> I still think "accessibility" is bad, but maybe "disability parking" covers your scenario better.
It doesn't. A guy in an ankle cast with a fracture is neither "handicapped" nor "disabled." However, he does have a problem involving "access," hence the usefulness of a term like "accessibility."
> The article is not about tweaking language to be more precise, its about banning _harmful_ language.
Right, but your understandable reaction to that agenda is, in my view, blinding you to the fact that they accidentally snuck in a good recommendation and "accessible" is actually an improvement. Unlike the authors of the Stanford list I'm not going to castigate you for your disagreement, but I really think 'Accessible parking' is objectively less descriptive. is simply untrue.
It doesn't. A guy in an ankle cast with a fracture is neither "handicapped" nor "disabled." However, he does have a problem involving "access," hence the usefulness of a term like "accessibility."
> The article is not about tweaking language to be more precise, its about banning _harmful_ language.
Right, but your understandable reaction to that agenda is, in my view, blinding you to the fact that they accidentally snuck in a good recommendation and "accessible" is actually an improvement. Unlike the authors of the Stanford list I'm not going to castigate you for your disagreement, but I really think 'Accessible parking' is objectively less descriptive. is simply untrue.