This is the nature of language. Any one word or image you use to represent something necessarily loses some nuance.
Not everyone who needs a handicapped spot is in a wheelchair, but the wheelchair symbol is a clear, obvious way to communicate that a spot is for handicapped people.
You're not supposed to bring all your brothers and sisters into the "family" restroom with you. Most people can look beyond the literal words on a sign and comprehend the meaning that is being conveyed.
The article is not about tweaking language to be more precise, its about banning _harmful_ language. The assertion that using the phrase "handicapped parking" is _harmful_ is absurd.
It doesn't. A guy in an ankle cast with a fracture is neither "handicapped" nor "disabled." However, he does have a problem involving "access," hence the usefulness of a term like "accessibility."
> The article is not about tweaking language to be more precise, its about banning _harmful_ language.
Right, but your understandable reaction to that agenda is, in my view, blinding you to the fact that they accidentally snuck in a good recommendation and "accessible" is actually an improvement. Unlike the authors of the Stanford list I'm not going to castigate you for your disagreement, but I really think 'Accessible parking' is objectively less descriptive. is simply untrue.