This quiz takes about three minutes. There are ten questions covering why Disabled People is the preferred term used by the British disabled people's civil rights movement, and why alternatives like "people with disabilities" fall short.
The explanations come after the quiz, so you get the education where it lands hardest.
Language is political, not just polite
The terminology debate around disability is not about finding the most inoffensive phrase. It is about power. As disabled academic Mike Oliver argued in 1989, language emerges through the ability of some groups to impose meaning on others. When medical and welfare professionals decide what Disabled People should be called, that is an exercise of power, not a service.
The resistance of Disabled People to externally imposed language is a form of political self-determination, not hypersensitivity.
The social model: where does the problem sit?
The social model of disability, developed by Disabled People themselves in the mid-1970s, makes a crucial distinction. Impairment is a functional limitation within the individual, for example a person who cannot walk unaided. Disability is the loss of opportunity caused by physical and social barriers, for example a building with no step-free access.
On this basis, the problem is not the person. The problem is the barriers society puts in place and fails to remove.
"Disabled People" versus "people with disabilities"
The British disabled people's civil rights movement uses Disabled People because the word "disabled" describes what society does to people with impairments. You are disabled by barriers, attitudes, and systems that exclude you.
"People with disabilities" locates the problem inside the individual. It implies that a person carries their disability with them like a personal possession, and that the solution lies in treating or managing the individual rather than changing society. The movement rejects this because it denies the political reality of disablism.
Identity and capitalisation
Some Disabled People write Disabled with a capital D, in the same way that Black people reclaimed the capitalisation of Black as a political identity. The capital letter signals that we are talking about a group with a shared political experience of discrimination, not a medical category.
This is a choice made by Disabled People themselves. That matters because the right to name your own experience is itself part of the movement's politics.
Why "able-bodied" does not work
The term "able-bodied" is often used to mean someone who is not disabled. But it does not hold up. A Disabled Person with a learning difficulty may be entirely able-bodied. The preferred alternative is non-disabled people, because it correctly identifies the group as those who do not experience disabling barriers, rather than making a claim about their physical capacity.
What is disablism?
Disablism is the discrimination, prejudice, and social oppression directed at Disabled People. It operates through individual attitudes, institutional practices, and systemic barriers. It is to Disabled People what racism is to Black people and sexism is to women.
Understanding disablism is the reason this language debate exists in the first place. The terminology we use either challenges the social structures that disable people, or it reinforces them. There is no neutral option.
Who gets to decide?
The disabled people's civil rights movement has been clear since its earliest days: the right to determine language belongs to Disabled People, not to medical professionals, charities, governments, or well-meaning allies. As Oliver put it, Disabled People will decide what they want to be called. That is not up for debate or consensus with those who do not share the experience of disablism.