Disabilities and Differences

[Deleted]

So, the recent thread on custom-made children got me wondering.

Is it right to deem certain non-physical things--e.g. autism, bipolar, ADHD--disabilities? Are they simply differences rather than disabilities, which would cease to be disabling if society were more tolerant? To what degree should people (say, employers) be tolerant?

[Deleted]

It's wrong.

[Dju]

I have attention deficit, and yes, I think it should be considered a disability in a certain level, because it has shown me that sometimes I can't do things like others do in math, physics, chemistry or even on simple tests because I often mark the wrong alternative even when I know the right answer. It can be really hard but it should be taken in consideration since it is there.

I met a bipolar girl once, it was really hard dealing with her. Sometimes she was happy and everything was fine and out of the sudden she twisted things magically turning all the world against her with no reason at all. It was definitely a disability, she accused one of my friends of bullying her so much this friend became depressed and now has to visit a psychologist to talk about it.

She was incredibly stubborn and hard to deal with, I told her many times but some things just can't get inside her head. If I tell her a square has X sides, she will still think it's Z.


EDIT:

And, I was thinking some days ago...will I have problems finding a job because of my condition? Maybe, maybe won't.

But the thing is, we can't pretend it isn't there. I will be forgetful. I will forget to add a tail in a pony. I will forget to paint a character's boots. But I'll just deal with it and be careful, but still...we can;t deny and say everybody is "the same", there are disabilities and the first step to deal with them is accepting them as disabilities.

[Gelquie]

Well, part of it depends on the disability. For the ones you listed, I think they are--to a degree--disabling.

For the autism part, I can tell you first-hand that I've had a lot of degrees of trouble with it, such as not picking up on social cues. (I've thought about it and the more I think about it, the more I think it's a brain thing, due to different sizes of places within the brain and possibly a neuron mis-firing issue.) There's also the whole "lack-of-filtering" issue, where I can't help but overreact if sounds begin to get truly annoying but don't affect anyone else. For the other stuff that you mentioned, it's kind of like the same thing, from what I've heard. Different story, maybe, but there are disabling aspects.

That said, to define everything about autism/ADD/what-have-you as disabling ignores what are just differences among those groups. With those things, it's hard to not see the world in a different light. And the different perspectives are very invaluable in any situation. Part of this could be due to the experience of living with the problems and being labeled as "disabled", I won't deny that. But even without the labeling, the person sees the world through different eyes, thanks to the different structure and mechanics of the brain. The stuff that they lack in can be made up in different areas of the brain that are strengthened by the "disability". And without the variety, stuff that should be noticed has a chance of not being noticed.

So I guess while they can be defined as disabilities, I don't think the different way of thinking should be tossed off just because it's packaged in with the other disabling aspects. It's a way of thinking that differs from the norm, which I think should be embraced. So yes, tolerance (or a better word: acceptance) would improve their lives that can help others, despite the disabling aspects.


And I'm glad you brought up deafness. That's a pretty clear-cut example (that I experienced during my sign language classes) of someone who's disabled, but should have their differences embraced. Their disability is simple; they can't hear. Is deafness a disability? Yes. They can't hear, they have to live in a hearing world and they're forced to do other things to make up for the fact that they can't hear. But there's the fact that their other senses pretty much pick up the slack. Most importantly though, they can do pretty much anything a hearing person can that doesn't involve hearing. There's a whole Deaf culture created that follows this train of thought. It's pretty much a physical disability, but it's an interesting example of something that can be embraced as both a disability and a difference.


One opposing issue that keeps coming up for tolerance, however, is how well these people are accommodated for, and how much work the employers have to put in for the sake of those few. Yes, employers should be tolerant. (Or better word: accepting.) It can still be quite a thing for them to deal with, especially if they're not as familiar with that sort of thing. They have to provide all sorts of accommodations, which can be pretty hard for them to balance. Balancing the "disabled" with the company needs/rules can be an extremely complicated thing, which can wear them down. So on how tolerant they should be... Well, obviously, yes they should be. But when you take every one of those complications into account... It's hard to tell. It's just some things I've observed in my life.


So I guess I'm on the fence on this sort of thing, if we want to go with simple terms. I guess I neither think of it as completely one thing or another; in this case, "disability" or "difference".

[Komori]

:/ Semantics, semantics. It's called a disability because you're lacking an ability. Deaf people lack the ability to hear. Blind people lack the ability to see. It's not saying anything about their capabilities, it's just a term. Why does it need to be changed?

Are you saying disabled people shouldn't be treated with any special care? The front seats of buses are saved for the elderly and the disabled; it says so right above the seats. If the disabled aren't disabled, then they don't need those special seats; that blind guy can find his own seat.

And employers aren't allowed to discriminate based on disabilities, as long as those disabilities don't hamper the employee's ability to do the required task. Like, a deaf person could be allowed to work at the animation studio I work at; we communicate a lot through IM, plus it's all visual. A blind person could not work here. XDDD It's also against the law to assign work to a disabled employed that's beyond their capabilities; it's considered harassment. So... that's sort of already covered. XD

[Ian Wolf-Park]

I think that they should be considered as disability even though they are not visible, they are still affecting the person in some way. Take me for example. When I was younger, I used to have a speech impediment (had a hard time pronouncing a few words such as the and that, just to name a few). Had I not gone to a speech therapist to work those kinks out, I definitely would not be where I am today.

[Deleted]

Oct 23, 2011 20:10:37 GMT -5 Komori said:

:/ Semantics, semantics. It's called a disability because you're lacking an ability. Deaf people lack the ability to hear. Blind people lack the ability to see. It's not saying anything about their capabilities, it's just a term. Why does it need to be changed?

Are you saying disabled people shouldn't be treated with any special care? The front seats of buses are saved for the elderly and the disabled; it says so right above the seats. If the disabled aren't disabled, then they don't need those special seats; that blind guy can find his own seat.

And employers aren't allowed to discriminate based on disabilities, as long as those disabilities don't hamper the employee's ability to do the required task. Like, a deaf person could be allowed to work at the animation studio I work at; we communicate a lot through IM, plus it's all visual. A blind person could not work here. XDDD It's also against the law to assign work to a disabled employed that's beyond their capabilities; it's considered harassment. So... that's sort of already covered. XD

That's not quite the kind I'm thinking of. Sorry for being vague. ^_^; I'm thinking mostly of less visible stuff like developmental, anxiety, and personality disorders.

This stuff isn't necessarily what I believe; if anything, I'm on the fence about it. I'm just taking what I see and asking how people feel about it.

[Deleted]

Oct 23, 2011 20:10:37 GMT -5 Komori said:

:/ Semantics, semantics. It's called a disability because you're lacking an ability. Deaf people lack the ability to hear. Blind people lack the ability to see. It's not saying anything about their capabilities, it's just a term. Why does it need to be changed?

I find this offensive. I have Asperger's, and I don't lack an ability to do anything. I can see well, hear well, empathize with other people, sing, love, dance around, write, develop romantic feelings, make friends, and have fun. I don't have a disability. I happen to have a different kind of personality. I am not sick.

Bear in mind that there are people here who are living with this stuff.

[Avery]

Oct 23, 2011 20:27:56 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

Oct 23, 2011 20:10:37 GMT -5 Komori said:

:/ Semantics, semantics. It's called a disability because you're lacking an ability. Deaf people lack the ability to hear. Blind people lack the ability to see. It's not saying anything about their capabilities, it's just a term. Why does it need to be changed?

I find this offensive. I have Asperger's, and I don't lack an ability to do anything. I can see well, hear well, empathize with other people, sing, love, dance around, write, develop romantic feelings, make friends, and have fun. I don't have a disability. I happen to have a different kind of personality. I am not sick.

Bear in mind that there are people here who are living with this stuff.

I don't believe Komori meant to be offensive or marginalizing. But the fact is-- whether or not you feel disabled or it's just a part of your personality-- Aspergers is a deviation from the "norm", so to speak. Calling it a disorder and a disability does not mean it's bad. It does not mean someone who has it is "sick". But it is more than just a personality trait. It's deeper rooted than that.

I do think it's more than just semantics, but at the same time, I think it's a little overreaching not to expect for things like Aspergers (or ADHD, or bipolar, or whatever it may be) to not be called anything--whether it's called a plain disability or not-- and hardly discussed because it may be offensive. It's taking politically correct to a whole different level. I also think it's a matter of personal perception, because no one here has said disability in a negative light. Nor are they saying people who have a disability are sick and need to change. The word itself is not harmful, I don't think, as long as it's being used correctly and without malice.

[Gelquie]

Oct 23, 2011 20:27:56 GMT -5 @saeryena said:

Oct 23, 2011 20:10:37 GMT -5 Komori said:

:/ Semantics, semantics. It's called a disability because you're lacking an ability. Deaf people lack the ability to hear. Blind people lack the ability to see. It's not saying anything about their capabilities, it's just a term. Why does it need to be changed?

I find this offensive. I have Asperger's, and I don't lack an ability to do anything. I can see well, hear well, empathize with other people, sing, love, dance around, write, develop romantic feelings, make friends, and have fun. I don't have a disability. I happen to have a different kind of personality. I am not sick.

Bear in mind that there are people here who are living with this stuff.

I don't think Komori wasn't trying to be offensive. Her stance seems to be more on the definitions. She wasn't attacking anything.

I'm one of those people, but I can still kind of see how it can be called something. (As I was saying in my above post.) It's not a thing about being sick, but people with Aspergers still have trouble with communication, interpretation, and whatnot. No disease, but it's still something.

...I kind of stole some of Carrie's points, didn't I? ^^;

[Komori]

Wait, now I'm confused. Is this a thread about how disabilities should no longer be called "disabilities," or is this a discussion about what is or is not a disability?


Nat, maybe if this thread was about non-physical conditions, you might want to take out "deafness" from your list in your original post. ^^;

[Joker]

Definitely makes more sense if you're talking about the "invisible" disabilities like autism, because I don't think there's much denying that (for instance) deaf people lack the ability to hear and may need certain accommodations. xD

[Nimras]

I used to have a coworker who had an extreme case of Asperger's, along with OCD and ADD. And I would have to call what she had a "disorder" simply because she could not be treated like any other coworker. She needed tons of special care (couldn't work in the back grooming area because the amount of hair would give her a nervous breakdown, couldn't be left with difficult customers because she couldn't interact with people who were angry because she'd take it personally and blow up at them, couldn't face the canned foods because there had to be an even number of cans in a box or else her OCD would start wigging out on her, ect). It was exhausting to deal with her. It created tons of extra work for every other employee. If everyone hadn't known that she had a disorder and couldn't help it, everyone would have hated her guts. (And thought that she was a very mean person, she had the habit of assuming the worse about perfectly innocuous misunderstandings and then blow up in a huge drama fest).

If someone is incapable of doing a job that is something that most people can do, incapable enough that it requires special compensation by the other coworkers -- than it is a disability. I don't care if it's being deaf, attention deficit, or having a phobia of the color purple. If they are unable to be treated like the other people, than they are disabled. And there's nothing wrong with being disabled, it doesn't make them any less of a person. But it does mean that special compensation has to be made for them; and to say that they're not requiring special compensation when they are is ignoring the efforts of others on their behalf, and that can make people really bitter and cause a lot of hurt feelings and is unfair.

She quickly realized that she really wasn't cut out for the kind of job where one is having to deal day-in-day-out with people, odd numbers of cans, and dirt, and found another job where she filed paperwork in a nice clean office safely tucked in the back away from clients. She was much happier there.

[Stephanie (swordlilly)]

I think I see where you're going with this, Nat.

Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness. Now people who are gay are encouraged to accept and embrace the fact that they are gay. There's a number of things going on here:

1) The condition (by which I mean simply "a particular mode of being," or "existing state") of the person is considered to be unchangeable.
2) The person may be unable to function in certain "normal" ways - in this case, as husbands to women or as wives to men - but is still able to contribute to society in other ways.
3) Therefore, people with said condition should simply be accepted the way that they are.

Should Asperger's, autism, etc. be embraced in the same way? You know, I'm not so sure. Hearing politically correct terms like "differently abled" always makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

Mainly the problem is with 1). A lot of people with disabilities are able to change their condition, no matter how slightly. They can take speech therapy, to use Wolf's example, and these interventions do have positive effects on people's lives. If disability were viewed as something unchangeable and worthy of respect and preservation in and of itself, then there wouldn't be as much support for such interventions.

At the same time, there's always going to be something "different" about people with disabilities, like GLQ said, and the difference goes deep down into brain structure. And these differences could enable them to think in unique and potentially valuable ways.

So yeah... I'm kind of in the middle on this one. If my child turned out to be autistic, for instance, I would definitely enroll her in speech therapy and behavioral therapy, but at the same time I wouldn't expect her to just become like any ordinary kid.

[Deleted]

Komori's got the ticket - a disability is the lack of a certain ability or abilities. For people with Asperger's it's communication, social skills and lack of perception of the self with regard to the surrounding world. For other disabilities there are plenty of other things. I don't feel as though my sight impedes too much on my life, but it is what it is - a disability, and I do need special care to a certain degree, though it's pretty mild compared to some.

Anything that deviates from what is considered "normal" for a human is termed as a disability. If you lost a toe but it didn't effect any part of your life, it's still technically a disability because you lack something which most other humans have. As ridiculous as that sounds. xD

So yes, it's right to deem all of these things disabilities. It's a word to describe a category and has no implications for either positive or negative outcomes. If people are finding the term disability offensive, that's political correctness gone mad. :/