🙂. Oh good! I was worried you’d think I was being overly critical for no reason, which was not my intention at all.

Dear Kim thank you for taking the time to read the article and for sharing your thoughtful insights. I truly appreciate the constructive feedback. It’s crucial for me to offer perspectives that are both informative and respectful to all my readers, so I value your comments highly.

You bring up some vital points on the subject of ableism and the natural part of human experience that disability represents. I assure you that it was not my intention to perpetuate ableism, and I’ll revisit my language and framing choices in the article. The debate around person-first language vs. identity-first language is ongoing, and I understand the points you referenced from Jim Sinclair’s article.

In terms of the questions posed in the article, my aim was to stimulate discussion rather than to dictate a single perspective. However, I see how this approach could be interpreted as indecisiveness. I’ll take your feedback into account for future articles and aim to offer a clearer stance on the subjects I’m covering.

Thank you once again for your insights. Your comments will contribute to a more inclusive and accurate dialogue on this platform, and for that, I am grateful.

Best regards,
Drorar

Has the usual logic errors of arguments of it’s type though. e.g., Assuming that disability is inherently *not* a natural part of of the human experience, and is by definition something that needs to be cured. (Ask any disability rights advocate or activist how they feel about that perspective!) Unless they die first, almost every human being will, at some point, experience some kind of disability, whether it’s a result of old age, or chronic illness, or accident, or some other experience.
Or, e.g., person-first language, by putting disability as a secondary characteristic, inherently suggests that disability needs to be separated from the person in order for the person to be seen as a person, and as deserving the same humanity that non-disabled people do. (I personally love Jim Sinclair’s article on “Why I Dislike Person-First Language” from the ’90s, though there have been many others since.) And by definition, therefore that disabilty is a bad thing.

Also, I wish you’d be more definitive in your answers to some of your own questions though. In your attempts to neutrally describe both sides, it’s coming across almost as if you have no opinion (in which case, why write it? Though I’m assuming if you truly had no opinion, you wouldn’t have made the effort to write it?) Sometimes it comes across as if you’re refusing to answer your own questions as well. (e.g. Is autism a developmental disability? Is autism a learning disabilty?)

I don’t mean to come across as overly critical, I’m just pointing out difficulties I had while reading it, both in understanding your position on the subjects, and in the ableism expressed.