Which one is better? 1) or 2)?

Ori my old sidekick Intuit likes the second one better However I 'd have written, "…..The stigmatized are disqualified from full acceptance"

Is "Stigma" a film, book, play, or some other work of art? If so it should be quoted "Stigma" or italicised Stigma.

That's a prescription, C.

I think of it as a typographical or style preference.

Why don't you think of it as a prescription?

I like being awkward.

This Lancet article gives us a good definition about Stigma, click the following link to download it:

http://www.ahrn.net/Lancet-Stigma_and_its_public_health_implications.pdf

The publication of Erving Goffman’s Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity in 1963 generated a profusion of research on the nature, sources, and consequences of stigma—albeit with considerable variation on how stigma was defined. In our conceptualisation, stigma is the result of a process in which a series of five interrelated components combine to generate stigma. In the first component, people identify and label human differences. Although most human differences are socially irrelevant, differences such as skin colour, IQ, and sexual preferences are highly salient in many social contexts. The point is that there is a social selection process determining which differences are deemed relevant and consequential,
and which are not. Medical conditions vary dramatically in the extent to which they are socially significant. Compare hypertension, bone fractures,
and melanoma, for example, with incontinence, AIDS, and schizophrenia.
The second component of stigma involves the process of stereotyping in which the labelled person is linked to undesirable characteristics. In a third
component the group doing the labelling separates
“them”—the stigmatised group—from “us”. In the fourth component, stigmatised people experience discrimination and loss of status. We reason that when people are labelled, set apart, and linked to undesirable
characteristics, a rationale is constructed for devaluing, rejecting, and excluding them.
Finally, there can be no stigmatisation without the fifth component of stigma, the exercise of power. The essential role of power is clear in situations where low-power groups attempt a reverse stigmatisation. For example, patients being treated for mental illness may label their clinicians as pill pushers—a cold, paternalistic, and arrogant “them” to be despised and avoided. Nevertheless, the patients lack the social, cultural, economic, and political power to translate their negativity into any significant consequences for
the staff. The staff, in such circumstances, are hardly a stigmatised group.

I've noticed that.

But of course it is a prescription, just as is the 'i' and the 's' for 'is' and the dot at the end of this sentence. I can't imagine why you'd be reluctant to acknowledge that a "typographical or style preference" is any different than a prescription.

The difference between this one and the nutty ones is that this one makes sense; there's actually a reason for it.