NationStates Jolt Archive

Wiki defines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disabilities) disability as, "a lack of ability relative to a personal or group standard or norm."

The ICF (http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/) has more specific classification systems for disability.

I ask the question, what is a disability, not necessarily in terms of strict adherence to any one definition...but rather in terms of how we have seen disability, see it now, and how we could be seeing it.

For example...people with poor eyesight can be disabled, or not, depending. If you have access to some sort of vision enhancement technology, glasses or lasik for example, then you aren't really 'impaired' or 'disabled'. We don't generally think of people wearing glasses or contacts as 'disabled'. More serious vision impairment (partial or total blindness) would be more likely to be regarded as an impairment, and a disability.

I suppose I want to have a general discussion about disability, and explore various views on the subject. Have at 'er!

Come on bitches... now that we've made the physical adjustments to allow people in wheelchairs, for example, to have more universal accessibility, should we continue to think of them as 'disabled'?

Is 'differently abled' so much PC bullshit? If someone in a wheelchair is limited physically in some ways, yet not limited in any other ways, is that person REALLY more 'disabled' than someone with really fucking bad joint problems?

Come on bitches... now that we've made the physical adjustments to allow people in wheelchairs, for example, to have more universal accessibility, should we continue to think of them as 'disabled'?

Is 'differently abled' so much PC bullshit? If someone in a wheelchair is limited physically in some ways, yet not limited in any other ways, is that person REALLY more 'disabled' than someone with really fucking bad joint problems?

[start threadjack]
You say "come on bitches" and I get all woozy inside and happy.:D
[/end threadjack]

Come on bitches... now that we've made the physical adjustments to allow people in wheelchairs, for example, to have more universal accessibility, should we continue to think of them as 'disabled'?

Surely not being able to stand or walk for long periods if at all is still a disability regardless of whether they can get around easily in a wheelchair.

Is 'differently abled' so much PC bullshit? If someone in a wheelchair is limited physically in some ways, yet not limited in any other ways, is that person REALLY more 'disabled' than someone with really fucking bad joint problems?

If a person really has 'fucking bad joint problems' then they will be using a walking stick and probably should have been described as 'disabled' by their doctor.

Surely not being able to stand or walk for long periods if at all is still a disability regardless of whether they can get around easily in a wheelchair.

If a person really has 'fucking bad joint problems' then they will be using a walking stick and probably should have been described as 'disabled' by their doctor.

Yes, but other than parking closer to the grocery store, or needing to sit more often than most people, is this 'disability' anything we really need to focus on? Is the label at all useful? Does it actually tell you anything about the person in question?

Why am I, with my massively poor eyesight, not 'disabled'? Because I have glasses? A person with mobility issues likely has some way of getting around that...what is the qualitative difference?

Yes, but other than parking closer to the grocery store, or needing to sit more often than most people, is this 'disability' anything we really need to focus on? Is the label at all useful? Does it actually tell you anything about the person in question?

Why am I, with my massively poor eyesight, not 'disabled'? Because I have glasses? A person with mobility issues likely has some way of getting around that...what is the qualitative difference?

they may be able to move around but they don't have the same mobility someone who isn't disabled. Tell someone on a wheelchair or a cane to climb up the stairs on get on a bus.

A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

^The definition that I've memorized. Also the one that applies to the people in my family who need to be covered under the disability laws in my country.

Is 'differently abled' so much PC bullshit?

Yes. This whole "differently" stuff to avoid negative terms is indeed a fairly large helping of masculine bovine excrements.

A disability is something that stands in your way of achieving a goal you want to reach. If you can't walk, but don't necessarily want to, it's not a disability to you. Whether it is to others, well, should you care about that?

For some people having zits is a disability, cause it stops you from getting laid. For others, having no legs is just a minor inconvenience.
So: disability is in the eye of the beholder.

I think of people as disabled if they have trouble escaping a burning building without help from a person or mechanical system. Function in crisis, I guess.

In normal life, people in wheelchairs or blind people have most of the same opportunities that I do, and I do not think of them as being somehow impaired or handicapped.

But in emergency situations, when you need to run for cover, then there is a huge difference in ability.

Not an easy definition, as it is context specific, but life is complicated.

In what context? As a mere physical definition, or as a legal definition that would grant some entitlement?

I think of people as disabled if they have trouble escaping a burning building without help from a person or mechanical system. Function in crisis, I guess.

In normal life, people in wheelchairs or blind people have most of the same opportunities that I do, and I do not think of them as being somehow impaired or handicapped.

But in emergency situations, when you need to run for cover, then there is a huge difference in ability.

Not an easy definition, as it is context specific, but life is complicated.
I'm not sure I agree. I'm probably thinking of it in an entirely different context though.

Never really thought about it... but if I did, I would probably be close to this.
A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

In what context? As a mere physical definition, or as a legal definition that would grant some entitlement?

Knowing that Neesika is very interested in law, I would venture to say its a take on both, physical and legal definitions.

I think there is a kind of scale of ability to perform basic functions under one's own power, without assistance or tools -- basic functions like walk, stand, move one's one body, see, hear, speak, manipulate objects with one's own hands, basic congnitive brain functions that allow one to formulate, understand and communicate thoughts. If some condition causes a person to lose the ability to do those things without any assistance, then that person will experience difficulty in getting around, using, and in some circumstances surviving in the world.

Just HOW difficult their condition makes such things, how much assistance is required to compensate for the condition, and how much functionality they will lose if the assistance is removed, will determine whether they are officially "disabled" and how disabled they are. So a person whose bad eyesight can be corrected by eyeglasses to near-perfect level of function is not considered really disabled because the needed assistance is relatively slight, compared to, say, the needed assistance to restore mobility functionality to a quadriplegic. Without the eyeglasses, the person with poor eyesight could conceivably still function enough to carry on normal or near-normal activity. But the quadriplegic would lose nearly all mobility functionality without technological or interpersonal assistance.

That's how I see it.

A lot of the legal US definition includes a determination of whether or not you receive disability pay. While going blind may make someone "disabled" and entitled to go home for the rest of their life and collect disability pay, it wouldn't qualify someone else - because there's a workaround.

Can't have a blind policeman driving a police car, but you can have a software developer who is blind. One is disabled for the purpose of benefits, and the other is not.

Yes, but other than parking closer to the grocery store, or needing to sit more often than most people, is this 'disability' anything we really need to focus on? Is the label at all useful? Does it actually tell you anything about the person in question?

It severely impacts their life, but there's a difference between focusing on what we can do to help in small ways and overreacting to the term 'disability' and thinking that the person is in any way different from you except that they can't use their legs, for example.

In some cases they will need specially adapted cars and homes, and this should be funded by government and charity.

Why am I, with my massively poor eyesight, not 'disabled'? Because I have glasses? A person with mobility issues likely has some way of getting around that...what is the qualitative difference?

I don't know what your eyesight is like, but if it affects your life to an extent that you are prevented from many activities/jobs due to it, then it is a disability. The qualitative difference is that some disabilities require more effort from others to accommodate them. I don't think this is particularly fair always, but cost can't always be ignored.

Come on bitches... now that we've made the physical adjustments to allow people in wheelchairs, for example, to have more universal accessibility, should we continue to think of them as 'disabled'?

Is 'differently abled' so much PC bullshit? If someone in a wheelchair is limited physically in some ways, yet not limited in any other ways, is that person REALLY more 'disabled' than someone with really fucking bad joint problems?

Everyone is differently abled. I can do things you can't do, you can do things I can't do. Barry Bonds can't play the 'cello, Yo Yo Ma can't hit the curveball.

STANDARD: climbing stairs.
DISABILITY: unable to climb stairs due to dysfunction in or absence of required muscles or limbs.
ABATEMENT/AMELIORATION: Elevators.

STANDARD: 20/20 vision.
DISABILITY: anything less than that to a point that hinders perception, mobility, or indentification of potential hazards.
ABATEMENT/AMELIORATION: mild to moderate, eyeglasses/contact lenses/RK or LASIK surgery -- severe, correction to the best vision possible -- near total or total, access for other senses (braille, sonic alerts at crosswalks, et al.).

Those two examples may be oversimplified, but that's the basic scheme. The world was always built to accomodate the widest range of ability, because that's cost-effective. Once society developed to the point where disability lost much of its stigma and governments rightly decided to require a wider range of accomodation, it happened. It costs more, but it's the right thing to do.

I stand by "disability" as a legitimate word to describe those who possess limitations on the basic access points to society. Mobility, senses, comprehension, et al., and I don't think the word is pejorative, as the Americans With Disabilities Act, has the wording correct. The person first, the condition last. "Differently abled" is a meaningless phrase because it is completely unspecific.

Wiki defines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disabilities) disability as, "a lack of ability relative to a personal or group standard or norm."

The ICF (http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/) has more specific classification systems for disability.

I ask the question, what is a disability, not necessarily in terms of strict adherence to any one definition...but rather in terms of how we have seen disability, see it now, and how we could be seeing it.

For example...people with poor eyesight can be disabled, or not, depending. If you have access to some sort of vision enhancement technology, glasses or lasik for example, then you aren't really 'impaired' or 'disabled'. We don't generally think of people wearing glasses or contacts as 'disabled'. More serious vision impairment (partial or total blindness) would be more likely to be regarded as an impairment, and a disability.

I suppose I want to have a general discussion about disability, and explore various views on the subject. Have at 'er!


Its a really good question. I would say something along the lines of: A disability is an affliction that means your body or your brain works outside of the normal parametrs for a human being. Which rather begs the question, what is normal?

A disabled person is someone who is not able to properly use an important function of the body, to the extent that it significantly affects their ability to carry out tasks that a normal person (as in, a non injured person without any problems with their DNA) would be able to do.

Its a really good question. I would say something along the lines of: A disability is an affliction that means your body or your brain works outside of the normal parametrs for a human being. Which rather begs the question, what is normal?

And this is, of course, what I'm trying to get at :)

Is the label at all useful? Does it actually tell you anything about the person in question?


Yes, it tells us the person is disabled. Usually however, people don't just put 'disabled' down on a form and nothing else, the form will specifically ask what type of disability it is.


Why am I, with my massively poor eyesight, not 'disabled'? Because I have glasses? A person with mobility issues likely has some way of getting around that...what is the qualitative difference?

I'd say people who are disabled cannot fully get around the problem, a wheelchair helps a lot, but does not fully give them their ability to walk back. Glasses or contact lenses gives the short sighted the ability to pretty much fully get around the problem.

And this is, of course, what I'm trying to get at :)

Are you asking about how they are treated in social situations or legally though?

...Which rather begs the question, what is normal?

What you assume everyone is before you get to know them.

Yes, but other than parking closer to the grocery store, or needing to sit more often than most people, is this 'disability' anything we really need to focus on? Is the label at all useful? Does it actually tell you anything about the person in question?
Yes, for instance that I wouldn't want to go mountain climbing with that person.


Why am I, with my massively poor eyesight, not 'disabled'? Because I have glasses? A person with mobility issues likely has some way of getting around that...what is the qualitative difference?
The qualitative difference is that glasses are a near-complete remedy for the problem. Even if they only give 20/40, you don't need to treat the wearer in a special way (i.e. be very careful not to collide) most of the times.

A wheelchair however still significantly affects the way of life.

When the technical implement is realized that nearly restores the results of limb loss, for instance fully active prosthetics, people with these devices will no longer be disabled.

Or, when the life of an average American degrades to waking up, eating pork, driving to work, taking an escalator up, moving between cubicle, restroom and donut/bigmac cafeteria on a segway only, driving to a full-service shop for some lard and chips, finally driving home to watch TV - then, too, people on wheelchairs will no longer be disabled.

What you assume everyone is before you get to know them.

Really? I don't assume that...you for instance, are a lot more normal than I ever thought you would be...

Are you asking about how they are treated in social situations or legally though?

However you want to discuss it, I'm not holding anyone to one or the other.

Smunk's definition seems about right to me.

Legally, I am in some cases disabled. For instance, I do not qualify for military service. But I do not qualify for handicapped parking.

Socially, I can do whatever the fuck I want. I am not truly disabled. Of course, I have stubbornly refused to learn how to tie my shoes, but that's a different story.

However you want to discuss it, I'm not holding anyone to one or the other.

Legally I am disabled according to the Americans with disability act, however I don't require a handicapped parking space and if there were a fire I wouldn't need help getting out of the building. There are disabilities past the blatantly obvious. If you need accommodation to carry out your daily life then you are disabled.

Legally I am disabled according to the Americans with disability act, however I don't require a handicapped parking space and if there were a fire I wouldn't need help getting out of the building. There are disabilities past the blatantly obvious. If you need accommodation to carry out your daily life then you are disabled.

I would add to this the emergency corollary.

Yes, you are disabled if you need accommodation to live a daily life...however, people who work on the 20th floor of an office building presumably all take the elevator...it ceases to be an accommodation. Until there is a fire and everyone else can take the stairs.

I've got an old wound in my right thigh that aches when it's cold or damp. It makes me a bit gimpy occasionally, but I wouldn't call it a disability. I'm also missing the little finger off my right hand, but you'd be surprised how little that matters.

As someone who had perfect eyesight up until a couple of years ago, I always thought of my parents' horrid eyesight and need for strong contacts as a disability--one I was happy to not have inherited. Apparently I gloated too soon. :( The idea that my mom would be more or less blind if someone broke into our house at night and she couldn't get to her glasses is way scary to me. I can't imagine having to depend on something outside of myself to see. However, I also wouldn't call her "disabled", and under normal circumstances her contacts do just fine, which is substantially different from people who get no or limited aid from vision correction devices.

I think the term "disabled" is probably most appropriate for those whose physical/mental conditions, in conjunction with the inaccessibility of/inability to pay for necessary aids, render them unable navigate the world in the way the majority of people can. So people like my parents who have health insurance and access to corrective lenses are not disabled, but someone who cannot get or pay for glasses with the same visual impairment might be. The same goes for mental disabilities and disorders.

Off-Topic: Why do y'all think that all vision problems can be solved with glasses? Most people seem not to understand that one can have glasses and still have a crappy vision. One obvious example is colorblindness but there are others where the eye or the signal processing later does not work properly