I also find it a little ironic that the class who police language like this also are pretty hesitant to actually talk about the commonplace eugenics of eliminating fetuses with Down’s Syndrome (and a medical system that effectively encourages this by pushing prenatal genetic testing). For all the talk of ableism, we are most certainly still ableist in the way it most matters, not just words but deeds. And we lack the self-honesty to talk clearly about this, using endless euphemisms instead, acting like we solve the moral dilemma by just policing our language.
It reminds me of NIMBY activists using land acknowledgements while blocking anything that would allow someone who isn’t high caste from actually moving to and living in San Francisco in a proper dwelling.
Indeed, but even here on the board you'll encounter those who are (on the surface) simultaneously pro-choice but oppose (in principle) the notion of selective abortion. As they would tell it, caring for someone with Down's is only ever a treasure, and they care not that some are utterly incapable of caring for themselves into adulthood, or how hard it can be to care for them in general. I would not wish it on an enemy. In their minds though, they can't reconcile notions that it's not good to have Down's, yet it's possible to love and value someone who has it. Everything is black-and-white to the extreme.
It reminds me of NIMBY activists using land acknowledgements while blocking anything that would allow someone who isn’t high caste from actually moving to and living in San Francisco in a proper dwelling.