Written in March 2025
How we define disability is an interesting topic to me. I’ve discussed this from various angles in conversation and it seems that the majority of non-disabled people have a very narrow view of what disability is.
How does society define disability?
It seems like society sees disability as something that is very obvious – it would be cruel to suggest that the narrowness of the view equates disability with someone who uses a wheelchair, or who has a guide dog, but I am not convinced that most non-disabled people have given the matter much thought beyond that.
I’ll cite the misconception that wheelchair users are all either people with amputations, or those with any degree of paralysis that affects their ability to walk. This isn’t true, many wheelchair users can walk some of the time, but not all the time. Some are able to stand for short periods of time, or have varying capacity for lower limb usage.
It doesn’t take a lot of thought to consider the experiences of people with Parkinson’s, who may experience freezing and therefore use a wheelchair for getting to appointments on time, or those who have CFS who can’t manage to walk far without the danger of collapse and a flare-up. The fact is, most people don’t seem to consider this when they think about disability.
Disability is, in the view of society, very much a binary thing – if you use a wheelchair or have an obvious disability, then you’re disabled. If not, you’re putting it on. This isn’t helped by the fact that disabled-access parking, toilets and other provisions are always marked with the wheelchair symbol. Some venues now have signs explaining that not all disabilities are visible – people do need reminding of this fact.
I think there’s also a tendency to paint disability as something someone is born with, rather than something that develops due to a medical condition, accident or injury, or even due to ageing. Only 20% of disabled people were born with the difference that causes the disability; 80% of people acquire a disability during their lifespan.
Society also seems to use the charity model of disability. This model views disability as something to pity, classing disabled people as “worthy of sympathy” but not much else; effectively as second-class citizens. The charity model of disability also sets a paradigm where disabled people ought to be “grateful” for the accommodations made for them, cementing the unequal status of people with disabilities.
What does the law say?
Regional differences apply here, with the UK definition as follows: You’re disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.
The USA has the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which defines a person with a disability as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity. This includes people who have a record of such an impairment, even if they do not currently have a disability. It also includes individuals who do not have a disability but are regarded as having a disability.
My favourite definition is from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which defines disability thus: Persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which, in interaction with various barriers, may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.
How can we interpret the law?
The UK definition has a fairly narrow view of disability by assuming that it is a single impairment (or condition) that creates a disability. It also only covers physical and mental impairment, making no extra provision for conditions which are sensory or intellectual in nature. One assumes that these are automatically included, but the omission in the wording leaves room for argument.
The US law also restricts coverage to these two categories; again this could be an omission in ignorance but there is room for argument when certain conditions are not explicitly included.
There are some extra categories in the ADA – those who have a record of an impairment and those who are “regarded” as having a disability. The record of disability caveat is included to protect people who have survived cancer from employment discrimination, for example.
The part about being regarded as having a disability relates to scarring or other physical features that don’t limit any major life activity*. This is designed to protect people from discrimination based on physical appearance and I am undecided whether this works against the culture of bodily acceptance, or is a mechanism of it. If it is enshrined in law that looking different counts as a disability, what message does that send?
*Major life activities, according to the ADA, are the things many people do and take for granted, like eating, breathing, thinking, moving, working, seeing, hearing, maintenance of homeostasis, etc.
Why do I like the UN one so much?
I like the UN definition the best, as it brings aspects of the social model of disability into the equation. The social model of disability views disability as being caused (or, rather the barrier of disability is caused) by the environment and society. Wheelchair ramps, quiet rooms and hearing aid loops are examples of where society can accommodate disability, and these changes go a long way to removing the barriers. This definition recognises the role that society has to play in accommodating all parts of itself.
The part about “participation in society” really covers the whole of life – it includes education, friendships, social activities, work, relationships, politics: every aspect of human life. It doesn’t focus on our economic value, or use difficult to interpret phrases like “major life activities”.
The more subtle, yet perhaps the most impactful difference is the use of plurals. The UN definition is the only one to speak about “impairments” as a collection rather than a single. Many people with disabilities face barriers that are not the result of a single condition or a single difference, but the result of multiple factors which combine to create the disability, or the barrier.
Disability rarely travels alone
Living with any long term condition leads to poorer mental health, and it tends to correlate with socioeconomic differences that also create barriers and which can lead to developing further conditions, or exacerbating the ones someone is already living with.
Being stuck in sub-standard social housing due to access needs, which then leads to mental health problems and respiratory issues due to mould and damp is one example of a situation where a single factor creates two more.
I am lucky to be able to manage two (maybe three) physical health conditions that could be more disabling than they are now. Indeed, I had to give up a career due to one of them, because I could not fully and effectively participate in my job due to a physical impairment. By leaving that career I was able to change the barrier.
When I take my physical conditions and add mental health conditions and neurodivergence to the pot, what results is a disability which is comprised of various traits, challenges and barriers. The UN definition is the only one which explicitly recognises this.
The experience of exploring that identity has been a long road, and it was initially very hard to accept that I was part of that community when my physical disability started. As I have got older and my health has worsened on various fronts, it has become easier to accept and explore that label.
I’m moving towards a place where I feel neither ashamed about wearing it, nor a fraud for doing so.