You need to take a step back. You are missing the forest for the trees here.
You are accepting these “definitions” (not the strongest citations) as somehow conclusive without regard to how these terms are used and/or been manipulated or changed.
No, I'm not. I understand her argument, and it is correct. No matter what people interpret into a clearly defined terminology.
And you don't get to "undefine" common technological terms in both software and game development (I just happen to work in the latter) terms because you have some vague, unproven feeling of "manipulation" or feel somehow attacked by your own misunderstanding of a term.
I’m not defending every poster here, but one should take notice of the common usage of a term because what is language if not a common understanding?
Languages are rather strictly defined grammatical boundaries - some people use it wrong long enough, they end up changing those boundaries over time. But that's not what's happening here.
The
multiple meanings of the word "disability" doesn't magically become just one meaning, because a few terminally online people are incapable of understanding context.
If you can’t see that attaching charged words like “disability” (even if it’s “situational” disability) to everyday inconveniences in an effort to garner more attention or accommodation, I don’t know what to tell you.
You fail again, and again, and again, to understand that this is not the kind of disability you think it is.
And you want to say that I arrogantly claim people don't understand their own language?
My man, you are living proof right there!
I get you don't like the word "disability" attached to this term. That's your right.
I wouldn't have used it for that term, either, due to the foreseeable confusion it would cause nowadays with everyone having access to social media and the capacity for context of a gnat.
She could have worded that a lot smarter, too - but she has proven quite a few times that she's not the brightest bulb.
But that's just the way the term is. Can't help it now.
Wouldn't change anything if it was "situational impairment" or whatever else, as nothing would change the fact that nobody is claiming that kids are disabilities, which is the "issue" here - she didn't claim that, either, no matter her wording.
Imagine if she had said "situational impairment" instead. Then we'd be here, seeing some people claim she said "kids are an impairment!"...