[Ed. – It’s actually consistent, when you think about it. If gender is an identity, not a biological fact, why shouldn’t a disability be an identity, as opposed to a diagnosed and documentable condition? That said, there is the usual inconsistency that a “minority” or “victim” identity must be celebrated, whereas a “majority” or “non-victim” identity must not under any circumstances be celebrated. The suspicion intrudes that it’s all a big scam to keep people riled up.]
Disability, it turns out, is not something to be lived with, overcome, or worked around, it’s an identity, and it must be celebrated.
The definition of “ableism” actually has nothing to do with the celebration of disability. It is simply the term for “discrimination and social prejudice against people with disabilities” — which I think we can all agree is something we should strive to avoid. (I mean, I’m not sure we need a whole “ism” for it. It probably falls under the category of, say, being respectful, kind, and polite to others. But we all know the SJWs love a good “ism.”) So if, for example, Sam has a stutter and orders a cup of coffee at Starbucks, he should have a reasonable expectation of not receiving a cup with “SSSAM” written on it (something that actually happened earlier this month).
But, of course, our pals the SJWs just can’t leave well enough alone.