I think its naff, and for that reason shouldn't be there, but not because its "offensive", although there are still taboos about it all. Topless girls aren't allowed on here, but if they are in a classical painting... would it change things?
2 points on why I think its naff:
1. The artist thinks disabled people are underrepresented in art. That isn't equal to oppressed. I remember Sharpton or Jackson went on one of his racist rants about how no black people were nominated at an award show and how the show was racist and oppressing black people. Chris Rock came on and did a comedy skit and said there were no midgets nominated either, so the awards show must be midgetist and oppressing midgets. Just because they aren't doesn't mean they should be forced into there to even up numbers, they should be there because they deserve to be there. Because they earned their place amongst all others, not because it is rare.
2. Those stupid comments about "feminity" and female empowerment and/or superiority. Posing naked is a definition of feminine now? Hmm. And feminine empowerment? Give me a break, she's trying to compare herself with Emmeline Pankhurst. Anyway, its nothing of the sort. Its really bland and uninventive. Its nothing that hasn't been done a million times before, except the artist has tried to make it get publicity/shock value and praise via that backdoor, which he shouldn't be earning.
If the author wants to know what a real decent work of art is, tell him to go look at
Munch's "The Scream". Well, he could if some toerag hadn't nicked it.