There are so many euphamisms for disabled people. Just off the top of my head there is:
- Differently-abled
- Handi-capable
- Special (needs)
- Challenged
- The r slur
- Crippled*
Why do we have so many terms when it’s so much easier to say disabled?
Non-diabled people have always been uncomfortable with disability. This can stem from the historical treatment of disabled people. Disabled people were institutionalized, abanonded by their families, castrated, and lobotomized. They were seen as “less than” and a deviant to society. This created ableism as we know it.
Non-diabled people are fearful of diabled people, or feel uncomfortable around disabled people. They even struggle to address them. Such as speaking to the hearing person next to a Deaf person. Or speaking to a caregiver of a non speaking person, instead of directly to the disabled person.
Choosing to identify disabled people with euphamisms is a direct line to ableism and this fear of disability. They are so fearful of it they can’t even use the word disabled. For a long time person-first language was the preffered method of speaking to and about disabled people. However this was mainly pioneered by non-disabled people, like caregivers, doctors, and parents. Recently, identity-first language has been a way for disabled people to express their pride in being disabled. It takes away the negative conotations of the word and celebrates the identity of disabled people.
However, there are many older disabled people that grew up with the person-first language and prefer that to idenity-first language. It is best to ask the disabled person their preference before referring to them in any specific way.
*Note: More recently the term “crip” (from cripple) has been reclaimed by the disability community.
Unruly Bodies 
I really appreciate how you pointed out that euphemisms often come from non-disabled people’s discomfort rather than from disabled people themselves. Your examples about speaking to a caregiver instead of the actual disabled person show how deep that discomfort goes. It treats disability like something people need to “work around” instead of a normal part of human variation. I also like that you brought up identity-first vs. person-first language. It’s so important to center the preferences of the person we’re actually talking about.
Your post made me think about how parents sometimes redirect their kids to look elsewhere in public if someone is visibly disabled or have facial differences so their kid doesn’t stare or say something inappropriate. I wonder how much this reinforces the idea that disabled people are scary and should be avoided. Avoiding speaking plainly about a condition or refusing to even look in the direction of disabled people just makes disability more taboo because it implies that the disabled person’s lived reality is somehow profane by nature.
I completely agree with the fact that disabled people, or even just the term ‘disabled’, makes people within society uncomfortable. It makes perfect sense that this is mostly due to the historical connotations behind being disabled, but we as a society need to try harder to move past this. Being ‘disabled’ can mean a wide range of things, none of which have an effect on any passerbyers or others just living their lives within society. I wonder if there’s truly a way in which we could move towards a society that’s less judgmental and uncomfortable around things that aren’t ‘normal’ to them?