Differently Abled

Also written: differently-abled, handi-capable, differently abled

avoid-termeuphemismself-id-required

At a glance

SourceYearPosition
SumOfUs 2016 Avoid
DC Fiscal Policy Institute 2017 Avoid
National Center on Disability and Journalism 2021 Avoid
American Psychological Association 2023 Avoid
Movement Strategy Center 2024 Avoid

Source-by-source

SumOfUs Avoid

2016 VERIFIED-ARCHIVED
“differently abled”

In the Disability section of A Progressive's Style Guide, SumOfUs lists "differently abled" among the terms to avoid, pairing it with preferred forms such as "disabled person," "person who has a disability," and "person with a disability."

Disability issue area, do-not-use column (alongside disAbled, divyang, handi-capable)

DC Fiscal Policy Institute Avoid

2017 VERIFIED-ARCHIVED
“Avoid … Differently abled … Instead … Person with a disability”

DCFPI's inclusive-language guide places "differently abled" in the Avoid column of its disability recommendations table, offering "person with a disability" and similar person-first phrasings instead, while noting that the preferred terminology of the people involved should govern.

Disability section, Specific Recommendations table (Avoid / Instead) · source →

National Center on Disability and Journalism Avoid

2021 VERIFIED-ARCHIVED
“This term came into vogue in the 1990s as an alternative to "disabled," "handicapped" or "mentally retarded." Currently, it is not considered appropriate (and for many, never was). Some consider it condescending, offensive or simply a way of avoiding talking about disability.”

NCDJ traces "differently abled" to a 1990s effort to replace harsher labels and reports that it is no longer considered appropriate — read by some as condescending or as a way of avoiding the word disability. The center recommends "person with a disability" as a more neutral term, and notes AP style suggests being specific about the disability instead.

"Differently-abled" entry, Background · source →

American Psychological Association Avoid

2023 VERIFIED-ARCHIVED
“TERM TO AVOID … SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE … differently abled … person who has a disability … disabled people's expressed preferences regarding identification supersede matters of style.”

APA's Inclusive Language Guide lists "differently abled" as a term to avoid, suggesting person-first or identity-first alternatives such as "person who has a disability" or "disabled person." Its accompanying comment stresses that disabled people's own expressed preferences supersede matters of style.

Inclusive Language Guide, Disability table (Term to Avoid / Suggested Alternative) · source →

Movement Strategy Center Avoid

2024 VERIFIED-ARCHIVED
“Differently-abled … Special … Gifted … Person with a disability”

Under "Terms to Avoid," the Movement Strategy Center glossary groups "differently-abled" with "special" and "gifted" in its Avoid column for disability language, directing writers to "person with a disability" instead.

Terms to Avoid → Disability, Avoid / Use This Instead table · source →

Audience notes

Journalists and editors
Treat "differently abled" as a term to avoid. NCDJ and APA both direct writers toward "person with a disability" / "disabled person," and AP style favors naming the specific disability when it is relevant. "Handi-capable" falls in the same euphemism family and is likewise out.
Campaigners and internal comms
The euphemism reads to many disabled people as avoidance — a way of not saying "disability" — rather than respect. When in doubt, follow the person's own self-identification; APA is explicit that expressed preferences supersede style rules.
When a person uses the term for themselves
Self-identification is primary. If an individual describes themselves as "differently abled," mirror their language for them specifically — the guidance here governs how organizations describe disability in general, not how any one person chooses to name their own experience.

Synthesis

The sources are unanimous: “differently abled” is a term to avoid. All five corpus guides advise against it, in avoid/instead tables (SumOfUs, DCFPI, APA, Movement Strategy Center) or a dedicated entry (NCDJ), and point to person-first or identity-first alternatives, most often “person with a disability” or “disabled person” (SumOfUs, DCFPI, APA, Movement Strategy Center, NCDJ). None treats it as a term to handle with care; the recommendation across the board is to drop it.

The shared reasoning is that the phrase functions as a euphemism. NCDJ puts it most directly: the term reads to many as condescending, or as “a way of avoiding talking about disability,” and “for many, never was” appropriate. That is why the guides reach for plainer language. The goal is to name disability accurately rather than soften it. The sources differ only on which plain alternative to use. APA notes that person-first and identity-first preferences vary by community and that a person’s own expressed preference supersedes any style rule, an instance of the commons-wide principle that self-identification comes first.

The treatment is stable across the corpus’s range. NCDJ dates the term’s rise to a 1990s wave of alternatives to harsher labels; SumOfUs (2016) already lists it as one to avoid, and the later guides — DCFPI (2017), APA (2023), Movement Strategy Center (2024) — keep it there.

Audience notes

See the structured audience notes above: journalists and editors should treat the term as one to avoid and default to “person with a disability” or the specific disability; campaigners should understand why the euphemism lands as avoidance rather than respect; and writers should always defer to a person’s own self-identification over any general rule.

Related terms

Last reviewed: 2026-06-07
Contributors: jordan