Living with disability

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Found this, might help with conversation, can't seem to get rid of the bold. Source: The UN Definition of Disability

The UN Definition of Disability​

DetailsHits: 43287
The most commonly cited definition is that of the World Health Organization in 1976, which draws a three–fold distinction between impairment, disability and handicap. ‘An impairment is any loss or abnormality of psychological, physiological or anatomical structure or function, a disability is any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being, a handicap is a disadvantage for a given individual, resulting from an impairment or a disability, that prevents the fulfillment of a role that is considered normal (depending on age, sex and social and cultural factors) for that individual’.

According to activists in the disability movement, the World Health Organization has confused between the terms ‘Disability’ and ‘Impairment’. They maintain that impairment refers to physical or cognitive limitations that an individual may have, such as the inability to walk or speak. In contrast, disability refers to socially imposed restrictions, that is, the system of social constraints that are imposed on those with impairments by the discriminatory practices of society. Thus, the Union of the Physically Impaired Against Segregation defined impairment and disability in the following manner:

An ‘Impairment is lacking part of or all of a limb, or having a defective limb, organ or mechanism of the body’. ‘Disability is the disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by contemporary organizations which take no or little account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from the mainstream of social activities’.

According to the United Nations Standard Rules on the equalization of Opportunities for Persons with disabilities:

The term “Disability” summarizes a great number of different functional limitations occurring in any population, in any country of the world. People may be disabled by physical, intellectual or sensory impairment, medical conditions or mental illness. Such impairments, conditions or illnesses may be permanent or transitory in nature.

The term “Handicap” means the loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in the life of the community on an equal level with others. It describes the encounter between the person with a disability and the environment. The purpose of this term is to emphasize the focus on shortcomings in the environment and in many organized activities in society, for example, information, communication and education, which prevent persons with disabilities from participating on equal terms.

The use of the two terms “Disability” and “Handicap”, as defined in the two paragraphs above, should be seen in the light of modern disability history. During the 1970s, there was a strong reaction among representatives of organizations of persons with disabilities and professionals in the field of disability against the terminology of the time. The terms “Disability” and “Handicap” were often used in an unclear and confusing way, which provided poor guidance for policy–making and political action. The terminology reflected a medical and diagnostic approach, which ignored the imperfections and deficiencies of the surrounding society.

In 1980, the World Health Organization adopted an international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps, which suggested a more precise and at the same time relativistic approach. The International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps makes a clear distinction between “Impairment”, “Disability” and “Handicap”. It has been extensively used in areas such as rehabilitation, education, statistics, policy, legislation, demography, sociology, economics and anthropology. Some users have expressed concern that the Classification, in its definition of the term “Handicap”, may still be considered too medical and too centered on the individual, and may not adequately clarify the interaction between societal conditions or expectations and the abilities of the individual. Those concerns, and others expressed by users during the 12 years since its publication, will be addressed in forthcoming revisions of the Classification.

As a result of experience gained in the implementation of the World Program of Action and of the general discussion that took place during the United Nations Decade of Persons with Disability, there was a deepening of knowledge and extension of understanding concerning issues relating to disability and the terminology used. Current terminology recognizes the necessity to address both individual needs (such as rehabilitation and technical aids) and the shortcomings of society (various obstacles for participation).
 
I found the above kind of helpful.

I cannot see anything without pretty specific lenses. I am legally blind in my left eye; however, tri-focals and all kinds of things get tried. So I am impaired, but not currently disabled nor handicapped by that impairment. But that could change if my glaucoma begins to rob me of my (poor, but correctable) vision.

Kimmio, your particular circumstances might best be described as "impaired", not "disabled" really, but definitely "handicapped". Good definitions for you or not?
 
Are you saying that impoverished people are disabled? They can't fully participate in 'normal' life.
Oh f***. People quit trying to pick bones. Just understand we’ve entered a dangerous time and take sides with us. Don’t be ableist. Disabled people are absolutely among the majority impoverished. Many not diagnosed...like learning impairments, mental health conditions, invisible ones.

The reason we stuck with “disability” is the recognition of being disabled by external factors. The medical establishment just sees us as things that can’t be fixed, irremediable beings. The medical system providing maid is disabling us terminally.
 
Last edited:
I found the above kind of helpful.

I cannot see anything without pretty specific lenses. I am legally blind in my left eye; however, tri-focals and all kinds of things get tried. So I am impaired, but not currently disabled nor handicapped by that impairment. But that could change if my glaucoma begins to rob me of my (poor, but correctable) vision.

Kimmio, your particular circumstances might best be described as "impaired", not "disabled" really, but definitely "handicapped". Good definitions for you or not?
Who the f*** are you to tell me what my circumstances can be described as? Thats ableist! I’m disabled. Its my identity as much as female. Good enough? Now f*** off. I’m gone. I can’t reason with ignorance anymore. I’m sticking with safe people. I’ve had it. The ignorance in 2021 by people who claim to be smart is too astounding. If you want answers, you want to “get it”, listen to the disability justice community. We’re the ones whose lives are at stake. Stop telling me who I am. Stop with the privileged entitlement. You’re as bad as Jordan Peterson.
 
Last edited:
My brother (who experienced a brain aneurysm in his 30's) preferred the word handicapped above all other descriptors. To his way of thinking everyone has a handicap of some sort so he wasn't singled out by the description.

I don't consider myself disabled despite several quite severe health difficulties that definitely interfere with my ability to join in all 'normal' activities.
 
Disabled is a community, it’s an identity, and the moniker implies being disadvantaged by society’s bulls**t ableism. And that’s what we fight against.
 
Last edited:
My brother (who experienced a brain aneurysm in his 30's) preferred the word handicapped above all other descriptors. To his way of thinking everyone has a handicap of some sort so he wasn't singled out by the description.

I don't consider myself disabled despite several quite severe health difficulties that definitely interfere with my ability to join in all 'normal' activities.
You don’t consider yourself disabled because you are conditioned to believe it’s bad to do so. Maybe, look into that and why that is.

im gone. Don’t reply to me, anybody.
 
So, Kimmio, I'm confused.

You are trying to help us understand disability. I post the UN definition of disability, invite us to try out our non-abilities against it, and suddenly, you're out of here (again), and I'm in the doghouse for trying to clarify UN definitions. *sigh*
 
So, Kimmio, I'm confused.

You are trying to help us understand disability. I post the UN definition of disability, invite us to try out our non-abilities against it, and suddenly, you're out of here (again), and I'm in the doghouse for trying to clarify UN definitions. *sigh*
Don’t try to clarify it by making assumptions about me.

Disability is both a community identity and a word that describes people with impairments but makes it clear that external factors disadvantage them more than their impairments.

We used to be called handicapped by society. I’m still the same individual with the same impairment, now more profound in some ways. I now embrace disability as an identity. The disability rights community moved for the change. It also indicates community solidarity against the injustices of poverty and exclusion forced upon us. People can’t just start calling Indigenous people “Indians” because that’s easier for them, and ignore the human history of injustice, as to why they want to be identified as they do.
 
Yes. Because they came up with it. Listen to the disability Justice community. They define disability. It’s like you can’t use an outdated title for non-white people for them...they define it.
What? There are many times those without being labelled officially disabled are more disabled than those with the label. Their voice matters too.
 
What? There are many times those without being labelled officially disabled are more disabled than those with the label. Their voice matters too.
Then be brave enough to take up the label and stand with us, not against us. That means familiarizing yourself with the disability justice community, the same way people did for BLM. You can’t be pro-BLM and remain ignorant about disability Justice. All human rights causes intersect. It’s up to you to learn. I’m of the majority view of the disability community...but it’s not my sole responsibility to teach everyone who doesn’t get it. I can’t waste precious time arguing about it while people are going to be murdered by the medical system to save money. If you don’t feel like learning, I’m sorry you can’t be on our side.
 
Then be brave enough to take up the label and stand with us, not against us. That means familiarizing yourself with the disability justice community, the same way people did for BLM. You can’t be pro-BLM and remain ignorant about disability Justice. All human rights causes intersect. It’s up to you to learn. I’m of the majority view of the disability community...but it’s not my sole responsibility to teach everyone who doesn’t get it. I can’t waste precious time arguing about it while people are going to be murdered by the medical system to save money. If you don’t feel like learning, I’m sorry you can’t be on our side.
Others give the official label it's not an individuals choice unfortunately.
 
Others give the official label it's not an individuals choice unfortunately.
You can identify as a person with a disability regardless and continue to challenge the ableist medical model, and get what you need to live.

I’ve been turned down for things for not being “disabled” enough (and it happens even when ”friends” say “I don’t see you as having a disability...I mean you do, but...”) and that’s just ignorance to my reality perhaps it’s also a fear of using the word because they believe it means not “normal” enough whatever that is - and excluded from other things for being too “disabled” as per the medical model view that too many assume - that is actually ableist to the core, in both instances. The medical model is highly problematic as it doesn’t address lived social realities.

I told people years ago...get with us, or you are against us. Today, that is especially true. The medical establishment has a license to kill people who aren’t dying. It’s now, or you obviously don’t care.
 
Last edited:
You can identify as a person with a disability regardless and continue to challenge the ableist medical model, and get what you need to live.

I’ve been turned down for things for not being “disabled” enough (and it happens even when ”friends” say “I don’t see you as having a disability...I mean you do, but...” and that’s just ignorance to my reality and a fear of using the word because they believe it means not “normal” enough whatever that is - and other things for being too “disabled” as per the medical model view that too many assume - that is actually ableist to the core, in both instances.

I told people years ago...get with us, or you are against us. Today, that is especially true. The medical establishment has a license to kill people who aren’t dying. It’s now, or you obviously don’t care.
I'm very confused as you made it sound earlier like those without an official label don't get to be "with us", don't get to have a say.
 
I'm very confused as you made it sound earlier like those without an official label don't get to be "with us", don't get to have a say.
If you have a disability, you have one, regardless of red tape that might keep you from getting things you need. In fact, you are disabled by the red tape as well, designed to make it nearly impossible to qualify for things like the tax credit. There is some anger towards the affluent disabled people who are not in need of any public support, driving the maid discussion. It’s like they can pick and choose which circumstances they choose to identify as disabled, for their individual desires. When their needs are taken care of they dont want to be one of us. When they want to die, suddenly they consider themselves disabled. The disability rights/ justice community doesn’t respect that very much.
 
Anyone hear the CBC show today. Jeff Preston, and another fellow whose name I don't recollect were interviewed. Quite good. Was about the nuances. (The other fellow has debilitating pain and would like to be able to access MAID. It was good, and talked about the importance of support / funding for individuals to live.
 
Anyone hear the CBC show today. Jeff Preston, and another fellow whose name I don't recollect were interviewed. Quite good. Was about the nuances. (The other fellow has debilitating pain and would like to be able to access MAID. It was good, and talked about the importance of support / funding for individuals to live.
Supporting funding for us to live - as an afterthought - after pushing to give doctors consequence/oversight free license to kill us, is not okay. People like that man never had any intention of making sure we have resources and support. They are not on the side of humanity. With safeguards to protect against the medicalized murder of people based on our human characteristics, who are not at the end of our lives, gone....
There.is.no.nuanced.discussion.anymore
 
Supporting funding for us to live - as an afterthought - after pushing to give doctors consequence/oversight free license to kill us, is not okay. People like that man never had any intention of making sure we have resources and support. They are not on the side of humanity. With safeguards to protect against the medicalized murder of people based on our human characteristics, who are not at the end of our lives, gone....
There.is.no.nuanced.discussion.anymore

Jesus f***ing Murphy. There are people arguing your POV, well, on national radio. People here are cheering it on... not good enough. We're sorry. Again.
 
Back
Top