Why is “disabled“ preferred over “handicapped”?

The term "handicapped" is stronger than the term "disabled."

Both refer to a lack of ability, but while disabled means

not having one or more of the physical or mental abilities that most people have:

handicapped means

Having a condition that markedly restricts one's ability to function physically, mentally, or socially.

A disability may affect a person's life not at all, depending on what that person chooses to do, but it will arise to the level of handicap only if it does affect the life.

Consequently some people prefer the term "disabled" because it is less severe.

The two terms most commonly used to describe a person who has a limitation are "handicapped" and "disabled."

A disability is the result of a medically definable condition that limits a person's movements, senses, or activities.

A handicap is a barrier or circumstance that makes progress or success difficult, such as an impassable flight of stairs or a negative attitude toward a person who has a disability.

• A practical example: Janet Zeller, who has quadriplegia (some level of paralysis in all four limbs), has been told that she doesn't look "handicapped" when she is out paddling her sea kayak. Think about the situation. When Janet is paddling her sea kayak she is part of a sleek craft gliding through the water. There are no barriers to stop her or to "handicap" her. But she still has a disability.

The correct term is "disability"—a person with a disability. Person-first terminology is used because the person is more important than his or her disability.

(www.fs.fed.us)

All PC status words are bound to change with time or generational outlook and of course the temperament of the descriptive sub-culture that is being described. In a perfect world we would all be people, person or human, but too many people feel the need to prioritize or discriminate the people person or human that they are referring to based on their own perception or upbringing, which in part complicates an already complicated language such as English.

By society assigning a positive and negative value to these descriptive praises or descriptive words we actually loose out on the chance to get a better understanding of how someone views you as an individual, because we say that certain words are no longer politically correct and thus telling everyone what IS THE CORRECT phrase to use it casts confusion and actually only benefits the true bigot by making it known what he must say and what words to use to hide his real feelings about a person or class of people.

As a person, I feel that I should be described as exactly that as much as possible if it becomes necessary to identify me further I would be identified further if needed as a male or female; short, tall or average; dirty, clean, neat or slovenly, or whatever chosen descriptive word that the person feels needed to identify me as a different individual from the ten, twenty or two other people that may be around me or the person may know or be around based on the facts needed. I do not always need to be identified as a single white male with a disability, in fact most of the time I would prefer to just be called SCOTT. (TY for the edit I got lost trying to convey my thought and forgot other grammatical errors.)

In Italian, "handicappato" has also been replaced with "disabile", the former was used as an insult to challenge someone's intelligence or behaviour. When I was a child living in the UK, the term handicapped was practically synonymous with "cretin" "stupid" "imbecile" "spastic" and "idiot" four of which, funnily enough, were terms that were originally used in the medical field.

Calling someone handicapped when they have no physical or mental disability is clearly a misuse, and calling someone handicapped even if they are paraplegic, hearing impaired or have learning difficulties is also rude. So, why have medical conditions been used as insults? Because people the world over are generally unhappy cruel creatures, and name calling requires no analysis, forethought and, ironically, no intelligence.

Such things are almost always down to contemporary ideas of political correctness, and very little more.

Beneath that, “disabled“ always includes “handicapped” but not the other way around.

Most people won't care, yet a disability is a condition, the cause of which is not relevant. Strictly, a handicap might be exactly the same condition, but the cause should be relevant.

Consider the other main use of "handicap", in racing. There, very clearly, an official "handicapper" reduces a horse's ability to carry a lighter jockey.

Such things are almost always down to contemporary ideas of political correctness, but at least the contrast between disability and handicap has some logic about it.

Without wishing to be harsh, consider instead the difference between the term "Mongoloid" which was common usage until the middle of the last century, and the modern "Downs' syndrome".

Crudely, "Mongoloid" was a partially accurate description of the physical characteristics of a condition. By contrast "Downs' syndrome" is not only meaningless without prior knowledge; it's not even grammatical. "A Mongoloid child" has both meaning and grammatical correctness; "a Downs' syndrome child" clearly lacks both.