>In my experience at least, I've never met a stutterer that didn't have ANY degree of control over it. The common notion is that we all have our bad days & our good days. Almost everyone I've encountered (myself included) has their own little personal tricks that help them to achieve better fluency, even if it's just temporary. The point I'm trying to make is that most of us are capable of being fluent (to varying degrees) at times. Right, but how does this make them any less 'disabled'? I've met two severe stutters in my life and if they talked for more than a few sentences it was clear they had a speech problem. There were no "personal tricks" that improved their severe stutter in a significant manner and absolutely nothing they did could hide it, short of not speaking. >I personally believe that most stutterers aren't severe enough for it to be considered a disability. See above, severe stutters do exist and they cannot achieive fluency with tricks. >I believe in most cases there's a high likelihood that there are steps stutterers can take to lessen its' effect on their life, a luxury that people with disabilities don't often have. Can you expand on how you came to your personal opinion on criteria for a 'disability'? I ask because multiple legal cases have held stuttering to be a disability. I know you aren't beholden to the court's opinion but I think you should consider them at the least. Good article here http://www.stutterlaw.com/adaaa.htm I don't mean to be argumentative (sometimes hard to tell over the internet) but I did take issue with your general characterization of stuttering. Your post reminded me of all the times I've heard that stuttering can be beaten or is just a phase and not a real problem. Stutters are not missing a leg, sure, but for most it affects almost every single part of their life.