AMANDAW

I, and others, have been mulling over how to refer to people who are not disabled. Roughly, our options seem to be:

• normal, or non-marked identity: centering a certain body/mind as “normal” ... It tends to imply that “normal” is accepted as good, while non-normal is bad ...
• able-bodied, which seems to be the settled-upon term: excludes people with non-physical disabilities ... and it just makes my heart cry.
• temporarily-able-bodied: at any time in life, you may become disabled, due to age, injury, late-manifesting genetics, or social barriers ...
• neurotypical, physiotypyical: terms used in the autistic community to describe persons whose makeup conforms to the expected norm ...
• normative: it emphasizes the social conformity rather than some inherent difference; think heteronormative.
• non-disabled: functional, but we tend to want a specific term to describe the privileged category ...
• abled, fully-able: I have been leaning on these terms as the most neutral of the set of options, but they still just don’t seem to describe ...

... I’ve finally settled on the term I’m comfortable with: temporarily non-disabled.

ETA: This is somewhat US-centric: UK disability advocates tend to use “disabled person” and “non-disabled person” as opposed to “person with a disability” or “person without a disability” (people-first language). And other countries may have different approaches as well. Something to keep in mind.

ETA 2: Many people in comments bring up the word “currently” in place of “temporary” and most people seem much more comfortable with this terminology (i.e., currently non-disabled).