Hmm. How the “disabled” are depicted in literature is an interesting topic. But disabled writers and artists? Pardon me being pedantic but disabled toilets are toilets that don’t work, disabled writers are writers who can’t write, and disabled artists are artists who can’t create art. And disabled accountants, I presume, can’t count. You might say that the soldiers in the picture were disabled, because they couldn’t fight, though I’m pretty sure they could have if their lives depended on it.
Language, it’s a tricky thing. People used to have handicaps, and I contend that that’s a noble description, as a handicap is something you can adapt to and absorb into a full life, with varying limitations, so that it is part of a person’s experience and indeed general human experience and not a defining label. Racehorses win races with handicaps, after all.
Now people are “disabled” and that puts them in their box.
If the talks produce some meaningful language, then they won’t have been in vain.
PS, I’m a writer myself, and coincidentally a gimp. I also use the excellent GIMP software for those who are interested.
NB UPDATE: Just to be clear, I believe the term gimp is used by sado-masochists. I clearly don’t mean it in that sense. 😉 As I say above, language can be a tricky thing…