, Your Seat, His Seat, Their Seat

I understand your point of view, Meowser, but I don’t agree with it. Well, I do agree with it, actually –that the brain is a body part etc. –I just come to a different conclusion. My point of view is that the general public doesn’t see it that way and if we want to get them to see it that way we should seriously consider promoting the use of a term that doesn’t specify BODY, because the general public will assume that it doesn’t include non-physical disabilities.

[...] Amanda W wants people to suggest an opposite for the word Disabled in What Is The Opposite Of Disabled? [...]

[...] I, and others, have been mulling over how to refer to people who are not disabled. Roughly, our options seem to be: [...]