It doesn't seem that Mark Aronoff knows enough about "disability language" or "disability culture" to effectively write about it. He notes that saying things like, "person (living) with..." started with "chronic diseases" (like) "cancer/AIDS/ADHD". Actually, the use of People First Language (placing the person before the condition) was born out of the People First/Self-Advocacy Movement in the 1970s (so it's been around a long time and is really not "new"), wherein adults with developmental disabilities (specifically cognitive disabilities, AKA "mental retardation") said, "We are not our disabilities; we are people first and we can speak for ourselves."
Contrary to Aronoff's assertion that saying, "People with..." is a euphemism, people with disabilities, family members, many professionals, and others, would say it's a more accurate, honest, and respectful descriptor. This evolution in language (from identifying a person primarily on their medical diagnosis) is no different than shifts in language during the Civil Rights and Women's Movements, in which the people WHO WERE BEING DESCRIBED rightly took command and control of the way they wanted to be described. Why should disability be any different?
Aronoff wrote, "One good indicator that a topic is highly taboo is the instability of the terms used in discussing it." On the contrary—new words and new meanings for words are not an instability nor does this represent a "tabloo." Instead, it simply represents an evolution--a growth, as described about other movements. And thank goodness for change! Where would we be if we were still using the N-word; referring to women as "honey," "sweetie," et al; and more?
If Aronoff had more personal experience with disability issues, he would know in an instant that seeing "accessible restroom" makes perfect sense to those who need to know: a person using a wheelchair or other mobility device knows where to find the restrooms which provide better access. Personally, I find it funny to see a sign that says: "disabled parking" or "disabled restroom"....does this mean the parking space or the restroom is broken? For that's how society has begun to use the specific term "disabled"---to mean something that's broken, non-functioning, doesn't work. Thus, within the People First Language paradigm, the term "disabled" is not appropriate. My own 20-year-old son, who happens to use a power wheelchair, along with a variety of other assistive devices, and who is a Phi Theta Kappa member at our local community college would angrily bristle at being called "disabled." Yes, he HAS what our society calls a disability, but he does not see himself as "disabled"---he is VERY able!
Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether Aronoff, others, or even myself "likes" terminology that's reflected by People First Language...what DOES matter are (1) the feelings and opinions of the people who are being described and (2) the image perpetuated by the words we use. If we want to perpetuate pity, stereotypical, and negative perceptions of individuals who happen to have conditions we call disabilities, then we can easily do that by using the "old" language. If we're ready to ensure all people are valued, treated as "people" first (and not their conditions), then we'll need to use language that helps shape more positive attitudes and perceptions.
Kathie Snow
www.disabilityisnatural.com 
