So judging by who can do what is apparently “ableist” according to SJ people. Yes, if we need a word for this sort of judgement then I guess “ableist” is an ok one. Is it a bigotry on a par with racism and other more well known “isms” though? No.
If one is terrible at playing the piano they are not going to be paid a great deal of money for a piano concert. This is ableist but it is also common sense.
Similarly, if one is not intelligent/diligent enough to complete a medicine course at university then they will not be employed as doctors. Again, ableist, but it’s best for everyone.
It irks me when I see rigorous education described as “elitist”.
In England we used to have grammar schools and comprehensive schools. One would take a test when they were 11 years old and if they did well they’d be put in the grammar schools which were academic, and if they didn’t do very well they’d be put in the more vocational leaning comprehensives. These tests were wonderful for class mobility as they did not discriminate on money/class/race/gender and just put students in the school to which they were more suited.
Leftists got rid of this system though after deeming grammar schools “elitist”. Note that in Britain tradesmen like plumbers and electricians etc are well paid. To go into a manual job is not to be resigned to a life of poverty - the old school system merely made sense in that it ensured children went into careers they would be best suited for.
The end result of leftists scrapping the grammar/comprehensive school system was that all schools were dumbed down.
Yes ableism exists, but would it not be better to direct everyone to do things they’re better at rather than to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator?