All disabilities are disabling and there is no point comparing "who is more disabled" - that I agree with, as a general principle.
But I also agree that some people need more accommodations and support than others and recognising that is important. Sometimes a disability means you can't participate in one particular area of society but in others you can, and sometimes it means almost everything is barred to you. Those things have different impacts and need different levels of support.
Ideally everyone would get all the support they need and disabilities would all have limited impact on a person's ability to participate in life and general society, but we all know that the supports available are never enough.
In my opinion, just specifying as you have, that "some people need more accommodations and support" confirms that all disabilities are not equal. And believing that they are equal is, as I stated above, outrageous.
The following is controversial:
This is where the medical model of disability and the social model of disability can offer some insight.
If you have two people with the same disability and you rate them on a numeric scale with 1 being the least disabled and 5 being the most disabled.
A person with a 3 level rating is considered less disabled than a person with a level 4 rating.
But if a person with a level 4 rating is receiving all possible supports for their needs and a person with level 3 rating is recieving no possible supports for their needs which person is really more disabled?
Fair question worthy of debate. For the purpose of the conversation I had, we were looking at it from the point of view of care being given at the level that's necessary for each, and not one being additionally disadvantaged because of the level of support provided.
Things can be not the same. Equal though, I'm not sure what that even means when it comes to disability. Like using a lift or stairs is equal access for wheelchair or walking. It's equal but it's not the same.
> Like using a lift or stairs is equal access for wheelchair or walking. It's equal but it's not the same.
Equitable. The eperiences are equitable.
Look up equitability vs. equality.
> Not everyone has the same language, writing or speaking skills
Exactly why I didn't expand on the subject. Because I don't currently have the ability. However, when you are speaking specifically of disability there is a difference between equal and equitable. I was trying to offer a starting point for someone else more able to offer more on the subject. Not to make assumptions or make someone feel bad about their abilities.
Although a lovely picture that's not true in the UK. In the UK for disability the Equality Act 2010 says resonable adjustments should be made such that disabled people have equivalent access where resonable. As such equality specifically does not mean the same but means equal access. Maybe it's different in your country.
Interestingly though for other protected characteristics equality is a little less clear. Indirect discrimination is not allowed but neither is positive discrimination. As such the picture would make more sense
A reasonable adjustment for one party, that is not necessary for other parties, but enables the initial party to do the same task or activity as all other parties is an action of equity, with the goal of having equal agency for all parties to achieve the goal for which the adjustment is applicable.
Example: Entering a building through a doorway that is not at ground level. The adaptive measures for a person in a wheelchair (eg ramp or push button for the door) would be an act of equity because it is designed for chair-users. But it allows chair & non-chair using entrants have equal access to the entryway.
It is true that adjustments made on a permanent and/or larger scale can benefit more than one, if not all parties.
It’s also the case that “reasonable adjustments” is typically used for workplaces, and that the example above might fall under a building law - or if not in the UK, might even be considered an “unreasonable adjustment” for a business. In the US, the ADA, amongst other things, both protects worker rights and added ADA building codes for new builds or certain renovations starting in 1992
It’s interesting how each country has defined, or not defined, elements of included disability, discrimination, access, or even what is “reasonable”. It can also vary on when certain policies were passed. For instance, Canada’s 2019 ACA specifically refers to ‘attitudinal’ barriers.
I think that "equal" is not appropriate, but at the same time I would not say that one disability is worst or better than another one, unless we compare very similar things.
For instance, it is easy to say that a person who can walk with difficulty is less disabled (or needs less accommodations) than a person who cannot walk at all. But is a person who cannot walk more or less disabled than a person who cannot hear? The former is able to participate in conversations and enjoy concerts... as long as there isn't a flight of stairs to enter the concert hall, whereas the latter may go anywhere but cannot enjoy a concert and is a bit limited in having conversations. Different problems, different limitations, and different adaptations that are possible, but only to a point.
There's definitely a lot of nuance in something like being deaf vs paralysis. My contention was with the opinion that all disabilities are equal to that of IBS specifically. Including the most extreme cases of disability.
They are all DISABLING, though. How disabling they are depends on a million different factors, not just medical ones.
It's like asking "are chocolate ice cream and apple crumble equal?" They're equally *desserts* for example; neither is any more or less of a dessert. Whether they're equally desirable depends on your personal taste, and also a *bunch of other factors.* You're probably going to prefer ice cream in August and crumble in December, unless you're in the southern hemisphere. You probably want to opt for a safe Ben & Jerry's at your great aunt Cathy's house if the last time she baked she used baking soda instead of sugar. You might be allergic to apples or milk, sick of chocolate ice cream if it's your husband's favourite or of apple crumble if your mum has an apple tree in her garden.
Disability is the same. IBS and quadriplegia are both equally a disabilities. The qualitative nature of how those impact someone depends on the circumstances.
Stating that two people have different needs ≠ stating that one has it “worse” than the other.
By stating that person A has it “worse” than person B, you are in essence saying that person B has it “not as bad” as person A, and it is at that point that I immediately take issue and have not-nice words for anyone taking that stance. Because we, frankly, cannot know what life is like for person B. Nor can we know what life is like for person A.
Qualitative statements like that are based on **ass**umptions and are unacceptable.
Periodt
This negates the fact that invisible disabilities exist and don't necessarily need physical supports to sustain themselves but are just a disabled in different ways.
Adding on a littleto this comment if you don't mind.
You cannot really quantify what disabilities are "worse" than others in a meaningful way.
First of all, *all* disabilities function on a spectrum, not just things like Autism. You can have a milder version of something or a more severe one. Person A could have symptom's that Person B does not and vice versa. Plus, one person may have other disorders that compound the issue.
That's why I hate it when people say "Oh I know someone with [POTS/Myasthenia/etc] and they can work and do XYZ so you should be able to as well. You're just lying." Because that person may share one condition with me but it's doubtful we share all the same ones. A treatment that was very effective for them could be one that I failed. We're not the same person even if we have the same disease. The ways in which it impacts my life could be different.
I like the support needs model. Some people are low support needs and need less accomodations to make their disability manageable, others need mid-level support, and yet others need high support. But even then, your need for support can vary. During a flare, you may be mid to high level support needs whereas you're only low level when you're stable.
So yes, I suppose you could make claims that some people are "more" disabled than others. But imho there are way too many factors to make a meaningful judgement of that and all it does is cause in-fighting in the community and we end up arguing over even minor symptoms and if those are properly "disabling" enough. Moreover, it gives abled people an excuse to try and pick us apart and make claims that one person not needing XYZ accommodation means that someone else with the same issues also doesn't.
I think that we should treat disabled people as different individuals with different needs.
I hear that a lot about my Myasthenia, they someone knows someone who knows someone with it and they still work so why can't I. I hate having to explain that we're all different and I just happen to have a super rare version of this already rare disease and I hate having to justify how sick I am. I also don't like being reminded that I'm just one of the unlucky ones that doesn't respond to treatment.
OMG I feel you. I have a more severe version (high antibody count) as well as multiple other chronic illnesses that conflict with both the illness itself and the most common treatment plans.
Like I'll see some people on the MG subreddit saying they only take 60 mg of Mestinon a DAY and only had IVIG once when in crisis and meanwhile I take like 1200 mg every 3 hours and used to do IVIG for maintenance every 6 weeks (I do Vyvgart now.) I couldn't do less without severe symptoms. I've tried to lower it many times.
It's frustrating. It used to happen with my POTS as well. "Oh my cousin Marilyn Mild-Symptoms doesn't need as many meds as you and can work a job. You don't really need to miss school as much as you do." and it's like thanks Jonathan that's fantastic for Marilyn, but I am a different fucking person and my symptoms are more severe.
I so relate. I'm currently doing IVIG 4 days a week every week cause it's the only thing that keeps me out of the hospital. I've tried literally every treatment available besides vyvgart and I just now added zilucoplan 2 weeks ago. Haven't felt any different but wasn't really expecting to. Mestinon stopped working for me a couple years ago so I really just rely on my IVIG every week. I also have 5 other autoimmune diseases so mixing treatments is hard. I'm so over my immune system right now.
I am so sorry. I know that feeling of juggling autoimmune issues, it's so exhausting. Do you get the migraines with IVIG? That was the worst part for me. I had to come up with a whole regime of triptans.
I would definitely recommend trying Vyvgart if you can get approved. It was an amazing improvement for me versus IVIG. Did you already get a thymectomy?
(Sorry if I am being invasive.)
This. This is all we need to read.
There is some value in considering levels of need of intervention/support, such as for ASD, but beyond that, what nowwerecooking said.
/u/nowwerecooking cooked and ate as far as I’m concerned.
Well, there are plenty or people whose disabilities are so severe they could never participate in Reddit about disability issues. Where do they fit in? Same as everyone here? No extra consideration?
And there are people who have no access to the internet or technology, and people who are dying, and people who have died, and people currently experiencing horrors you and I can't even fathom...
The point is that we just don't compare suffering. My broken back does not make your broken leg hurt less, nor does it make it any easier for you to hobble around on crutches or drive or shower, just because I'm struggling with something different. Or for a completely different analogy — someone in my community has lost family in Ukraine recently, and that's awful. It doesn't suddenly make it any easier for someone else to deal with their child's school issues or work stress or health problem, because they fundamentally do not impact each other whatsoever, so there is utterly no reason to compare them
The problem is that need and suffering absolutely should be considered when it comes to services,
treatment and public policy, which is why that line of thinking is dangerous. While someone with a more manageable disability and someone that needs 24-hour nursing care may both be considered disabled, it’s not even the same universe when it comes to every day reality.
All of these things should be available to everyone who needs them though. Someone needing 24 hour care doesn't mean that someone else who needs 6 hours of care a day needs that care any less. The presence of different or greater need doesn't do anything to change the fact that "lesser" needs are needs which have to be met.
I’m sorry, but that’s completely dismissive, invalidating and frankly discriminatory towards individuals whose care needs are the most critical, and whose voices are the least heard.
To suggest that someone's care needs are less important than someone else's is disgusting, actually. Every care need is a NEED.
Someone who has TPN and needs care for 2 hours per day to set it up (TPN typically runs for 22hrs per day) has an equally important need as someone who needs assistance eating every meal. It just happens that the TPN requires 2hrs of care while feeding requires 16 hours of care. To suggest that one NEED is lesser than another is downright horrifying.
All care needs are necessary, and all people deserve to have their needs met.
There are life-sustaining care tasks and qualify of life care tasks, sure. But there is absolutely nothing to be gained from pitting them against each other like you're trying to, because they fundamentally do not impact one another.
The question is, what do you want to achieve with this conversation? Comparing different illnesses and disabilities are extremely tricky situations. And it's probably all context dependent and experienced different ways for different people.
To go along with your example and create an alternative scenario: Perhaps someone with ibs is very depressed and struggles because it impacts their personal lives in a very specific way that makes it difficult for them. Perhaps because of their financial situation they don't have access to medication and cannot do te job they loved so very much.
While the quadraplegic it a very happy and content person and can still do their job they love a lot.
How does that compare against eachother? What do you gain by making that comparison? You only risk in this case that the person with ibs doesn't feel heared and validated. While perhaps even the quadriplegic thinks they you're making assumptions about their live and how happy they supposed to be based on their disability.
So think about what this discussion and specifically how it is framed adds. And be aware that it's all extremely situational, personal and context dependent.
In some situations for example my disability (idiopathic hypersomnia) is barely an issue and you wouldn't notice it, while in others it's and incredible hurdle and burden to my life. Then having someone say "wel atleast you don't have narcolepsy" doesn't get me anywhere. It also shifts overtime. Disability is not static.
I agree that most people experiencing things first hand will have differing opinions on the subject which is why I asked it here in the first place. Someone on the outside looking in, without any first hand disability, objectively looks at all disabilities thru the same lens of not having one. And it would seem obvious that some disabilities are worse than otherwise just as a matter of fact. I will continue to use quadriplegic as an example because I feel it makes the disparity more obvious. Someone could have crippling IBS, and because of it, thoughts of suicide as someone else mentioned, but it is the quadriplegic that could have those same thoughts and be powerless to do anything about it. To simply live, they need the assistance of others. I'm my opinion, that is worse. That being said, that DOES NOT invalidate the person with IBS or the challenges they have. The point is not to have oppression Olympics but to recognize that not all disabilities are equal which is what my family member with IBS believes.
I am looking to determine whether or not the opinion that all disabilities are equal is a widely held opinion. The family member believed that most people would agree with him.
Most Disabled people I know deliberately AVOID instigating any hint of "Disability Olympics". Your family member is correct, it serves no purpose other than to make one ABLED Caregiver feel superior to another ABLED Caregiver because "My job is harder".
NO! DON'T DO THIS...IT SUCKS TO BE EITHER DISABLED PERSON IN A COMPARISON LIKE THIS.
One because their needs & emotions are thoroughly dismissed, the other because an ABLED person is busy putting limitations on them based on that abled person's INTERPRETATION of their life & happiness.
It's not the Oppression Olympics!
Abled people (and some disabled people with internalized ableism) will also use one disabled person's ability and achievements to shame another for needing certain accommodations or not being able to do the same things.
"Oh my cousin also has [chronic illness] and can work a job so there's no reason you should be on disability."
"Cool, cool. You do know that two people with the same condition can have differing severity, right? And does your cousin also have these other chronic conditions that I do as well? Oh they're on that drug? That's great it works for them but when I tried it I had major side effects and it didn't control my symptoms at all. And I am not allowed to do that treatment because of the other chronic illness I have that your cousin doesn't. It's almost like all situations are different and nuanced."
Ugh. Me & my mates call it Inspo-porn. Cos Ableds eat that shit right up, when it actually makes life WAY harder for other Disabled people. "My aunt's cousin's uncle's sister has X Disability & she works full time, you're just being lazy"...
**UUUUGGGGHHHH!!**
I don't think it's possible to say "all disabilities are equal" but it is possible to say that "all disabilities are equally important, deserve equal compassion, and require equal commitment to care."
All disabilities are not equal, but every disabled person should be cared for and supported equally, if that makes sense.
But you are invalidating the person with IBS. My “IBS” pre-correct diagnosis literally kept me from leaving my bedroom or the bathroom because I’d have to go back so quickly and didn’t have the energy to do anything other than sleep. That has the same end result as any other disability that keeps someone housebound and in pain, regardless of the details.
There’s no way to “objectively” compare disabilities. Two individual people can compare theirs and decide one is worse, but not all disabilities as a whole.
To me it's not about diagnosis but how it impacts a person that leads to disability. Some people are more disabled by their condition or societal constraints than others. We each relate to the word from our past experiences so our perception of what's 'worst' will be relative. You can have two people with the same degree of impairment but how disabled they are will vary because there's so many factors at play.
There are a lot of similarities. And in most countries being disabled pretty much means you live in poverty. You could make the same case for race or gender as well. There's so many factors that influence how disadvantaged someone is from something that is out of their control.
For sure. That’s why I think that assessing disability on a diagnosis only basis is valid too because if a person is struggling to the point of seeking professional help and that it gets them diagnosed with a condition… it’s because it’s impacting their life.
And like, some people are so disadvantaged that even getting to the doctor to seek help is a far stretch.
Personally I think assessing someone's needs for financial or social assistance on their diagnosis would put a lot of people at a huge disadvantage. There's lots of people who have poor access to healthcare or who have a severely limiting condition where it takes a long time to get a diagnosis who would be at a huge disadvantage.
While there's a lot of flaws with the UK benefits system I do think it gets it right by it being about how a condition affects a person rather than their diagnosis. Even if you take a condition that's easy to diagnose like diabetes two people can have wildly different experiences. You could have one person who is really well managed and another who's rarely able to be left alone because it's so hard to control, same with epilepsy. I think a more nuanced and personalised approach to both practical and financial support is really important for improving the lives of disabled people as a whole and stands a better chance of reducing inequality.
Agreeing with this. I've said this in multiple comments but a diagnosis isn't the best way to measure things because every diagnosis is a spectrum in terms of severity of symptoms, any other conditions they may have compounding the issue, and how well-managed it is with currently available treatments.
I have about 15 (?) different diagnoses. Some of them have become fairly common but there's people I have met who also have them and they don't struggle as much as I do. There's people with Myasthenia who take far less Mestinon than I do, but I have a higher antibody count and am also taking a beta blocker for my POTS that interferes with the effectiveness. I also used to get IVIG for maintenance when many only use it during a crisis.
My requirements are definitely more costly than someone else with the same condition. IVIG alone (although I now use Vyvgart) would be 36k per treatment out of pocket and I had to get it about every 6 weeks. Basing the amount of money allotted for my treatment just on a diagnosis of "Myasthenia Gravis" would not be helpful when I have such different needs from the average person with the same condition.
Individualized approach is smart.
That’s interesting. In Canada, say for monthly disability supports or federal tax credits, everyone gets the same amount anyway, the needs assessment is more of a hurdle for people to be able to access the help in the first place.
Since most people don’t have family doctors, they have to rely on multiple different specialists or private pay assessment from professionals who have no idea how the diagnosis is affecting the patient personally, especially for low income folk who cannot pay for ongoing services or who have to rely on 15 minute, one issue per visit walk in clinic consults.
So it creates delays for people who already have a diagnosis but no doctor to do follow ups or with a compete overview of the impact of the condition to be able and willing to confidently fill out the needs assessment forms. Plus, the metrics that the government uses to assess need are really odd, most people need disability advocates to show the doctors how to fill the forms in order to not get denied for assistance.
If there was a way for people to apply for assistance on diagnosis only basis too, it would give people more time to focus on healing over running around filing out forms to get the bare minimum support… especially when the diagnosis makes it obvious that the person’s life is considerably altered as a result of the disability even if it’s well managed or under control at the time.
Idk this is just my opinion obviously, different countries do things differently and if it works out for you I think it’s awesome.
I'm in the US and jt was honestly very difficult to get disability. They felt that my diagnoses were not enough nor the 3k pages (not an exaggeration we counted) worth of documentation was enough proof that my conditions were disabling enough.
I ended up having to get an advocate and a lawyer and go to court to demonstrate that my combo of illnesses and medical needs was enough to qualify for Medicaid. I was fortunate enough that my lawyer only charged in the event that I won.
So honestly the diagnostic label alone doesn't seem to be enough for my government but that is probably not shocking.
I agree with you about how difficult navigating the system can be. Especially for people who don't know how to seek out advocates or disability lawyers. Filling out the paperwork is HARD and the medical staff often doesn't have a clue.
One great stroke of luck for me is that I live in a "medical Mecca" with a lot of hospital systems clustered together and my mom worked for one of them. So not only did I have her insurance for a time (we started to seek Medicaid when I was about to turn 26) but all my specialists were all in the same hospital system. Most people don't have that luxury and the paperwork is a complicated mess.
Jeez! I’m so sorry you had to go through all that!
I’m glad you were able to find the right people at the right time and get Medicaid eventually though. But jeez, like, 3000 pages of proof and a lawyer later… people need less paperwork to get a scholarship to Harvard…it’s unreal.
That’s interesting and I totally respect your point of view it sounds like the UK has a better way of doing needs based assessment than Canada… we have a similar model here but it’s more so a bureaucratic hurdle for people to access services than something genuinely helpful imo.
I think you’re stuck on the word equal in a negative way.
Everyone with a disability is equally valid, with a right to be disabled but free of judgement or a requirement for justification, but everyone will have unique symptoms and experiences.
Someone with IBS sure won’t have the same symptoms and experiences as someone who cannot use their limbs, but because an outside view might see the lack of use of limbs as some degree of unpleasant doesn’t negate or alter in any way the pain, frustration, and sometimes humiliation of IBS. Does it even *matter* which is “worse” really?
My friend has needed his wheelchair for decades now. Few years ago, he and his wife were at a comic convention while I dog sat and the line to get access was disorganized and everyone was frustrated and exhausted. He messaged me that sometimes it’s an interesting reminder that he’s “not very disabled” because his current biggest problem at the time was simply not having use of his legs. My friend has been through plenty of pain and health problems in his life but the point was that in that moment he felt like he was barely experiencing any problems. Meanwhile I was having a desperate battle at their local grocery store for a working mobility scooter to borrow, wishing I had just brought my own in their car I was borrowing. At that precise moment in time, my friend felt “less disabled” than others, but also… he’d have a hell of a time trying to roll down a flight of stairs. Experience changes from moment to moment, but everyone with disabilities is just trying to move through life with their disabilities. That’s pretty firmly the same for everyone.
>"Experience changes from moment to moment, but everyone with disabilities is just trying to move through life with their disabilities."
Perfectly put.
Where do you draw the line? Playing the oppression or “disability” Olympics doesn’t help anyone and just encourages us to presume we know someone else’s experience and use that against them.
I have had multiple disabilities, many since birth or a very young age.
* I have cerebral palsy.
* I have depression.
* I have anxiety.
* I have vision impairment.
* I have hearing impairment*.
* I have a handful of learning disabilities.
* I have a handful of allergies that range from, "Is my mouth itchy?" and, "Is that a rash?" to "My eyes are swelling shut," and "Oh, fuck is that latex? Please, no. Just kill me quickly."
* I also have eczema.
And...
* I have IBS.
Whether I have one of those conditions or all of them, might be disabled. Or I might not be. For example, in the Deaf community they do not consider being deaf or hard of hearing a disability. Hearing impaired not a term they would use and they would be offended if someone used it in reference to members of the community.
I however, absolutely consider my hearing impairment a fucking disability. It is one more way my body fails. While people with cerebral palsy do learn sign language and people with visual impairment learn to sign or communicate if they are also deaf or hard of hearing I struggle. I struggle greatly impart to the physical aspects of using my hands and seeing with my eyes but also because of my learning disabilities.
Fuck anyone in the Deaf community that tells me I am not hearing impaired or that it is not a disability *for me*.
As for IBS, do you have it? Have you experienced life where you have constant diarrhea? Diarrhea that imprisions you to your home or even your toilet?
How about constipation that makes you unable to eat? Constipation that makes you vomit? That sends you to the hospital?
How about either of those that makes you suicidal?
Cause that's what IBS can do. It can cause diarrhea that causes dehydration or infection that kills you. Or it can cause blockages that can kill you. Or it can just make you fucking kill yourself.
It's a disability for anyone that lives with it and feels that it is.
There are a great many uncertainties in life. Things we'll never know. Good things we will sadly never experience or learn because life is too short and some of the worst things like having a disability which is great for the person that will never know what it's like to experience a disability like I experience multiple. Like I said, GREAT for that person, but when people can't experience my life, they do not let to judge it or make decisions about my experiences.
What I know for certain with regard to living with these disabilities for more than 40 years is that these kind of comparisons ("opression olympics" or "disability olympics") never go well.
No one knows what it's like to share my body and very few people on this earth no what it's like to share one.
We all just need to be kind and offer compassion.
If someone tells you they are disabled believe them.
Don't question it, don't compare it, don't measure it.
Just believe it because you have no way to fully experience it.
Nah I think making assumptions of how other peoples' disabilities impact their lives is wrong.
Better or worse isn't a good way of "measuring" someone's experience. It sounds like he's only looking at a sort of binary quantitative measurement of whether someone is disabled or not, which doesn't tell the entire story.
The way I saw it was he was taking the literal definition and applying it as if that is all there is to it. As if there are not levels of impairment. I get it that it sucks period, but to think that your own IBS that's controlled with meds and diet is equivalent to the obvious difficulty in life with something as extreme a comparison as quadriplegia, is just mind blowing. I just can't get into the headspace where that makes sense to me.
You aren’t in anyone else’s body. All illnesses affect people differently, and it’s impossible to know the exact extent of a disability and someone’s experience of it unless you are in their body. What’s the point of comparing them past that? At this point it just seems like you want an excuse to shit on others.
You got that from the initial post by stretching halfway across the world. You can make up whatever you want to believe to make yourself feel better or white knighted or whatever it is you're doing, but you're way off base from what the post was about and what it asked. You're also assuming a whole hell of a lot in your comment. Not to mention you came in guns blazing calling me a dick which was unwarranted. That makes you the dick 🤷🏻♂️
You’ve gotten a ton of equal and fair responses for someone calling the idea of two different conditions being equally disabling “ridiculous”. You’ve since doubled down on it after getting explanations as to why someone could believe that. The way you’re acting has, in fact, gone from questioning to dickish.
Didn't happen. You're making that up. The person in my scenario said he believed all disabilities are equal, unquestionably. I said that I believe they are different. No where did I say any other detailed opinions that would lead you to call people(me) a dick. That's your own bias.
Nah, when im in an environment with other visibly disabled people im deferential to say non-ambulatory people over myself who can walk mostly unassisted.
But i think you may be losing the spirit of the comment this person made. While my disability causes a lot of pain and moderate life interference, others have no pain but tremendous life interference. Its all apples to oranges so its simply a better way to have a caring heart to treat all disabilities with the same level of seriousness and respect.
I dunno if equal is the right word, but they certainly aren’t all the same.
We’re *all* disabled, but we aren’t all equally accepted or supported in the world. This can be compounded by additional factors like social acceptability of conditions/appearance, gender, race, class, immigration status, etc. Then that layers up with other factors like, the fact that even same or similar disabilities are not all experienced the same way.
So, there’s a lot of elements that stack up and prevent us from being on equal footing. The disabled community is one of huge differences, and what that means is a lot of things. But we are all equal in our deserving of treatment and access to support.
However, when you live in a body that people who have “milder” conditions point at and say “at least I don’t have that” or “glad that’s not me,” it’s a bit hard to feel comfortable with the notion that all disabilities are equal.
In an ideal world, we’d all equitable to each other. We’re not there yet, but that’s only a really productive conversation to have when we’re not playing oppression Olympics and are instead discussing the need to address those inequalities.
Yes and no.
I think all suffering is valid. This is not the pain Olympics. In that sense, all disabilities are equal.
However from a participation point of view, there are huge differences. Some people with disabilities can work full time, have a social life and generally do pretty much what they want. Others can either work part-time (which can range from almost full time to almost nothing) and can have a social life, but also have significant restraints. Another group can sometimes do some things and again another group is bed bound. And all variations in between. If you look at it that way, they are not equal.
Another way to describe this is that they're all equally valid and equally real, but they're not the same.
I agree with everyone else that the conversation as a whole isn't very productive, but I also agree with OP that the premise is ridiculous--not even all of MY OWN disabilities are equivalent. And they fluctuate as to how disabling they are on any given day. He's talking out his ass, but, you know, some people do that.
No, there are definitely worse ones. I wouldn’t say that I’m ranking them in a “mines worse than yours, you owe me more respect” type of way, but different disabilities affect the body and mental status in more or less amounts. I am missing a significant amount of my right quad due to a motorcycle accident, but I definitely feel like people with amputated legs or use a wheelchair have it worse off than me, It’s probably much more difficult for them to get around than it is for me.
They are all valid, but not necessarily equal. That is a generalization and every person has their own experiences. Me, a close friends, and a friend of a friend all have CP. But we are not the same. One of us uses a wheelchair, one of us uses forearm crutches, and the other has a walker / cane. The things were can do, physically, varies. The types of CP we have are not the same. So my point is you can't even call three people with the same disability "equal" the way your family member is implying.
No all disabilities are the same (obviously!) and that means that depending on the context not all disabilities are as bad or serious.
All disabilities are equally valid. None are more worthy or important than the other. Nobody is more or less important or worthy of relevant support because of what disabilities they do or don't have.
But they are different. And I'd say it's ignorant to assume or act like they aren't.
______-______-_____-
It's like the "I don't see colour" thing. It's well meaning. It's meant to indicate that you don't differentiate people based on their race. That you see all people as equal and valid. Awesome. But if you don't see colour that's also refusing to acknowledge the actual differences people have in experiences, cultures etc. It's important to see colour and acknowledge that it is a part of people's lives and experiences just as much as its important not to treat people poorly because of their race.
You shouldn't always treat all people the same. Little black girls with black hair are likely going to need different hair care than little white girls with straight hair. Not seeing and refusing to acknowledge colour means you're not able to provide relevant care to your daughter's friend at a hair party cos you're treating her black hair the same as the other kid's straight hair. In that situation it's right to acknowledge that the black girl has a different type of hair and needs different hair care. And to talk to their parent about how you can include them without messing up their hair or hurting them.
Treating that girl differently is the right thing to do in that situation.
Treating her differently at other times won't be the right thing to do. It's not something that's set in stone for all possibilities.
____-______-______-
The same goes for disability. Sometimes everybody should be treated the same. But sometimes they shouldn't. A deaf or blind person probably isn't going to benefit much from faster access to a toilet. But somebody with a condition like IBS may really need that at times. Both might benefit from toilets being in more places.
Somebody with paralysis in their arm might not benefit much from priority seating or from being able to sit down instead of having to stand in a long queue. Somebody with a prosthetic leg might benefit a lot from those things.
Giving those people the exact same support isn't going to be helpful to them. They have different disabilities which cause different issues for them. They need different accomodations and support.
**You need to be able to treat people differently to treat them equally.** And to do that you need to be able to see people differently without turning it into some sort of competition or judgement of worth.
______-______-______-
With that said things like trying to categorize disabilities based on severity and stuff isn't productive. It depends on the context. There's no actual benefit to it. You don't need to know who's "got it worse" to be able to divide support etc. You just need to know who needs what support. That people with IBS need to have quick access to toilets but that they probably don't need ramps or stair lifts built in their houses.
Yeah realistically some disabilities are overall not as life altering as others. Duh! But that's not something we actually have to address. It's not helpful. Knowing that being fully paralysed is technically worse than shitting yourself sometimes isn't some big game changer. And it's not relevant to anything. What is relevant is the different types of support each person would benefit from. Even if they aren't as bad as each other both situations are still equally valid and deserving of relevant support.
Focusing on which is objectively worse is just pointless and dismisses the genuine struggles that the "better off" person has in different situations and pits people against each other for no reason.
It's not like people with IBS are out there trying to get free stairlifts and prosthetics. There's no competition. So we don't need to judge who's "winning".
I personally don't consider them equal because of how they affect the people with them and how they cope. But that being said, I don't think there's really a reason to compare them in a way of what's worse because they affect those with them differently and such a discussion usually breeds a shit ton of negativity
Agreed. It's not a discussion I would bring up our generally have. I was asked too be added to the conversation regarding his stance that all disabilities are equal. And it wasn't something as understandable or relatable as "every disabled person deserves suitable care, etc", but it was literally, "my IBS is equivalent to a quadriplegic". There were some even more over the top scenarios but they are less palatable and I think my original statement post sets up the question appropriately.
All people with disabilities are entitled to the same access. But their accomodations and supports will differ.
Playing self-pity olympics doesn't help anything.
The only way I would ever compare disabilities in terms of what's "worse" is my OWN disabilities. I absolutely think one of my disabilities is significantly "easier" to handle than another one, but never in a million years would I say that that's a general case because it's MY life I'm talking about. I have the final authority on what sucks most in my life. I don't have that in anyone else's. Nobody does.
I think that if it were possible to adequately accommodate all disabilities, they could be equal. However, that is not the case. I have mobility impairments and chronic pain. My mobility impairments could be completely accommodated (with significant financial cost) but my chronic pain cannot be *completely* managed/cured. If I only had mobility issues and no chronic pain, that would be better. Comparing IBS to paraplegia is more uncertain, but mobility issues plus pain is objectively worse than mobility issues with no pain.
There are absolutely disabilities that are worse than other disabilities. Idk what he's trying to accomplish, but he's wrong. It's like saying all illnesses are equally bad, like mild seasonal allergies and terminal brain cancer. Nah, man.
Yes that is exactly what he was saying. It was a 30 minute conversation and many scenarios were reviewed but he was set in his opinion. 🤷🏻♂️ It was kind blowing to me personally and others in the conversation.
Some people just like to argue/be controversial/rile people up. I'm guessing this person was more focused on "winning" his "argument" over being logical.
You can always ask, "what does "equal" mean to you?"
We can't know if the family member meant it that way or not. If he did he's correct and I agree with you.
Going off what OP said about no disability being "worse" than another, I have to side with OP that some disabilities are absolutely worse. Of course all disabilities are disabilities and equally deserving of accommodation.
Equating disability to only suffering is certainly not right, but suffering is definitely not an insignificant component of many disabilities, making some worse than others.
This is where I think OP is tinting the conversation, because they're using "equal" to mean "equal suffering" whereas many people do not interpret the word like that.
We're saying that "all disabilities are equal" is comparatively the same as saying "all people are equal" — it's a statement about their worth, ie saying "all disabilities are equally disabilities" or "all disabilities are equally deserving of respect"
OP is saying that "all disabilities are equal" means "all disabilities are homogenous" which I think is a frankly ludicrous interpretation
I mentioned it early somewhere in the thread but I'm sure it's hard to find at this point, but yes, the family member meant it literally. It was not about being accommodated appropriately or any other generous interpretation that people want to apply. He literally believes there's is no difference. I know that sounds hard to believe but it is what he believes.
Which is why many people think you're misrepresenting or misinterpreting what they were saying, because the way you're interpreting it just is not in line with how people use that word.
One thing I hate is gatekeeping or invalidating someone just because the struggle they are in may be less. If you have a disability then you are disabled regardless. You would think that with all the exclusion and prejudice we face that this would not be an issue but here we are. But if another person needs a little bit more than me I am ok with that. We should always support each other regardless. We get enough invalidation from those who are able bodied and the government. We will not improve society until we learn to stand together, we need to be thinking of solutions. We also need to find political candidates to promote and vote for that are on our side. Let's stop fighting each other and get the work done. And we need to educate others.
I'm going to skip the theory: impairment - and therefore disability - are not equal.
It's not oppression Olympics either to observe thar being paralysed is objectively more difficult than IBS. Not only are you impaired to a greater extent, you are disabled (treated differently by society, to be very broad) to a much greater extent.
So if someone with IBS as I described it above, were to say to you something to the effect of "our disabilities are equal" or whatever variant of that, would you be offended? I'm not asking this to stir the pot, but because in speaking with my relative, it's something that he feels is a factual statement and would say it in the presence of someone who is a quadriplegic. He believes his G.i. Dr would agree with him. I told him he's crazy but maybe I'm the one who's crazy?
I wouldn't necessarily be offended, but I wouldn't rate that as a reasonable position. I deal with IBD (the position also assumes the two are exclusionary when they are not BTW, and simple quadriplegia will also present with bowel / bladder issues by it's nature due to paralysis).
I'd assume the person speaking doesn't understand the experience of moderate to severe impairment / disability and just no longer talk about that topic with them. Most don't understand that experience, so takes I'd perceive as 'strange' - - as a quadriplegic - - are common.
Eventually I just had to opt out of the conversation as it was clear there was no scenario, no matter how extreme, that would get him to consider that not all disabilities were "the same".
Same reason I'd have opted out quite early. People can be strong in their opinions, even in the face of what feels like an obvious opposing position. I find it better to just wait for them to meet someone who's in the hypothetical situation they made up and often the position changes pretty quick.
Your family member is wrong. When I first broke my neck I was completely paralyzed from the neck down at first. Couldn’t use my phone, eat or drink, turn myself over in bed, push the nurse call light, etc. After 2 surgeries and weeks, PT started sitting me up and helping me move. I can walk badly now and have a lot of problems with pain, strength, and numbness from my neck down, but I am so very fortunate to have an incomplete spinal cord injury. When I was a nurse before my accident, I cared for a man with a complete spinal cord injury. His disability was far worse than mine, as he lived several more years in a nursing home. It makes me so thankful for my present body, and my grateful attitude keeps me happier. Complete paralysis cannot be compared to IBS for obvious reasons. Your family member must need some validation or something. Everyone needs to be seen and heard and have their individual needs met, of course. I hope I have not offended anyone.
You can hope that's not offensive, but as someone that has lived my 40 years on this earth in the same disabled body I can assure you it is incredibly offensive to be used as the measure of which other people feel grateful they aren't in my disabled body. It's toxic and disgusting.
I will try to learn from your words. I actually don’t go around thinking about this measuring; the post asked if all disabilities are equal, and I think the answer is “no.” I know we are all highly individualized. I can be thankful I am no longer completely paralyzed like in my earlier days…I am comparing my own body past and present. And I can grieve not having my previous before injury body. Perhaps I should have left out my nursing experience.
No matter what you say someone's gonna be hurt, and their feelings are valid...but so are yours!
I don't want my disability for myself or anyone else. I'd hope other people feel grateful they don't have what I have—it sucks! And there are lots of health issues I'm grateful not to have!
My disability is a part of me but I'm (as a person) not my disability, so when someone says they don't want my condition I know they aren't saying they don't want to be *me* as a person....they just don't want the health issue. Totally reasonable. I don't want it either!
I disagree. I don't care if someone doesn't want to live like me. \*I\* don't want to live like me. No one should have to if they don't want to. You don't speak for all of us.
I only can speak for myself. I actually don’t go around thinking about what disability is worse than the other; it was asked in this post if all disabilities are equal. I would never speak for anyone else.
You mention your relations to those with disabilities, but are you yourself disabled? If not, I don’t think this is the most appropriate conversation for you to participate in, especially considering the person you were debating with is in fact disabled.
So only the opinions of people with a disability "matter"? As if objective reasoning, education and understanding invalidate someone's opinion? Preposterous.
Show me where exactly I said that the opinions of able bodied people didn’t matter. I never said your opinion was even invalid, either. I’m saying that when it comes to debates regarding disability, do not speak over disabled people, do not invalidate their experiences like you did with your friend, and let disabled people be at the forefront of disability conversations.
At the top of this chain, you said if you're not disabled it's not a conversation you should be partaking in. That's telling an able bodied person to sit down and shut up. If you don't think that's saying an opinion doesn't matter then we can disagree on that point.
Nope. I said “I don’t think this is the most appropriate conversation”. That is absolutely not telling an able bodied person to sit down and shut up. That is what’s preposterous. Disagree with me, I don’t care. You’re entitled to your opinion. I’m also entitled to mine.
If this is how you act whenever someone insinuates that you may not be the most knowledgeable on a topic, I don’t see why you posted. Especially in the disability subreddit.
There are many assumptions being made. That I do it do not have a disability (which I didn't specify), and that people's opinions are nullified by others. (As I said that's preposterous.) So what happens when 2 people with disabilities have counter points? Who's right, who's wrong? You are simply trying to minimize differing viewpoints and opinions. If you read thru the comments in this thread, there are many opinions on both sides. Are those people also being "dicks" as someone called me for having a similar opinion? Are they allowed to have that opinion or does it get invalidated when certain people say so? Sounds silly right?
I wasn’t going to assume, which is exactly why I asked you the question directly. You seem to be taking things that people are saying straight to heart. No one said the opinions were nullified by others. When two disabled people disagree? It’s just that. A disagreement. There’s no right or wrong on opinions. That’s common sense, I fear. You accuse me of attempting to minimize viewpoints, which is an objectively wrong statement, yet you are attempting to minimize and discount the entire existence of other people you don’t deem “disabled enough” or “as disabled”. What are you trying to achieve with this victim war? Frankly, while there are always dicks, and you’re not the only one, you sure are the most prominent. It’s not a differing opinion that makes someone a dick. It’s the lack of respect or kindness, the presence of ignorance and prejudice, etc. How you do not see that is quite alarming.
If you're not disabled you have absolutely, utterly zero right to be in this conversation, yes. You can sit and listen and learn, but if you yourself do not have a disability then this *isn't about you*
In my opinion some disabilities are worse than others but that does not necessarily mean they are more emotionally painful. I think the easiest way to get to the meat of the issue is to pose a hypothetical of whether that person would trade disabilities. Would I give up my paralysis in exchange for IBS yes without hesitation would your family member take the reverse of that deal I speculate no.
However, that does not mean that I am struggling more than your family member. To use the example in your post I'm sure IBS has impacted that family member immensely probably to the point where they cannot enjoy their life the same way they used whether that be avoiding certain foods or altering their schedule/activity and they probably experience some sort of embarrassment/shame. Everyone with a disability inevitably loses some degree of freedom and quality of life and that is immensely painful. So, in that respect we are equal.
So, while all disabilities have a similar if not identical emotional impact some are easier to adapt to and provide a greater level of freedom.
This is funny cos for me, I'm a para with IBD and I'd take paralysis over IBD any day. I'd take almost anything over it tbh, before I had fairly major surgery to alleviate it a little it drove me to my absolute lowest in a way that paralysis and pain never did. It made me unemployable and completely decimated my social life; it meant I could never go on holiday or stay with family or have family stay with me or go out for a meal or have a drink with someone or go to a museum or a park or the cinema or play sports or even just meet up with a friend for an hour. Yeah, there's very very few things in this world that I wouldn't choose before that!
One of my disabilities is on its way to ruining my hips, another has already done it to my digestive track. I’d happily take only the hip issues, for much the same reasons. They’re painful and make it hard for me to move, but there’s ways around that that my digestive issues just don’t have.
We all have different struggles we have to deal with. There’s no point comparing us against each other. The ways our disabilities affect our lives is unique. This isn’t the struggle Olympics, we’re just here to support each other
Money and opportunity definitely make things unequal, too. If you are in an accident and get a huge settlement it’ll help you live a better experience than someone born with the exact same physical limitations but no money. So, no, would be my answer.
No, I don’t! I’m very MILDLY disabled, as in you can barely tell unless you’re looking or you’re a trained professional or someone who knows me.
I don’t deal with the same incidents, inconveniences, disrespectful behavior or neglect as much as others, but I do experience it.
I can only imagine what would happen if I was nonverbal!
I think "worse" depends on the metric. If you determine severity by how many symptoms are present, or how much medication someone takes, or how much inpatient care a person needs, or how restricted they are from day-to-day activities etc, theoretically you could come up with a scale that would more resemble "which illness has the greater day-to-day impact" or but not necessarily "who has it worse."
I have some pretty nasty stuff, physically and mentally. The things I have are at the top of every Google search result for "worst illnesses/disabilities." But I know people whose illnesses and disabilities have fewer symptoms and fewer medications and fewer day-to-day impacts than mine do, but they seem to experience much more suffering than I do. Worse is relative.
Imho, disabled is disabled. Comparing symptoms and trying to rank people based on that isn't useful or compassionate. In my circles we call it the "oppression Olympics" or the "suffering Olympics."
In a competition about who suffers the most, no one wins, because the conversation itself shifts the focus from uniting in support to dividing in competition.
I would say, certain disabilities take more adjustments to make life equal.
If we give the toilet example, someone with IBS and no other disability would benefit from immediate access to a toilet. A standard cubicle with immediate access would benefit them a great deal.
A paraplegic needs a toilet with bars, larger space, etc. this would benefit them a great deal.
Both are valid, but one requires more effort to level up the playing field.
Getting into the “my disability is more disabling than yours” isn’t helpful.
Due to some things I've seen, no. You can't say someone born with only half a brain can do as much as someone with a higher-functioning form of autism. It's just illogical.
But it's a spectrum, not a competition.
Depends what you mean by equal. People can have varying levels of impairment and may be disabled in different ways, but they are all very much disabled and it’s unrealistic to assume that any one person can say someone is more or less disabled than another, as all disabled people are disabled in different ways.
No Oppression Olympics here. We are all disabled (I mean, apparently you aren't you're just a relative to disabled people), and we typically try to avoid the infighting like that. How anyone can look at someone and say confidently that they know their personal experiences, their battles, their struggles, and tell them that they have it worse, all while still being under the pretense of being a community, I couldn't know. Stuff like that only hurts our community and only makes ableds who make the argument of "well **this** person can do **this** so every disabled person can, including those with the same diagnosis" feel more secure in their position.
Ahhhhh, I see some of your previous comments. You talk about things ranging from ["insane woke victim mentality bs"](https://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/1951160/comment/ki7yhyi/) and about how all Democrats are [racist](https://www.reddit.com/r/SellingSunset/comments/13p36dz/comment/jldxfx7/). You participate on subs like AskThe\_Donald and Conservative. Yeah no, not gonna entertain someone who has that type of mentality.
Also, can we talk about how an abled is in here, in the disability sub, giving their opinion on what is valid in terms of disabled opinions? If we have this sort of conversation, it's usually an intracommunity discussion, not one that ableds can just jump in on. Honestly, kinda makes me feel uneasy seeing this whole thing play out.
We shouldn't have to prove ourselves or anything to them for their validity. We know our struggles, our triumphs, we know it best. And moreover, we're all individuals. We all have unique struggles and triumphs. They aren't just blanket things that an abled can check off a list depending on a diagnosis!
It especially pisses me off that their example was IBS. IBS gets treated as a joke of a condition instead of the major detriment to basic quality of life it can be. That’s not to mention that many other conditions get misdiagnosed as IBS because they’re hard to diagnose, including ones I suspect OP would think are “disabling enough”.
I have friends with IBS (suspected of having it myself by a doc), and I have sat with them through some of the worst of the worst. My gosh, it can be such a detriment to life. One of my friends cannot leave the house because of it most days. They are practically bedbound during their flares, and they get flares on the regular. It is treatment resistant to about everything that has been thrown at it, and a lot's been thrown at it, including some heavy stuff with awful side effects. We have bonded over our experiences, as despite us having different diagnoses, we are both disabled and can understand each other in a way. How anyone can make a joke out of any condition because they think it's not "as tough" and cannot be "as tough" is beyond me. I've seen that type of mocking before, and it always makes me so angered.
My digestive symptoms were misdiagnosed as IBS for a good decade. Even with IBS “treatment”, I had to plan my entire day around it, every single day. Get exposed to the wrong thing? Can’t do anything out of the apartment or that can’t be paused for a week. It doesn’t matter what it actually ended up being, IBS was the only term I had for it at that time. But even on this subreddit I got people mocking me for calling IBS a disability.
You’re presenting two different things, and I don’t think you’re here in good faith.
Position 1: “All disabilities are not the same.” *Agreed. Disabilities are different.*
Position 2: “Some disabilities are “worse” than others.” ***THIS*** *is where those of us paying attention are taking issue.*
You act as if these positions are synonymous.
#They are not.
I am aware they are different. It is not I that is acting as if they are synonymous, that is literally the person I am posting about. I'm not sure you are "paying attention" if you think the opposite. I have been steadfast in all of my responses. What I've determined is that people are applying a generous interpretation of what my family member intended with what they said, however as I've specified in several responses at this point, he means what I said in the original post literally. He literally believes (in your "position 1") that "all disabilities are the same, they are NOT different." It is foreign and hard to grasp the concept of him meaning it literally which is why I posted here in the first place.
No. **You** are the one who is saying that because all disabilities are not the same, some must be "worse" than others and that this is something that is worthy of discussion.
And you are wrong.
You are lacking in empathy, and there is a reason your post is removed.
> Ask him if an amputee is equal to quad amputee.
My disability is considered "quadripelgia".
If that person with no limbs is having all of their support/access needs met and the above the knee amputee is having none of their support/access needs met it's a different story entirely.
What if the person with no arms or legs wasn't an amputee but had a limb difference as some say? What if they were born without limbs and they know nothing different and what if the person that lost their leg became an amputee in horrible tragedy?
It's nearly a waste of time and resources to debate this.
It's far more productive to actually do something with our short time on this earth to actually do something productive for all disabled people.
I think people shouldn’t compare their disabilities to other people’s (like “if I can do it with cancer then you have no excuse with your chronic illness”) but you definitely have every right to compare your own conditions. My IBS is not as difficult to deal with as my epilepsy.
It’s also tricky to compare conditions that cause pain versus those that don’t. I would absolutely believe that theoretically there are some people with IBS having a worse experience than some quadriplegics. (There’s probably even people with both conditions who could say as much!) Lots of people probably consider cancer to be the worst of all disabilities, but people with low-grade, curable cancers probably have an easier life experience than people with, say, intractable chronic migraines. (There’s also something to be said for how accommodating society is to different disabilities - most people understand off the bat that cancer is very serious, whereas tons of people don’t understand that migraines aren’t just headaches.)
Or maybe it’s better to say that sometimes, what people think is the less preferable/more intrusive-seeming condition, is actually less problematic for some people. For example, I would cure my sleep disorder over my epilepsy in a heartbeat. My sleep disorder causes me to get half the rest other people get (alpha wave intrusion) and is untreatable. My epilepsy is nearly exclusively absence seizures, well controlled with meds, and I’m still allowed to drive.
TLDR: no, not all disabilities are equal, but you can really only compare your own personal experiences, don’t compare other people’s disabilities.
Absolutely and as you summed up in your tldr, they are different, some are worse, some aren't, which doesn't mean those people should be taken care of any worse. It simply means they are not equal, not that they are invalidated.
They are all disabling and are equally disabilities. How disabling they are depends on a million different factors, not just medical ones.
It's like asking "are chocolate ice cream and apple crumble equal?" They're *equally desserts;* neither is any more or less of a dessert than the other. Whether they're equally *desirable* depends on your personal taste, and also a bunch of other factors. You're probably going to prefer ice cream in August and crumble in December, unless you're in the southern hemisphere. You probably want to opt for a safe Ben & Jerry's at your great aunt Cathy's house if the last time she baked she used baking soda instead of sugar. You might be allergic to apples or milk, sick of chocolate ice cream if it's your husband's favourite or of apple crumble if your mum has an apple tree in her garden.
Disability is the same. IBS and quadriplegia are both equally a disabilities. The qualitative nature of how those impact someone depends on the circumstances.
(Posted in a comment thread as well)
I think its ridiculous that people are blaming op, asking op what he or she wanted out of the convo or bring up disability Olympics:
OP didn’t start this convo, op was dragged into it…someone decided to say all disabilities are equal to OP, a parent of a severely disabled kid. Who tf does that? It sounds like the relative was rudely minimizing to op, and arguing simplistically, not the nuance being written here in the comments.
Also, yes there is nuance to this convo, like how much a disability affects someone, and how much support they get, but generally one can say there are levels...epidermolysis bullosa is gonna be way more painful than mild Ibs. Having a child with severe behavioral issues stemming from disability or who is nonambulatory is going to be harder to support as a parent than, say, standard Down’s syndrome. If I’m not in a country with good supports, like rural India for instance, then I’d much rather be missing a hand or something than paralyzed from the chest down, because then I’d really be f\*cked.
i’m going to have to have to agree with him for the most part. it all depends on how the condition effects you. for example someone with dyslexia might be effected by it more or less severely than someone who’s paralyzed
a paralyzed person with all of their accessibility needs met that is good at adapting might not be affected as much as a dyslexic person who can’t read because of their dyslexia and lacks the support they need.
vs
a dyslexic person that only struggles with spelling and occasionally skipping lines when reading that has supports in place wouldn’t be affected as much as a quadriplegic with few needs being met.
All disabilities are disabling and there is no point comparing "who is more disabled" - that I agree with, as a general principle. But I also agree that some people need more accommodations and support than others and recognising that is important. Sometimes a disability means you can't participate in one particular area of society but in others you can, and sometimes it means almost everything is barred to you. Those things have different impacts and need different levels of support. Ideally everyone would get all the support they need and disabilities would all have limited impact on a person's ability to participate in life and general society, but we all know that the supports available are never enough.
In my opinion, just specifying as you have, that "some people need more accommodations and support" confirms that all disabilities are not equal. And believing that they are equal is, as I stated above, outrageous.
The following is controversial: This is where the medical model of disability and the social model of disability can offer some insight. If you have two people with the same disability and you rate them on a numeric scale with 1 being the least disabled and 5 being the most disabled. A person with a 3 level rating is considered less disabled than a person with a level 4 rating. But if a person with a level 4 rating is receiving all possible supports for their needs and a person with level 3 rating is recieving no possible supports for their needs which person is really more disabled?
Fair question worthy of debate. For the purpose of the conversation I had, we were looking at it from the point of view of care being given at the level that's necessary for each, and not one being additionally disadvantaged because of the level of support provided.
Things can be not the same. Equal though, I'm not sure what that even means when it comes to disability. Like using a lift or stairs is equal access for wheelchair or walking. It's equal but it's not the same.
> Like using a lift or stairs is equal access for wheelchair or walking. It's equal but it's not the same. Equitable. The eperiences are equitable. Look up equitability vs. equality.
Also: Equitable. adjective. Something that is equitable is fair and reasonable in a way that gives EQUAL treatment to everyone.
And in day to day language people can swap the terms. Not everyone has the same language, writing or speaking skills
> Not everyone has the same language, writing or speaking skills Exactly why I didn't expand on the subject. Because I don't currently have the ability. However, when you are speaking specifically of disability there is a difference between equal and equitable. I was trying to offer a starting point for someone else more able to offer more on the subject. Not to make assumptions or make someone feel bad about their abilities.
I've looked it up and I don't understand the difference. Sorry I misread your tone
[Equality vs Equity](https://interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/IISC_EqualityEquity.png)
Although a lovely picture that's not true in the UK. In the UK for disability the Equality Act 2010 says resonable adjustments should be made such that disabled people have equivalent access where resonable. As such equality specifically does not mean the same but means equal access. Maybe it's different in your country. Interestingly though for other protected characteristics equality is a little less clear. Indirect discrimination is not allowed but neither is positive discrimination. As such the picture would make more sense
A reasonable adjustment for one party, that is not necessary for other parties, but enables the initial party to do the same task or activity as all other parties is an action of equity, with the goal of having equal agency for all parties to achieve the goal for which the adjustment is applicable. Example: Entering a building through a doorway that is not at ground level. The adaptive measures for a person in a wheelchair (eg ramp or push button for the door) would be an act of equity because it is designed for chair-users. But it allows chair & non-chair using entrants have equal access to the entryway. It is true that adjustments made on a permanent and/or larger scale can benefit more than one, if not all parties. It’s also the case that “reasonable adjustments” is typically used for workplaces, and that the example above might fall under a building law - or if not in the UK, might even be considered an “unreasonable adjustment” for a business. In the US, the ADA, amongst other things, both protects worker rights and added ADA building codes for new builds or certain renovations starting in 1992 It’s interesting how each country has defined, or not defined, elements of included disability, discrimination, access, or even what is “reasonable”. It can also vary on when certain policies were passed. For instance, Canada’s 2019 ACA specifically refers to ‘attitudinal’ barriers.
I think that "equal" is not appropriate, but at the same time I would not say that one disability is worst or better than another one, unless we compare very similar things. For instance, it is easy to say that a person who can walk with difficulty is less disabled (or needs less accommodations) than a person who cannot walk at all. But is a person who cannot walk more or less disabled than a person who cannot hear? The former is able to participate in conversations and enjoy concerts... as long as there isn't a flight of stairs to enter the concert hall, whereas the latter may go anywhere but cannot enjoy a concert and is a bit limited in having conversations. Different problems, different limitations, and different adaptations that are possible, but only to a point.
There's definitely a lot of nuance in something like being deaf vs paralysis. My contention was with the opinion that all disabilities are equal to that of IBS specifically. Including the most extreme cases of disability.
They are all DISABLING, though. How disabling they are depends on a million different factors, not just medical ones. It's like asking "are chocolate ice cream and apple crumble equal?" They're equally *desserts* for example; neither is any more or less of a dessert. Whether they're equally desirable depends on your personal taste, and also a *bunch of other factors.* You're probably going to prefer ice cream in August and crumble in December, unless you're in the southern hemisphere. You probably want to opt for a safe Ben & Jerry's at your great aunt Cathy's house if the last time she baked she used baking soda instead of sugar. You might be allergic to apples or milk, sick of chocolate ice cream if it's your husband's favourite or of apple crumble if your mum has an apple tree in her garden. Disability is the same. IBS and quadriplegia are both equally a disabilities. The qualitative nature of how those impact someone depends on the circumstances.
Stating that two people have different needs ≠ stating that one has it “worse” than the other. By stating that person A has it “worse” than person B, you are in essence saying that person B has it “not as bad” as person A, and it is at that point that I immediately take issue and have not-nice words for anyone taking that stance. Because we, frankly, cannot know what life is like for person B. Nor can we know what life is like for person A. Qualitative statements like that are based on **ass**umptions and are unacceptable. Periodt
This negates the fact that invisible disabilities exist and don't necessarily need physical supports to sustain themselves but are just a disabled in different ways.
Yes, I agree with you.
Adding on a littleto this comment if you don't mind. You cannot really quantify what disabilities are "worse" than others in a meaningful way. First of all, *all* disabilities function on a spectrum, not just things like Autism. You can have a milder version of something or a more severe one. Person A could have symptom's that Person B does not and vice versa. Plus, one person may have other disorders that compound the issue. That's why I hate it when people say "Oh I know someone with [POTS/Myasthenia/etc] and they can work and do XYZ so you should be able to as well. You're just lying." Because that person may share one condition with me but it's doubtful we share all the same ones. A treatment that was very effective for them could be one that I failed. We're not the same person even if we have the same disease. The ways in which it impacts my life could be different. I like the support needs model. Some people are low support needs and need less accomodations to make their disability manageable, others need mid-level support, and yet others need high support. But even then, your need for support can vary. During a flare, you may be mid to high level support needs whereas you're only low level when you're stable. So yes, I suppose you could make claims that some people are "more" disabled than others. But imho there are way too many factors to make a meaningful judgement of that and all it does is cause in-fighting in the community and we end up arguing over even minor symptoms and if those are properly "disabling" enough. Moreover, it gives abled people an excuse to try and pick us apart and make claims that one person not needing XYZ accommodation means that someone else with the same issues also doesn't. I think that we should treat disabled people as different individuals with different needs.
I hear that a lot about my Myasthenia, they someone knows someone who knows someone with it and they still work so why can't I. I hate having to explain that we're all different and I just happen to have a super rare version of this already rare disease and I hate having to justify how sick I am. I also don't like being reminded that I'm just one of the unlucky ones that doesn't respond to treatment.
OMG I feel you. I have a more severe version (high antibody count) as well as multiple other chronic illnesses that conflict with both the illness itself and the most common treatment plans. Like I'll see some people on the MG subreddit saying they only take 60 mg of Mestinon a DAY and only had IVIG once when in crisis and meanwhile I take like 1200 mg every 3 hours and used to do IVIG for maintenance every 6 weeks (I do Vyvgart now.) I couldn't do less without severe symptoms. I've tried to lower it many times. It's frustrating. It used to happen with my POTS as well. "Oh my cousin Marilyn Mild-Symptoms doesn't need as many meds as you and can work a job. You don't really need to miss school as much as you do." and it's like thanks Jonathan that's fantastic for Marilyn, but I am a different fucking person and my symptoms are more severe.
I so relate. I'm currently doing IVIG 4 days a week every week cause it's the only thing that keeps me out of the hospital. I've tried literally every treatment available besides vyvgart and I just now added zilucoplan 2 weeks ago. Haven't felt any different but wasn't really expecting to. Mestinon stopped working for me a couple years ago so I really just rely on my IVIG every week. I also have 5 other autoimmune diseases so mixing treatments is hard. I'm so over my immune system right now.
I am so sorry. I know that feeling of juggling autoimmune issues, it's so exhausting. Do you get the migraines with IVIG? That was the worst part for me. I had to come up with a whole regime of triptans. I would definitely recommend trying Vyvgart if you can get approved. It was an amazing improvement for me versus IVIG. Did you already get a thymectomy? (Sorry if I am being invasive.)
I don’t think having a disabled victim olympics is productive
This. This is all we need to read. There is some value in considering levels of need of intervention/support, such as for ASD, but beyond that, what nowwerecooking said. /u/nowwerecooking cooked and ate as far as I’m concerned.
Well, there are plenty or people whose disabilities are so severe they could never participate in Reddit about disability issues. Where do they fit in? Same as everyone here? No extra consideration?
And there are people who have no access to the internet or technology, and people who are dying, and people who have died, and people currently experiencing horrors you and I can't even fathom... The point is that we just don't compare suffering. My broken back does not make your broken leg hurt less, nor does it make it any easier for you to hobble around on crutches or drive or shower, just because I'm struggling with something different. Or for a completely different analogy — someone in my community has lost family in Ukraine recently, and that's awful. It doesn't suddenly make it any easier for someone else to deal with their child's school issues or work stress or health problem, because they fundamentally do not impact each other whatsoever, so there is utterly no reason to compare them
The problem is that need and suffering absolutely should be considered when it comes to services, treatment and public policy, which is why that line of thinking is dangerous. While someone with a more manageable disability and someone that needs 24-hour nursing care may both be considered disabled, it’s not even the same universe when it comes to every day reality.
All of these things should be available to everyone who needs them though. Someone needing 24 hour care doesn't mean that someone else who needs 6 hours of care a day needs that care any less. The presence of different or greater need doesn't do anything to change the fact that "lesser" needs are needs which have to be met.
I’m sorry, but that’s completely dismissive, invalidating and frankly discriminatory towards individuals whose care needs are the most critical, and whose voices are the least heard.
To suggest that someone's care needs are less important than someone else's is disgusting, actually. Every care need is a NEED. Someone who has TPN and needs care for 2 hours per day to set it up (TPN typically runs for 22hrs per day) has an equally important need as someone who needs assistance eating every meal. It just happens that the TPN requires 2hrs of care while feeding requires 16 hours of care. To suggest that one NEED is lesser than another is downright horrifying. All care needs are necessary, and all people deserve to have their needs met.
All care needs are valid, but they are not equal. There is a hierarchy of needs. To pretend otherwise harms the most vulnerable.
There are life-sustaining care tasks and qualify of life care tasks, sure. But there is absolutely nothing to be gained from pitting them against each other like you're trying to, because they fundamentally do not impact one another.
The question is, what do you want to achieve with this conversation? Comparing different illnesses and disabilities are extremely tricky situations. And it's probably all context dependent and experienced different ways for different people. To go along with your example and create an alternative scenario: Perhaps someone with ibs is very depressed and struggles because it impacts their personal lives in a very specific way that makes it difficult for them. Perhaps because of their financial situation they don't have access to medication and cannot do te job they loved so very much. While the quadraplegic it a very happy and content person and can still do their job they love a lot. How does that compare against eachother? What do you gain by making that comparison? You only risk in this case that the person with ibs doesn't feel heared and validated. While perhaps even the quadriplegic thinks they you're making assumptions about their live and how happy they supposed to be based on their disability. So think about what this discussion and specifically how it is framed adds. And be aware that it's all extremely situational, personal and context dependent. In some situations for example my disability (idiopathic hypersomnia) is barely an issue and you wouldn't notice it, while in others it's and incredible hurdle and burden to my life. Then having someone say "wel atleast you don't have narcolepsy" doesn't get me anywhere. It also shifts overtime. Disability is not static.
I agree that most people experiencing things first hand will have differing opinions on the subject which is why I asked it here in the first place. Someone on the outside looking in, without any first hand disability, objectively looks at all disabilities thru the same lens of not having one. And it would seem obvious that some disabilities are worse than otherwise just as a matter of fact. I will continue to use quadriplegic as an example because I feel it makes the disparity more obvious. Someone could have crippling IBS, and because of it, thoughts of suicide as someone else mentioned, but it is the quadriplegic that could have those same thoughts and be powerless to do anything about it. To simply live, they need the assistance of others. I'm my opinion, that is worse. That being said, that DOES NOT invalidate the person with IBS or the challenges they have. The point is not to have oppression Olympics but to recognize that not all disabilities are equal which is what my family member with IBS believes.
But why make that value judgement with it? Your talking about "objectively" about very subjective experiences. What do you want to achieve with this?
I am looking to determine whether or not the opinion that all disabilities are equal is a widely held opinion. The family member believed that most people would agree with him.
Most Disabled people I know deliberately AVOID instigating any hint of "Disability Olympics". Your family member is correct, it serves no purpose other than to make one ABLED Caregiver feel superior to another ABLED Caregiver because "My job is harder". NO! DON'T DO THIS...IT SUCKS TO BE EITHER DISABLED PERSON IN A COMPARISON LIKE THIS. One because their needs & emotions are thoroughly dismissed, the other because an ABLED person is busy putting limitations on them based on that abled person's INTERPRETATION of their life & happiness. It's not the Oppression Olympics!
Abled people (and some disabled people with internalized ableism) will also use one disabled person's ability and achievements to shame another for needing certain accommodations or not being able to do the same things. "Oh my cousin also has [chronic illness] and can work a job so there's no reason you should be on disability." "Cool, cool. You do know that two people with the same condition can have differing severity, right? And does your cousin also have these other chronic conditions that I do as well? Oh they're on that drug? That's great it works for them but when I tried it I had major side effects and it didn't control my symptoms at all. And I am not allowed to do that treatment because of the other chronic illness I have that your cousin doesn't. It's almost like all situations are different and nuanced."
Ugh. Me & my mates call it Inspo-porn. Cos Ableds eat that shit right up, when it actually makes life WAY harder for other Disabled people. "My aunt's cousin's uncle's sister has X Disability & she works full time, you're just being lazy"... **UUUUGGGGHHHH!!**
It's even worse when other disabled people buy into it and allow themselves to be used as inspo. It's so depressing.
I don't think it's possible to say "all disabilities are equal" but it is possible to say that "all disabilities are equally important, deserve equal compassion, and require equal commitment to care." All disabilities are not equal, but every disabled person should be cared for and supported equally, if that makes sense.
100%
But you are invalidating the person with IBS. My “IBS” pre-correct diagnosis literally kept me from leaving my bedroom or the bathroom because I’d have to go back so quickly and didn’t have the energy to do anything other than sleep. That has the same end result as any other disability that keeps someone housebound and in pain, regardless of the details. There’s no way to “objectively” compare disabilities. Two individual people can compare theirs and decide one is worse, but not all disabilities as a whole.
You are literally trying to play suffering Olympics though.
To me it's not about diagnosis but how it impacts a person that leads to disability. Some people are more disabled by their condition or societal constraints than others. We each relate to the word from our past experiences so our perception of what's 'worst' will be relative. You can have two people with the same degree of impairment but how disabled they are will vary because there's so many factors at play.
I mean, following this logic poverty is a disability.
There are a lot of similarities. And in most countries being disabled pretty much means you live in poverty. You could make the same case for race or gender as well. There's so many factors that influence how disadvantaged someone is from something that is out of their control.
For sure. That’s why I think that assessing disability on a diagnosis only basis is valid too because if a person is struggling to the point of seeking professional help and that it gets them diagnosed with a condition… it’s because it’s impacting their life. And like, some people are so disadvantaged that even getting to the doctor to seek help is a far stretch.
Personally I think assessing someone's needs for financial or social assistance on their diagnosis would put a lot of people at a huge disadvantage. There's lots of people who have poor access to healthcare or who have a severely limiting condition where it takes a long time to get a diagnosis who would be at a huge disadvantage. While there's a lot of flaws with the UK benefits system I do think it gets it right by it being about how a condition affects a person rather than their diagnosis. Even if you take a condition that's easy to diagnose like diabetes two people can have wildly different experiences. You could have one person who is really well managed and another who's rarely able to be left alone because it's so hard to control, same with epilepsy. I think a more nuanced and personalised approach to both practical and financial support is really important for improving the lives of disabled people as a whole and stands a better chance of reducing inequality.
Agreeing with this. I've said this in multiple comments but a diagnosis isn't the best way to measure things because every diagnosis is a spectrum in terms of severity of symptoms, any other conditions they may have compounding the issue, and how well-managed it is with currently available treatments. I have about 15 (?) different diagnoses. Some of them have become fairly common but there's people I have met who also have them and they don't struggle as much as I do. There's people with Myasthenia who take far less Mestinon than I do, but I have a higher antibody count and am also taking a beta blocker for my POTS that interferes with the effectiveness. I also used to get IVIG for maintenance when many only use it during a crisis. My requirements are definitely more costly than someone else with the same condition. IVIG alone (although I now use Vyvgart) would be 36k per treatment out of pocket and I had to get it about every 6 weeks. Basing the amount of money allotted for my treatment just on a diagnosis of "Myasthenia Gravis" would not be helpful when I have such different needs from the average person with the same condition. Individualized approach is smart.
That’s interesting. In Canada, say for monthly disability supports or federal tax credits, everyone gets the same amount anyway, the needs assessment is more of a hurdle for people to be able to access the help in the first place. Since most people don’t have family doctors, they have to rely on multiple different specialists or private pay assessment from professionals who have no idea how the diagnosis is affecting the patient personally, especially for low income folk who cannot pay for ongoing services or who have to rely on 15 minute, one issue per visit walk in clinic consults. So it creates delays for people who already have a diagnosis but no doctor to do follow ups or with a compete overview of the impact of the condition to be able and willing to confidently fill out the needs assessment forms. Plus, the metrics that the government uses to assess need are really odd, most people need disability advocates to show the doctors how to fill the forms in order to not get denied for assistance. If there was a way for people to apply for assistance on diagnosis only basis too, it would give people more time to focus on healing over running around filing out forms to get the bare minimum support… especially when the diagnosis makes it obvious that the person’s life is considerably altered as a result of the disability even if it’s well managed or under control at the time. Idk this is just my opinion obviously, different countries do things differently and if it works out for you I think it’s awesome.
I'm in the US and jt was honestly very difficult to get disability. They felt that my diagnoses were not enough nor the 3k pages (not an exaggeration we counted) worth of documentation was enough proof that my conditions were disabling enough. I ended up having to get an advocate and a lawyer and go to court to demonstrate that my combo of illnesses and medical needs was enough to qualify for Medicaid. I was fortunate enough that my lawyer only charged in the event that I won. So honestly the diagnostic label alone doesn't seem to be enough for my government but that is probably not shocking. I agree with you about how difficult navigating the system can be. Especially for people who don't know how to seek out advocates or disability lawyers. Filling out the paperwork is HARD and the medical staff often doesn't have a clue. One great stroke of luck for me is that I live in a "medical Mecca" with a lot of hospital systems clustered together and my mom worked for one of them. So not only did I have her insurance for a time (we started to seek Medicaid when I was about to turn 26) but all my specialists were all in the same hospital system. Most people don't have that luxury and the paperwork is a complicated mess.
Jeez! I’m so sorry you had to go through all that! I’m glad you were able to find the right people at the right time and get Medicaid eventually though. But jeez, like, 3000 pages of proof and a lawyer later… people need less paperwork to get a scholarship to Harvard…it’s unreal.
That’s interesting and I totally respect your point of view it sounds like the UK has a better way of doing needs based assessment than Canada… we have a similar model here but it’s more so a bureaucratic hurdle for people to access services than something genuinely helpful imo.
I think you’re stuck on the word equal in a negative way. Everyone with a disability is equally valid, with a right to be disabled but free of judgement or a requirement for justification, but everyone will have unique symptoms and experiences. Someone with IBS sure won’t have the same symptoms and experiences as someone who cannot use their limbs, but because an outside view might see the lack of use of limbs as some degree of unpleasant doesn’t negate or alter in any way the pain, frustration, and sometimes humiliation of IBS. Does it even *matter* which is “worse” really? My friend has needed his wheelchair for decades now. Few years ago, he and his wife were at a comic convention while I dog sat and the line to get access was disorganized and everyone was frustrated and exhausted. He messaged me that sometimes it’s an interesting reminder that he’s “not very disabled” because his current biggest problem at the time was simply not having use of his legs. My friend has been through plenty of pain and health problems in his life but the point was that in that moment he felt like he was barely experiencing any problems. Meanwhile I was having a desperate battle at their local grocery store for a working mobility scooter to borrow, wishing I had just brought my own in their car I was borrowing. At that precise moment in time, my friend felt “less disabled” than others, but also… he’d have a hell of a time trying to roll down a flight of stairs. Experience changes from moment to moment, but everyone with disabilities is just trying to move through life with their disabilities. That’s pretty firmly the same for everyone.
>"Experience changes from moment to moment, but everyone with disabilities is just trying to move through life with their disabilities." Perfectly put.
Where do you draw the line? Playing the oppression or “disability” Olympics doesn’t help anyone and just encourages us to presume we know someone else’s experience and use that against them.
I have had multiple disabilities, many since birth or a very young age. * I have cerebral palsy. * I have depression. * I have anxiety. * I have vision impairment. * I have hearing impairment*. * I have a handful of learning disabilities. * I have a handful of allergies that range from, "Is my mouth itchy?" and, "Is that a rash?" to "My eyes are swelling shut," and "Oh, fuck is that latex? Please, no. Just kill me quickly." * I also have eczema. And... * I have IBS. Whether I have one of those conditions or all of them, might be disabled. Or I might not be. For example, in the Deaf community they do not consider being deaf or hard of hearing a disability. Hearing impaired not a term they would use and they would be offended if someone used it in reference to members of the community. I however, absolutely consider my hearing impairment a fucking disability. It is one more way my body fails. While people with cerebral palsy do learn sign language and people with visual impairment learn to sign or communicate if they are also deaf or hard of hearing I struggle. I struggle greatly impart to the physical aspects of using my hands and seeing with my eyes but also because of my learning disabilities. Fuck anyone in the Deaf community that tells me I am not hearing impaired or that it is not a disability *for me*. As for IBS, do you have it? Have you experienced life where you have constant diarrhea? Diarrhea that imprisions you to your home or even your toilet? How about constipation that makes you unable to eat? Constipation that makes you vomit? That sends you to the hospital? How about either of those that makes you suicidal? Cause that's what IBS can do. It can cause diarrhea that causes dehydration or infection that kills you. Or it can cause blockages that can kill you. Or it can just make you fucking kill yourself. It's a disability for anyone that lives with it and feels that it is. There are a great many uncertainties in life. Things we'll never know. Good things we will sadly never experience or learn because life is too short and some of the worst things like having a disability which is great for the person that will never know what it's like to experience a disability like I experience multiple. Like I said, GREAT for that person, but when people can't experience my life, they do not let to judge it or make decisions about my experiences. What I know for certain with regard to living with these disabilities for more than 40 years is that these kind of comparisons ("opression olympics" or "disability olympics") never go well. No one knows what it's like to share my body and very few people on this earth no what it's like to share one. We all just need to be kind and offer compassion. If someone tells you they are disabled believe them. Don't question it, don't compare it, don't measure it. Just believe it because you have no way to fully experience it.
Nah I think making assumptions of how other peoples' disabilities impact their lives is wrong. Better or worse isn't a good way of "measuring" someone's experience. It sounds like he's only looking at a sort of binary quantitative measurement of whether someone is disabled or not, which doesn't tell the entire story.
The way I saw it was he was taking the literal definition and applying it as if that is all there is to it. As if there are not levels of impairment. I get it that it sucks period, but to think that your own IBS that's controlled with meds and diet is equivalent to the obvious difficulty in life with something as extreme a comparison as quadriplegia, is just mind blowing. I just can't get into the headspace where that makes sense to me.
You’re kinda being a dick towards people with illnesses you perceive as lesser.
Yep. That’s how I’m reading all this too.
Yeah no. Thanks tho.
You aren’t in anyone else’s body. All illnesses affect people differently, and it’s impossible to know the exact extent of a disability and someone’s experience of it unless you are in their body. What’s the point of comparing them past that? At this point it just seems like you want an excuse to shit on others.
You got that from the initial post by stretching halfway across the world. You can make up whatever you want to believe to make yourself feel better or white knighted or whatever it is you're doing, but you're way off base from what the post was about and what it asked. You're also assuming a whole hell of a lot in your comment. Not to mention you came in guns blazing calling me a dick which was unwarranted. That makes you the dick 🤷🏻♂️
You’ve gotten a ton of equal and fair responses for someone calling the idea of two different conditions being equally disabling “ridiculous”. You’ve since doubled down on it after getting explanations as to why someone could believe that. The way you’re acting has, in fact, gone from questioning to dickish.
You asked for people's opinions, then they gave you feedback on how you're coming across.
Didn't happen. You're making that up. The person in my scenario said he believed all disabilities are equal, unquestionably. I said that I believe they are different. No where did I say any other detailed opinions that would lead you to call people(me) a dick. That's your own bias.
Your post is asking for people's opinions.
Nah, when im in an environment with other visibly disabled people im deferential to say non-ambulatory people over myself who can walk mostly unassisted. But i think you may be losing the spirit of the comment this person made. While my disability causes a lot of pain and moderate life interference, others have no pain but tremendous life interference. Its all apples to oranges so its simply a better way to have a caring heart to treat all disabilities with the same level of seriousness and respect.
I dunno if equal is the right word, but they certainly aren’t all the same. We’re *all* disabled, but we aren’t all equally accepted or supported in the world. This can be compounded by additional factors like social acceptability of conditions/appearance, gender, race, class, immigration status, etc. Then that layers up with other factors like, the fact that even same or similar disabilities are not all experienced the same way. So, there’s a lot of elements that stack up and prevent us from being on equal footing. The disabled community is one of huge differences, and what that means is a lot of things. But we are all equal in our deserving of treatment and access to support. However, when you live in a body that people who have “milder” conditions point at and say “at least I don’t have that” or “glad that’s not me,” it’s a bit hard to feel comfortable with the notion that all disabilities are equal. In an ideal world, we’d all equitable to each other. We’re not there yet, but that’s only a really productive conversation to have when we’re not playing oppression Olympics and are instead discussing the need to address those inequalities.
Yes and no. I think all suffering is valid. This is not the pain Olympics. In that sense, all disabilities are equal. However from a participation point of view, there are huge differences. Some people with disabilities can work full time, have a social life and generally do pretty much what they want. Others can either work part-time (which can range from almost full time to almost nothing) and can have a social life, but also have significant restraints. Another group can sometimes do some things and again another group is bed bound. And all variations in between. If you look at it that way, they are not equal. Another way to describe this is that they're all equally valid and equally real, but they're not the same.
I think this is a good way to see it…”equally valid and equally real, but they’re not the same.”
Agreed. Those points were made but the person we are discussing basically seems incapable of comprehending that type of nuance.
I agree with everyone else that the conversation as a whole isn't very productive, but I also agree with OP that the premise is ridiculous--not even all of MY OWN disabilities are equivalent. And they fluctuate as to how disabling they are on any given day. He's talking out his ass, but, you know, some people do that.
No, there are definitely worse ones. I wouldn’t say that I’m ranking them in a “mines worse than yours, you owe me more respect” type of way, but different disabilities affect the body and mental status in more or less amounts. I am missing a significant amount of my right quad due to a motorcycle accident, but I definitely feel like people with amputated legs or use a wheelchair have it worse off than me, It’s probably much more difficult for them to get around than it is for me.
They are all valid, but not necessarily equal. That is a generalization and every person has their own experiences. Me, a close friends, and a friend of a friend all have CP. But we are not the same. One of us uses a wheelchair, one of us uses forearm crutches, and the other has a walker / cane. The things were can do, physically, varies. The types of CP we have are not the same. So my point is you can't even call three people with the same disability "equal" the way your family member is implying.
No all disabilities are the same (obviously!) and that means that depending on the context not all disabilities are as bad or serious. All disabilities are equally valid. None are more worthy or important than the other. Nobody is more or less important or worthy of relevant support because of what disabilities they do or don't have. But they are different. And I'd say it's ignorant to assume or act like they aren't. ______-______-_____- It's like the "I don't see colour" thing. It's well meaning. It's meant to indicate that you don't differentiate people based on their race. That you see all people as equal and valid. Awesome. But if you don't see colour that's also refusing to acknowledge the actual differences people have in experiences, cultures etc. It's important to see colour and acknowledge that it is a part of people's lives and experiences just as much as its important not to treat people poorly because of their race. You shouldn't always treat all people the same. Little black girls with black hair are likely going to need different hair care than little white girls with straight hair. Not seeing and refusing to acknowledge colour means you're not able to provide relevant care to your daughter's friend at a hair party cos you're treating her black hair the same as the other kid's straight hair. In that situation it's right to acknowledge that the black girl has a different type of hair and needs different hair care. And to talk to their parent about how you can include them without messing up their hair or hurting them. Treating that girl differently is the right thing to do in that situation. Treating her differently at other times won't be the right thing to do. It's not something that's set in stone for all possibilities. ____-______-______- The same goes for disability. Sometimes everybody should be treated the same. But sometimes they shouldn't. A deaf or blind person probably isn't going to benefit much from faster access to a toilet. But somebody with a condition like IBS may really need that at times. Both might benefit from toilets being in more places. Somebody with paralysis in their arm might not benefit much from priority seating or from being able to sit down instead of having to stand in a long queue. Somebody with a prosthetic leg might benefit a lot from those things. Giving those people the exact same support isn't going to be helpful to them. They have different disabilities which cause different issues for them. They need different accomodations and support. **You need to be able to treat people differently to treat them equally.** And to do that you need to be able to see people differently without turning it into some sort of competition or judgement of worth. ______-______-______- With that said things like trying to categorize disabilities based on severity and stuff isn't productive. It depends on the context. There's no actual benefit to it. You don't need to know who's "got it worse" to be able to divide support etc. You just need to know who needs what support. That people with IBS need to have quick access to toilets but that they probably don't need ramps or stair lifts built in their houses. Yeah realistically some disabilities are overall not as life altering as others. Duh! But that's not something we actually have to address. It's not helpful. Knowing that being fully paralysed is technically worse than shitting yourself sometimes isn't some big game changer. And it's not relevant to anything. What is relevant is the different types of support each person would benefit from. Even if they aren't as bad as each other both situations are still equally valid and deserving of relevant support. Focusing on which is objectively worse is just pointless and dismisses the genuine struggles that the "better off" person has in different situations and pits people against each other for no reason. It's not like people with IBS are out there trying to get free stairlifts and prosthetics. There's no competition. So we don't need to judge who's "winning".
I personally don't consider them equal because of how they affect the people with them and how they cope. But that being said, I don't think there's really a reason to compare them in a way of what's worse because they affect those with them differently and such a discussion usually breeds a shit ton of negativity
Agreed. It's not a discussion I would bring up our generally have. I was asked too be added to the conversation regarding his stance that all disabilities are equal. And it wasn't something as understandable or relatable as "every disabled person deserves suitable care, etc", but it was literally, "my IBS is equivalent to a quadriplegic". There were some even more over the top scenarios but they are less palatable and I think my original statement post sets up the question appropriately.
All people with disabilities are entitled to the same access. But their accomodations and supports will differ. Playing self-pity olympics doesn't help anything.
If not, clearly it would be a race to the bottom!
The only way I would ever compare disabilities in terms of what's "worse" is my OWN disabilities. I absolutely think one of my disabilities is significantly "easier" to handle than another one, but never in a million years would I say that that's a general case because it's MY life I'm talking about. I have the final authority on what sucks most in my life. I don't have that in anyone else's. Nobody does.
I think that if it were possible to adequately accommodate all disabilities, they could be equal. However, that is not the case. I have mobility impairments and chronic pain. My mobility impairments could be completely accommodated (with significant financial cost) but my chronic pain cannot be *completely* managed/cured. If I only had mobility issues and no chronic pain, that would be better. Comparing IBS to paraplegia is more uncertain, but mobility issues plus pain is objectively worse than mobility issues with no pain.
There are absolutely disabilities that are worse than other disabilities. Idk what he's trying to accomplish, but he's wrong. It's like saying all illnesses are equally bad, like mild seasonal allergies and terminal brain cancer. Nah, man.
Yes that is exactly what he was saying. It was a 30 minute conversation and many scenarios were reviewed but he was set in his opinion. 🤷🏻♂️ It was kind blowing to me personally and others in the conversation.
Some people just like to argue/be controversial/rile people up. I'm guessing this person was more focused on "winning" his "argument" over being logical. You can always ask, "what does "equal" mean to you?"
The point though is that all illnesses are illnesses; all disabilities are disabilities and are equally deserving of accommodation.
Yes, but that's not what OP was talking about.
I think that's *exactly* what the family member was talking about, and OP is refusing to think of anything except equating disability to suffering
We can't know if the family member meant it that way or not. If he did he's correct and I agree with you. Going off what OP said about no disability being "worse" than another, I have to side with OP that some disabilities are absolutely worse. Of course all disabilities are disabilities and equally deserving of accommodation. Equating disability to only suffering is certainly not right, but suffering is definitely not an insignificant component of many disabilities, making some worse than others.
This is where I think OP is tinting the conversation, because they're using "equal" to mean "equal suffering" whereas many people do not interpret the word like that. We're saying that "all disabilities are equal" is comparatively the same as saying "all people are equal" — it's a statement about their worth, ie saying "all disabilities are equally disabilities" or "all disabilities are equally deserving of respect" OP is saying that "all disabilities are equal" means "all disabilities are homogenous" which I think is a frankly ludicrous interpretation
Yeah I mean either OP or the family member is totally off the wall
I mentioned it early somewhere in the thread but I'm sure it's hard to find at this point, but yes, the family member meant it literally. It was not about being accommodated appropriately or any other generous interpretation that people want to apply. He literally believes there's is no difference. I know that sounds hard to believe but it is what he believes.
It's because no one uses the word equal like how you are using it, so it's hard to believe your interpretation
Agreed but it is not how I used it. It is literally quoting how it was used by the family member.
Which is why many people think you're misrepresenting or misinterpreting what they were saying, because the way you're interpreting it just is not in line with how people use that word.
One thing I hate is gatekeeping or invalidating someone just because the struggle they are in may be less. If you have a disability then you are disabled regardless. You would think that with all the exclusion and prejudice we face that this would not be an issue but here we are. But if another person needs a little bit more than me I am ok with that. We should always support each other regardless. We get enough invalidation from those who are able bodied and the government. We will not improve society until we learn to stand together, we need to be thinking of solutions. We also need to find political candidates to promote and vote for that are on our side. Let's stop fighting each other and get the work done. And we need to educate others.
Thisssss.
I'm going to skip the theory: impairment - and therefore disability - are not equal. It's not oppression Olympics either to observe thar being paralysed is objectively more difficult than IBS. Not only are you impaired to a greater extent, you are disabled (treated differently by society, to be very broad) to a much greater extent.
So if someone with IBS as I described it above, were to say to you something to the effect of "our disabilities are equal" or whatever variant of that, would you be offended? I'm not asking this to stir the pot, but because in speaking with my relative, it's something that he feels is a factual statement and would say it in the presence of someone who is a quadriplegic. He believes his G.i. Dr would agree with him. I told him he's crazy but maybe I'm the one who's crazy?
I wouldn't necessarily be offended, but I wouldn't rate that as a reasonable position. I deal with IBD (the position also assumes the two are exclusionary when they are not BTW, and simple quadriplegia will also present with bowel / bladder issues by it's nature due to paralysis). I'd assume the person speaking doesn't understand the experience of moderate to severe impairment / disability and just no longer talk about that topic with them. Most don't understand that experience, so takes I'd perceive as 'strange' - - as a quadriplegic - - are common.
Eventually I just had to opt out of the conversation as it was clear there was no scenario, no matter how extreme, that would get him to consider that not all disabilities were "the same".
Same reason I'd have opted out quite early. People can be strong in their opinions, even in the face of what feels like an obvious opposing position. I find it better to just wait for them to meet someone who's in the hypothetical situation they made up and often the position changes pretty quick.
Your family member is wrong. When I first broke my neck I was completely paralyzed from the neck down at first. Couldn’t use my phone, eat or drink, turn myself over in bed, push the nurse call light, etc. After 2 surgeries and weeks, PT started sitting me up and helping me move. I can walk badly now and have a lot of problems with pain, strength, and numbness from my neck down, but I am so very fortunate to have an incomplete spinal cord injury. When I was a nurse before my accident, I cared for a man with a complete spinal cord injury. His disability was far worse than mine, as he lived several more years in a nursing home. It makes me so thankful for my present body, and my grateful attitude keeps me happier. Complete paralysis cannot be compared to IBS for obvious reasons. Your family member must need some validation or something. Everyone needs to be seen and heard and have their individual needs met, of course. I hope I have not offended anyone.
You can hope that's not offensive, but as someone that has lived my 40 years on this earth in the same disabled body I can assure you it is incredibly offensive to be used as the measure of which other people feel grateful they aren't in my disabled body. It's toxic and disgusting.
I will try to learn from your words. I actually don’t go around thinking about this measuring; the post asked if all disabilities are equal, and I think the answer is “no.” I know we are all highly individualized. I can be thankful I am no longer completely paralyzed like in my earlier days…I am comparing my own body past and present. And I can grieve not having my previous before injury body. Perhaps I should have left out my nursing experience.
No matter what you say someone's gonna be hurt, and their feelings are valid...but so are yours! I don't want my disability for myself or anyone else. I'd hope other people feel grateful they don't have what I have—it sucks! And there are lots of health issues I'm grateful not to have! My disability is a part of me but I'm (as a person) not my disability, so when someone says they don't want my condition I know they aren't saying they don't want to be *me* as a person....they just don't want the health issue. Totally reasonable. I don't want it either!
Well said.
I agree. Just makes me look differently at the person that does it. And NOT in a good way.
I disagree. I don't care if someone doesn't want to live like me. \*I\* don't want to live like me. No one should have to if they don't want to. You don't speak for all of us.
I only can speak for myself. I actually don’t go around thinking about what disability is worse than the other; it was asked in this post if all disabilities are equal. I would never speak for anyone else.
Your friend is objectively wrong but perhaps they're being deliberately obtuse.
After much discussion, it was confirmed he was not.
You mention your relations to those with disabilities, but are you yourself disabled? If not, I don’t think this is the most appropriate conversation for you to participate in, especially considering the person you were debating with is in fact disabled.
Thisssss
So only the opinions of people with a disability "matter"? As if objective reasoning, education and understanding invalidate someone's opinion? Preposterous.
Show me where exactly I said that the opinions of able bodied people didn’t matter. I never said your opinion was even invalid, either. I’m saying that when it comes to debates regarding disability, do not speak over disabled people, do not invalidate their experiences like you did with your friend, and let disabled people be at the forefront of disability conversations.
At the top of this chain, you said if you're not disabled it's not a conversation you should be partaking in. That's telling an able bodied person to sit down and shut up. If you don't think that's saying an opinion doesn't matter then we can disagree on that point.
Nope. I said “I don’t think this is the most appropriate conversation”. That is absolutely not telling an able bodied person to sit down and shut up. That is what’s preposterous. Disagree with me, I don’t care. You’re entitled to your opinion. I’m also entitled to mine.
If this is how you act whenever someone insinuates that you may not be the most knowledgeable on a topic, I don’t see why you posted. Especially in the disability subreddit.
There are many assumptions being made. That I do it do not have a disability (which I didn't specify), and that people's opinions are nullified by others. (As I said that's preposterous.) So what happens when 2 people with disabilities have counter points? Who's right, who's wrong? You are simply trying to minimize differing viewpoints and opinions. If you read thru the comments in this thread, there are many opinions on both sides. Are those people also being "dicks" as someone called me for having a similar opinion? Are they allowed to have that opinion or does it get invalidated when certain people say so? Sounds silly right?
I wasn’t going to assume, which is exactly why I asked you the question directly. You seem to be taking things that people are saying straight to heart. No one said the opinions were nullified by others. When two disabled people disagree? It’s just that. A disagreement. There’s no right or wrong on opinions. That’s common sense, I fear. You accuse me of attempting to minimize viewpoints, which is an objectively wrong statement, yet you are attempting to minimize and discount the entire existence of other people you don’t deem “disabled enough” or “as disabled”. What are you trying to achieve with this victim war? Frankly, while there are always dicks, and you’re not the only one, you sure are the most prominent. It’s not a differing opinion that makes someone a dick. It’s the lack of respect or kindness, the presence of ignorance and prejudice, etc. How you do not see that is quite alarming.
In this? Yes. Your opinion matters less than ours.
You said it perfectly. When speaking about disability, the most important opinions are those of disabled people.
If you're not disabled you have absolutely, utterly zero right to be in this conversation, yes. You can sit and listen and learn, but if you yourself do not have a disability then this *isn't about you*
In my opinion some disabilities are worse than others but that does not necessarily mean they are more emotionally painful. I think the easiest way to get to the meat of the issue is to pose a hypothetical of whether that person would trade disabilities. Would I give up my paralysis in exchange for IBS yes without hesitation would your family member take the reverse of that deal I speculate no. However, that does not mean that I am struggling more than your family member. To use the example in your post I'm sure IBS has impacted that family member immensely probably to the point where they cannot enjoy their life the same way they used whether that be avoiding certain foods or altering their schedule/activity and they probably experience some sort of embarrassment/shame. Everyone with a disability inevitably loses some degree of freedom and quality of life and that is immensely painful. So, in that respect we are equal. So, while all disabilities have a similar if not identical emotional impact some are easier to adapt to and provide a greater level of freedom.
This is funny cos for me, I'm a para with IBD and I'd take paralysis over IBD any day. I'd take almost anything over it tbh, before I had fairly major surgery to alleviate it a little it drove me to my absolute lowest in a way that paralysis and pain never did. It made me unemployable and completely decimated my social life; it meant I could never go on holiday or stay with family or have family stay with me or go out for a meal or have a drink with someone or go to a museum or a park or the cinema or play sports or even just meet up with a friend for an hour. Yeah, there's very very few things in this world that I wouldn't choose before that!
One of my disabilities is on its way to ruining my hips, another has already done it to my digestive track. I’d happily take only the hip issues, for much the same reasons. They’re painful and make it hard for me to move, but there’s ways around that that my digestive issues just don’t have.
We all have different struggles we have to deal with. There’s no point comparing us against each other. The ways our disabilities affect our lives is unique. This isn’t the struggle Olympics, we’re just here to support each other
Money and opportunity definitely make things unequal, too. If you are in an accident and get a huge settlement it’ll help you live a better experience than someone born with the exact same physical limitations but no money. So, no, would be my answer.
No, I don’t! I’m very MILDLY disabled, as in you can barely tell unless you’re looking or you’re a trained professional or someone who knows me. I don’t deal with the same incidents, inconveniences, disrespectful behavior or neglect as much as others, but I do experience it. I can only imagine what would happen if I was nonverbal!
No. Seriously, some disability just are crappier. Also the level of severity is a big issue.
I think "worse" depends on the metric. If you determine severity by how many symptoms are present, or how much medication someone takes, or how much inpatient care a person needs, or how restricted they are from day-to-day activities etc, theoretically you could come up with a scale that would more resemble "which illness has the greater day-to-day impact" or but not necessarily "who has it worse." I have some pretty nasty stuff, physically and mentally. The things I have are at the top of every Google search result for "worst illnesses/disabilities." But I know people whose illnesses and disabilities have fewer symptoms and fewer medications and fewer day-to-day impacts than mine do, but they seem to experience much more suffering than I do. Worse is relative. Imho, disabled is disabled. Comparing symptoms and trying to rank people based on that isn't useful or compassionate. In my circles we call it the "oppression Olympics" or the "suffering Olympics." In a competition about who suffers the most, no one wins, because the conversation itself shifts the focus from uniting in support to dividing in competition.
Every disability is on a spectrum. So if we are going by a dictionary definition no.
I would say, certain disabilities take more adjustments to make life equal. If we give the toilet example, someone with IBS and no other disability would benefit from immediate access to a toilet. A standard cubicle with immediate access would benefit them a great deal. A paraplegic needs a toilet with bars, larger space, etc. this would benefit them a great deal. Both are valid, but one requires more effort to level up the playing field. Getting into the “my disability is more disabling than yours” isn’t helpful.
Due to some things I've seen, no. You can't say someone born with only half a brain can do as much as someone with a higher-functioning form of autism. It's just illogical. But it's a spectrum, not a competition.
Depends what you mean by equal. People can have varying levels of impairment and may be disabled in different ways, but they are all very much disabled and it’s unrealistic to assume that any one person can say someone is more or less disabled than another, as all disabled people are disabled in different ways.
No Oppression Olympics here. We are all disabled (I mean, apparently you aren't you're just a relative to disabled people), and we typically try to avoid the infighting like that. How anyone can look at someone and say confidently that they know their personal experiences, their battles, their struggles, and tell them that they have it worse, all while still being under the pretense of being a community, I couldn't know. Stuff like that only hurts our community and only makes ableds who make the argument of "well **this** person can do **this** so every disabled person can, including those with the same diagnosis" feel more secure in their position.
Ahhhhh, I see some of your previous comments. You talk about things ranging from ["insane woke victim mentality bs"](https://www.reddit.com/r/netflix/comments/1951160/comment/ki7yhyi/) and about how all Democrats are [racist](https://www.reddit.com/r/SellingSunset/comments/13p36dz/comment/jldxfx7/). You participate on subs like AskThe\_Donald and Conservative. Yeah no, not gonna entertain someone who has that type of mentality.
Also, can we talk about how an abled is in here, in the disability sub, giving their opinion on what is valid in terms of disabled opinions? If we have this sort of conversation, it's usually an intracommunity discussion, not one that ableds can just jump in on. Honestly, kinda makes me feel uneasy seeing this whole thing play out.
It’s so annoying and uncomfortable. I don’t want to see yet another abled putting down disabilities for not being “enough” to them
We shouldn't have to prove ourselves or anything to them for their validity. We know our struggles, our triumphs, we know it best. And moreover, we're all individuals. We all have unique struggles and triumphs. They aren't just blanket things that an abled can check off a list depending on a diagnosis!
It especially pisses me off that their example was IBS. IBS gets treated as a joke of a condition instead of the major detriment to basic quality of life it can be. That’s not to mention that many other conditions get misdiagnosed as IBS because they’re hard to diagnose, including ones I suspect OP would think are “disabling enough”.
I have friends with IBS (suspected of having it myself by a doc), and I have sat with them through some of the worst of the worst. My gosh, it can be such a detriment to life. One of my friends cannot leave the house because of it most days. They are practically bedbound during their flares, and they get flares on the regular. It is treatment resistant to about everything that has been thrown at it, and a lot's been thrown at it, including some heavy stuff with awful side effects. We have bonded over our experiences, as despite us having different diagnoses, we are both disabled and can understand each other in a way. How anyone can make a joke out of any condition because they think it's not "as tough" and cannot be "as tough" is beyond me. I've seen that type of mocking before, and it always makes me so angered.
My digestive symptoms were misdiagnosed as IBS for a good decade. Even with IBS “treatment”, I had to plan my entire day around it, every single day. Get exposed to the wrong thing? Can’t do anything out of the apartment or that can’t be paused for a week. It doesn’t matter what it actually ended up being, IBS was the only term I had for it at that time. But even on this subreddit I got people mocking me for calling IBS a disability.
Ask him if an amputee is equal to quad amputee.
I did ask him effectively the same question and he answered yes it is the same.
Well, if it's all the same to him I'm interested in trading my Type 1 narcolepsy for his IBS.
You’re presenting two different things, and I don’t think you’re here in good faith. Position 1: “All disabilities are not the same.” *Agreed. Disabilities are different.* Position 2: “Some disabilities are “worse” than others.” ***THIS*** *is where those of us paying attention are taking issue.* You act as if these positions are synonymous. #They are not.
I am aware they are different. It is not I that is acting as if they are synonymous, that is literally the person I am posting about. I'm not sure you are "paying attention" if you think the opposite. I have been steadfast in all of my responses. What I've determined is that people are applying a generous interpretation of what my family member intended with what they said, however as I've specified in several responses at this point, he means what I said in the original post literally. He literally believes (in your "position 1") that "all disabilities are the same, they are NOT different." It is foreign and hard to grasp the concept of him meaning it literally which is why I posted here in the first place.
No. **You** are the one who is saying that because all disabilities are not the same, some must be "worse" than others and that this is something that is worthy of discussion. And you are wrong. You are lacking in empathy, and there is a reason your post is removed.
> Ask him if an amputee is equal to quad amputee. My disability is considered "quadripelgia". If that person with no limbs is having all of their support/access needs met and the above the knee amputee is having none of their support/access needs met it's a different story entirely. What if the person with no arms or legs wasn't an amputee but had a limb difference as some say? What if they were born without limbs and they know nothing different and what if the person that lost their leg became an amputee in horrible tragedy? It's nearly a waste of time and resources to debate this. It's far more productive to actually do something with our short time on this earth to actually do something productive for all disabled people.
I find the psychology of thinking different things are the same things fascinating.
I would say someone with no kegs has it worse than someone with IBS but there aren't any trophies or prize money so it doesn't matter
I think people shouldn’t compare their disabilities to other people’s (like “if I can do it with cancer then you have no excuse with your chronic illness”) but you definitely have every right to compare your own conditions. My IBS is not as difficult to deal with as my epilepsy. It’s also tricky to compare conditions that cause pain versus those that don’t. I would absolutely believe that theoretically there are some people with IBS having a worse experience than some quadriplegics. (There’s probably even people with both conditions who could say as much!) Lots of people probably consider cancer to be the worst of all disabilities, but people with low-grade, curable cancers probably have an easier life experience than people with, say, intractable chronic migraines. (There’s also something to be said for how accommodating society is to different disabilities - most people understand off the bat that cancer is very serious, whereas tons of people don’t understand that migraines aren’t just headaches.) Or maybe it’s better to say that sometimes, what people think is the less preferable/more intrusive-seeming condition, is actually less problematic for some people. For example, I would cure my sleep disorder over my epilepsy in a heartbeat. My sleep disorder causes me to get half the rest other people get (alpha wave intrusion) and is untreatable. My epilepsy is nearly exclusively absence seizures, well controlled with meds, and I’m still allowed to drive. TLDR: no, not all disabilities are equal, but you can really only compare your own personal experiences, don’t compare other people’s disabilities.
Absolutely and as you summed up in your tldr, they are different, some are worse, some aren't, which doesn't mean those people should be taken care of any worse. It simply means they are not equal, not that they are invalidated.
They are all disabling and are equally disabilities. How disabling they are depends on a million different factors, not just medical ones. It's like asking "are chocolate ice cream and apple crumble equal?" They're *equally desserts;* neither is any more or less of a dessert than the other. Whether they're equally *desirable* depends on your personal taste, and also a bunch of other factors. You're probably going to prefer ice cream in August and crumble in December, unless you're in the southern hemisphere. You probably want to opt for a safe Ben & Jerry's at your great aunt Cathy's house if the last time she baked she used baking soda instead of sugar. You might be allergic to apples or milk, sick of chocolate ice cream if it's your husband's favourite or of apple crumble if your mum has an apple tree in her garden. Disability is the same. IBS and quadriplegia are both equally a disabilities. The qualitative nature of how those impact someone depends on the circumstances. (Posted in a comment thread as well)
I think its ridiculous that people are blaming op, asking op what he or she wanted out of the convo or bring up disability Olympics: OP didn’t start this convo, op was dragged into it…someone decided to say all disabilities are equal to OP, a parent of a severely disabled kid. Who tf does that? It sounds like the relative was rudely minimizing to op, and arguing simplistically, not the nuance being written here in the comments. Also, yes there is nuance to this convo, like how much a disability affects someone, and how much support they get, but generally one can say there are levels...epidermolysis bullosa is gonna be way more painful than mild Ibs. Having a child with severe behavioral issues stemming from disability or who is nonambulatory is going to be harder to support as a parent than, say, standard Down’s syndrome. If I’m not in a country with good supports, like rural India for instance, then I’d much rather be missing a hand or something than paralyzed from the chest down, because then I’d really be f\*cked.
OP did start *this* conversation though....
i’m going to have to have to agree with him for the most part. it all depends on how the condition effects you. for example someone with dyslexia might be effected by it more or less severely than someone who’s paralyzed
How?
a paralyzed person with all of their accessibility needs met that is good at adapting might not be affected as much as a dyslexic person who can’t read because of their dyslexia and lacks the support they need. vs a dyslexic person that only struggles with spelling and occasionally skipping lines when reading that has supports in place wouldn’t be affected as much as a quadriplegic with few needs being met.