This is an accessibility issue. And a great example of why “well obviously we should make exceptions for disabled people” DOESNT actually work.

(Thread) https://twitter.com/axcomrade/status/1386160577559482369

Healthcare in this country is broken, and the system is inextricable from issues like racism & misogyny.

Why does that matter here?

Because the ability to get correctly diagnosed with a disability through official channels takes multiple intersecting layers of privilege.

For many people, the barriers are simply too high. Diagnosis is held too far out of their reach.

So every time we take a certain form of accessibility and say, “well obviously we’d make an exception for disabled people?” We inevitably exclude the MOST marginalized, because we’ve already narrowed it down to those with enough privilege to have a diagnosis.

Second, it’s gatekeeping of the worst kind. It sets up abled people as the arbiters of who does/doesn’t “need” accommodations, and forces disabled people to disclose private medical information to “prove” themselves - and it often demands something called performative disability

Performative disability essentially means we are asked to “perform” disability in a way that looks how the viewer stereotypically expects/understands, in order to be validated as “legitimately” disabled.

It’s why even if I’m having an excellent mobility day, I know I need to bring my cane with me anyways to certain places. Because without my cane, especially when I’m not having visible tremors/spasms, I’m regularly denied accommodations for not appearing “disabled enough.”

When we make accessibility the standard, instead of saying it’s “available for those who need it,” we effectively eliminate both of these issues. Even the undiagnosed get equal access, and no one is required to disclose or “perform” anything they don’t want to.

This could look like having seating available for ALL cashiers, no questions asked.

But there are plenty of other examples.

Instead of saying “you can ask a barista for a plastic straw if you have a disability that requires one,” you can put the straws out normally and put up signs asking people to reduce plastic waste by reserving the straws for those who need them.

It can look like workplaces adopting freer PTO policies where you aren’t asked to differentiate between sick leave, family leave, personal leave, etc. Where you can take time whenever you need it, without having to prove the right sort of justification or disclose private info.

It can look like colleges eliminating restrictive one-size-fits all attendance policies (ie: if you miss 3 classes you are automatically dropped, regardless of your grades,) and allowing more freedom in classroom behaviors WITHOUT requiring you “prove” your disability to get it.

It could mean building accessible features like flip-down shower seats into ALL your hotel’s rooms, instead of just the minimum required, so that accommodation is there even for those who aren’t able to articulate why they need it or don’t feel “entitled” to take up an ADA room.

And as an added bonus, making accessibility the standard instead of “as needed” means less othering of disabled people. When accommodations aren’t dependent on diagnosis, using them doesn’t “out” you to everyone without your consent, or noticeably differentiate you from others.

So remember, accessibility on an “as needed” basis is inherently inaccessible, esp. to those who already experience the MOST marginalization & exclusion in our society. Making accessibility the standard for *everyone,* regardless of if they “need” it, corrects the most barriers.