On the language

I want to go back to that acceptance speech Obama gave Tuesday night and how it began:

If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.

It's the answer told by lines that stretched around schools and churches in numbers this nation has never seen; by people who waited three hours and four hours, many for the very first time in their lives, because they believed that this time must be different; that their voice could be that difference.

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled – Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been a collection of Red States and Blue States: we are, and always will be, the United States of America.

It's the answer that led those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.

It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.

I especially like that he phrased our inclusion as "disabled and not disabled" instead of "disabled and able-bodied" or some other variation ("special needs and average needs" "handicapable and... what?"). My preference for "nondisabled" over "able-bodied" is based on semantically addressing several problems with the (inevitably-problematic) dichotomy:

"Disabled" and "able-bodied" are not opposites, both because disabled people are not "unable" and because some disabilities are developmental or psychological more than physical, which "able-bodied" implies. And for that matter, "disabled and able-bodied" is a lop-sided comparison when you understand the difference between impairments (actual conditions of an individual or body) and disability (the social phenomena). Also, the double prefix of "nondisabled" (or "not disabled") inclusively centers disabled people in a way that "disabled and able" cannot.

It's interesting that Obama mentioned "not disabled" people in the same way he mentioned "straight" people, as a complement to "disabled" and "gay," the historically marginalized groups. Putting "gay and straight" together in rhetoric is pretty common, but "disabled and nondisabled" really isn't that common -- we usually stand alone with lack of disability so presumed as the norm that it needn't be juxtaposed at all. That phrasing and inclusion in the list of marginalized groups felt really good in and of itself, even separate from where it leads in an Obama administration.

So often we never come up.