when there’s not a recognised disability involved but just health issue/s (which could be “disabling”).
From the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in regards to the ADA:
Under the ADA , you have a disability if you have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.
Essentially, if you are disabled, you have a disability, whether recognized or not. If you are not disabled, then you do not have a disability.
Under this definition, something like asthma, which is fairly common, can be a disability when it comes to strenuous activities, but isn’t something that is immediately obvious to someone just passing on the street.
As far as it being ablist to assume that someone not showing signs of disability isn’t disabled? No, that’s silly. Not believing them if they tell you they can’t run a mile because they have asthma? Still no, that’s skepticism.
Ablism would be something like planning a company outing, and choosing the location up a tall, steep hill when other options were available, specifically because you don’t like the fact that your coworker has asthma.
JoBo@feddit.uk 6 months ago
It doesn’t have to be deliberately malicious to be ableism. It’s often just thoughtlessness.
The social model of disability distinguishes between ‘impairment’, which is some functional limitation, and ‘disability’ which is created by barriers to people with an impairment. Most of those barriers exist because their designers just didn’t think about it and/or were not required to. The building with steps and no ramps, the information provided by written sign only, the flashing lights which can trigger seizures. They’re not (usually) a product of irrational hate, just ignorance and carelessness, and in some cases a conscious refusal to cater for a minority need because of costs or aesthetics.
The effect on disabled people is much the same, whether it was deliberate or careless, of course.