Journal of Other Forum Analysis

[benji]

I wondered why this thread was still going and so long, turns out it's one of those hard discussions regarding intersectionality:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/alanah-pearce-tries-to-explain-that-having-kids-counts-as-a-situational-disability-in-terms-of-accessibility-in-games-internet-reacts-accordingly.920814/post-125590854

Disability is an umbrella term which includes different degrees of impairments of body function or structure, activity limitations or participation restrictions
Dictionaries also give a definition of disability as "a disqualification, restriction, or disadvantage ie: economic disabilities"

dare I suggest, that many people are just getting their feathers ruffled at the very notion of them or having children being considered "disabled", because their only understanding of the concept of disability is, exactly as Alanah says, what we generally consider to include disability in terms of body function etc...

There's plenty of technical terms which can be much broader in a specialized context like accessibility (or that are incredibly broad and on a spectrum regardless)

Pointing at a dictionary definitions is usually a very thoughtless tactic. The pure technical nature of a word doesn't always cover everything the word means to people. And in certain contexts it can take on negative effect, which is what is happening here.

We understand the technical nature of the term, thank you, you condescending and pointing out the obvious wasn' t necessary.

The issue is that despite understanding this, the term still evokes a sense of dismissal in many people with disabilities, and that could easily be avoided. And as society already has massive issues with dismissing disabilities, adding to that unnecessarily is something we should avoid. We should also take more care with certain words even if they have other technical uses when they also have a direct effect on a minority group. The technical use of Slave and Master, for example, is something people that some companies are phasing out due to its obvious connotation.

The term doesn't need to exist the exact way it does. Asking for a slight change to language to avoid the above is not unreasonable.

It's a goofy controversy. There are words that are just definitionally true and broad enough to include things that aren't colloquially used, yet make perfect sense to utilize in a professional context where everyone can be on board with what it means. Situational Disability as it's used is just...an accurate usage of those words. I just don't see how someone can have a rational problem with it.

Except it really isn't an accurate usage of those words.

People do not claim to have a disability due to having to be in a loud environment, having sun glare on their mobile screen, or having to look after their children. No abled bodied person would say to the question "do you have any disabilities?" with "situationally", they would say no. Even if you added the word situational to the question they would follow up asking what you meant by the term, or say no.

There are tons of all encompassing words that the general public would use to describe these situations: inconveniences, disruptions, blockers, hassles, problems, etc, etc. These words all make more sense too in a professional context to.

There are many definitions in both dictionaries and legal documents about what having a disability means - and situational disability is in its wording trying to describe people as having a disability. The definitions aren't the same - but many of them will include terminology around the impact on day to day life, and it being 'long-term'.

At least other ones like "master/slave" and "mother/daughter" in tech, while being rational, co-opt paradigms that can be swapped out wholesale for something more comfortable (even if I personally think those are inoffensive as used).

Why doesn't this exact same argument not apply to Situational Disability? It can also be swapped out wholesale for a better term.

----

I've also seen people argue the case for using "Situational Disability" on the grounds of it being an industry/professional term.
1) I really don't see how that excuses poorly thoughtout terminology
2) Please don't assume ignorance on those arguing against the term for this reason. I work with UI/UX designers everyday and used to be one myself. I fully understand the thinking behind the term and how it came to be. And it's my opinion that while the idea is good, the term and its adoption is not.

how is this still on the front page lol

There are valid discussions going on surrounding various topics here.

For the industry, we're talking about terms used to define barriers to people enjoying the software. In the world as a whole, "situational disability" is an actual thing that's used to describe an environmental issue causing problems with being able to engage in whatever activity (in the case of the link, the workplace), which is wholly different from "occupational disability", which is what most people think of when they think of disability.

I really don't think redefining a standard lexicon due to a layperson having a bit of momentary offense is a valuable thing. This whole discussion will blow over in a week and the people in the industry will go back to using it and everyone else will forget it.

The industry used Master and Slave to describe IDE drive relationships. Something that is unthinkable now. Just because some committee decided upon a term doesn't mean it cannot be criticised or changed.

I do not see this as remotely the same thing. Master and Slave has huge connotation issues, and wasn't just used in professional settings: Commercially available hardware for regular people was using the same terminology.

Also, as someone who does a lot of physical therapy, doctor visits, and exercising due to my own disability due to injury, you equating that word that describes me to the slave/master dynamic is far, far more insulting that someone using the word "disability" to describe someone not having the ability to do something.

The term "disabled" is not a slur.

I don't understand this mindset. First, there's no need to condescend with the "layperson" approach. People are fully capable of understanding the technical applications if they're not in a specific industry, and they very well could have dealt with similar technical terms in their own indsutries that had similar issues. There could be peole with disabilities in the gaming industry who have ha to use this term who dislike the effect it has, too.

Second, why are you clinging so hard to keeping the term? It could very easily exist with a slight tweak and have the same technical application, effect, etc... while avoiding this issue. It is not an unreasonable ask in the slightest.

It doesn't matter if it's not a slur. It is a word that refers to a group that is routinely dismissed by society, and the term evokes a sense of dismisal. It could very easily be tweaked to avoid that.

It's fair that you don't find it a problem as someone with a disability, but why can't you think of those who it does effect here? Like, you don't need to therm to exist the way it does, it won't cause you any harm to make it a little better.

I'm with you, it appears to me some folks are really tethering disability to personal identity. While I get that perspective, it has always been a utilitarian word as well that falls in line with how it is being deployed in this instance.

I don't understand this mindset. First, there's no need to condescend with the "layperson" approach. People are fully capable of understanding the technical applications if they're not in a specific industry, and they very ell could have dealt with similar technical terms in their own indsutries that had similar issues.

I disagree. See: Laypeople trying to understand the academic definition of racism. Vaccinations and "do your own research." "It's simple biology."

I spent 2 days arguing with people who claimed comprehensive software testing was possible. It is not possible.

Second, why are you clinging so har to keeping the term? It could very easily exist with a slight tweak and have the same technical application, effect, etc... while avoiding this issue. It is not an unreasonable ask in the slightest.

Why are you charging so hard to get rid of it? Is the word "disabled" a slur to you and you think it should be gotten rid of? Do you honestly think disabled people like me get offended by it and you need to white knight me?

I'm with you, it appears to me some folks are really tethering disability to personal identity. While I get that perspective, it has always been a utilitarian word as well that falls in line with how it is being deployed in this instance.

It's frustrating because they're treating the usage of the world like it's a horrible, horrible thing that nobody should ever be called. It legitimately feels insulting as shit to hear this.

I'm getting shades of people who would rather subject their kid to polio than risk them becoming autistic due to their cult pseudoscience.

Just because you ran into some people who didn't udnerstand something, doesn't mean your approach isn't incredibly condescending to the vast amount of people who are abale to comprehend the technical term despite not working in the industry. It's completely unecessary.

Why are you charging so hard to get rid of it? Is the word "disabled" a slur to you and you think it should be gotten rid of? Do you honestly think disabled people like me get offended by it and you need to white knight me?

If you're not going to do me the simple courtesy of reading my posts when I have already explained the issue clearly, I don't know how we can continue this. I have already responded to the above.

You could do with reading the thread before you chime in too, as you'll have seen I am someone with a lifelong, chronic disability. It is fine if this term doesn't affect you, many of us dislike it as it evokes the same sense of dismissal we experience very often and it could easily be adapated to avoid that.

It's frustrating because they're treating the usage of the world like it's a horrible, horrible thing that nobody should ever be called. It legitimately feels insulting as shit to hear this.

I'm getting shades of people who would rather subject their kid to polio than risk them becoming autistic due to their cult pseudoscience.

No one is doing this at all and that last part is especially bad faith. Stop putting words into people's mouths please.

I am going to read what you wrote to me, I shouldn't have to go back and re-read everything.

Second, you're treating the word like a slur and an insult and/or a dismissal of your own disability because someone else doesn't have it as bad, instead of a simple description. You're correct, this is an irrecocilable difference and I will never be able to understand it.

No, you should absolutely read the thread before you chime in to an issue like this. It is the bare miunimum to inform yourself before you do.

I'm not treating the word like a slur at all, and I find it ironic you are speaking down to people the way you are when you're not even properly reading people's posts to comrehend their points.

I'm not going to read every single persons posts in the the 22 page thread, specifically detailing each persons viewpoint. You've spent more time telling me why I should do that instead of just outlining it to begin with. Sorry.

And instead of a slur, maybe you're treating the word like it somehow diminishes your own disability because someone with a kid also gets classified as having a sort of disability by a single industry in a limited use case, even if they are nearly impossible to confuse? I dunno. I seriously don't understand it.

Honestly I feel like normalizing the word to mean exactly what it means is a far more valuable thing.

You're talking to someone with a set of hidden disabilities and I have the right to have a problem with the term, thank you very much.

If you did take the time to read the thread, you'd see all the points you;'ve raised have already been addressed.

The simple fact is this term evokes a sense of dismissal in many people with disabilities, people who deal with dismissal of their disabilities often in life.

This could be avoided by adapting the term slightly.

I have gone into far more depth on this earlier in the thread, and I don't feel like repeating myself. If you care to, you can take a look.

What exactly is the problem with it?

Do you feel like it diminishes you in some way? Genuinely curious here.

Read the thread and you can find that out. Quite a lot of people have already explained this.

I have also explained my problem, very clearly, multiple times in response to you.

I've already explained my position on this multiple times in this thread.

The term "disabled" is not a slur.

Literally no one, least of all the disabled posters in this thread, are claiming "disabled" is a slur. The point is that the word disability is being, or has been, misappropriated to encompass things that are not a disability. That word has a specific meaning for a social minority group. It wouldn't be OK to appropriate an ethnic or religious or LGBT+ term in this way either.

 

The idea it's some kind of culture that can be appropriated and not a descriptor of a persons capability is where I think I can no longer follow.

Ah the abled have arrived to tell us how to think and how we should allow reclassification of disabled to mean people with accents, bartenders and parents... because if you watch Alanah's video that's what the infographic shows. I didn't realise being from any country in the world is a disability.

Disability is not a slur, no-one but you has said otherwise. As others have said you've waded in and immediately started attacking disabled peoples and their views without taking the time to read any of the thread.... Because frankly your dismissive attitude is insulting and infantalising us, just like we get from every body else.

If you can't say anything constructive, then shut the fuck up read the thread and learn about all the different ways disabled people are telling you that you are fucking wrong. And if you can't do that stay fucking quiet and stop trying to push your bullshit on us.

edit: I'm glad I took my anti-psychotics today or I'd say something really bad.

I mean... misappropriated is a push. It's always meant several things. It didn't even used to mean "disabled" as it does now, that was a different word.

If it should be redefined to mean just one thing, well, okay, probably won't work as you might expect, because people are people, but okay. I'm not a native English speaker though, so, not exactly someone that matters for this...

I didn't say culture. For me, the word disability is an identifier for the disabled community and me as a disabled person. It serves to highlight us as a social minority group, which is important because without a clear identifier that we own (in the same way as other social minority groups), it becomes much harder to be seen, let alone to get the adaptations and support we need from a society that, historically and even now, has marginalised us.

If the word "disability" is broadened out to encompass broader situations like "having children around" or whatever, and diluted in that way, then that - in my view - makes it even harder for disabled people to be seen and heard.

Ah the abled have arrived to tell us how to think and how we should allow reclassification of disabled to mean people with accents, bartenders and parents... because if you watch Alanah's video that's what the infographic shows. I didn't realise being from any country in the world is a disability.

I am also considered disabled.

You are, but you've also waded into this discussion without giving other people with disabilities the courtesy of reading the thread to inform yourself of the discussion, asked questiosn that have been answered numerous times, talked down to everyone in a condscending tone, asked for explanations then ignored them when given, and made some incredibly bad faith comparisons.

I am also considered disabled.

Then I apologise for calling you able-bodied. But you are coming across as "situationally able-bodied", maybe it's only on this thread you aren't disabled.

The separation between society at large and the industry (let's go with software industry, since they consider distractions from use of their product to fall under the situatinal disability umbrella) in question is pretty big. I think society can do better to abide by disabled folk, but also there are a lot of good people out there who do: I can tell you do I personally work with public-facing kiosks and ADA compliance is HUGE. However, I can't assume you're from the US so maybe your experience differs.

I'm also coming from the position where people hear the "disabled" word and get uncomfortable, quiet, or start doing the pity stuff or treating you differently and I'm not a fan of it. I don't pretend to know the answers to solving this completely, but I don't think engineer talk from Microsoft would seriously impact it at all.

It's a term that evokes a sense of dismissal in a world where those with disabilities are dismissed on a daily basis. They can live within systems that treeat them like garbage, they can be at the whims of benefit systems that dismiss their disaiblity to the point they live in poverty instead of getting the support they need, and this is the tip of iceberg here.

Like, you're correct in that this isn't one of the worst issues here, but it is a simple thing that can add to the above by making someone with a disability feel dismissed, again, on top of everything else. The more things that exist that dismiss those with disaiblities, the worse many of those people feel, and these things, even at their smallest, feed into everything on a micro level.

Considering this, it is not an unreasonable ask to update a term that doesn't need to exist in the exact form it does to avoid this.

No-one is lauding being disabled over others, we're saying that tech and corps should leave our word alone and not try and muddy the water... like Hallucinations meaning errors in AI. It dilutes the term and makes it harder for disabled people to get the help we need.

In the UK we are fighting for every scrap of care we can get, especially as councils are trying to move disabled people into group homes (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-68231455) and though it was defeated this time, they haven't given up. During the covid pandemic disabled people were routinely put on DNR against their wishes... because we were seen as a burden. And now the UK is trying to introduce assisted suicide, guess who the target of that is (elderly and disabled)

So "Situational disability" covering accents and being a parent is a massive watering down designed to make regressive anti-disabled policies seem okay as it's the "higher needs disabled people" not situationally disabled.

Which means we fight every watering down of our precious and hard fought protections, because if we don't we know what awaits, indignity and premature death.

Is calling something a situational disability actively hurting anyone who is disabled? Disabilities already cover an extremely wide range of scenarios. Someone who wears glasses is disabled. In many cases, having a child is more of a burden than wearing glasses.

This whole thread has not been very inclusive or understanding at all. And I say this as someone with a visual disability who does visual training on a regular basis. Including kids in a description for situation disabilities DOES NOT hurt me.

Why are you coming into a thread asking this when it has been explained how it does numerous times on the last two pages alone?

Thank you. 💙 Over here autistic people like me have literally been abandoned, locked up in institutional units and treated appallingly. Not just decades ago, here and now in 2024. And that's just autism, let alone everything else. All while our glorious outgoing Tory government demonises disabled people and turns society against us. Appreciate your kind words and support. We stand together!

Yeah all of the UK posters here have made it clear shit over there is absolutely unacceptable, and I think there's a cultural gap there fueling it more than anything else.

Apologies, I hadn't realized how bad it was for you guys over there.

Thanks, I'm sorry for losing my rag (getting mad) but we're always in survival mode over here, and getting help is difficult enough that anything that is outside a very narrowly defined and arduous process is an automatic rejection and fight for help.

Is calling something a situational disability actively hurting anyone who is disabled? Disabilities already cover an extremely wide range of scenarios. Someone who wears glasses is disabled. In many cases, having a child is more of a burden than wearing glasses.

This whole thread has not been very inclusive or understanding at all. And I say this as someone with a visual disability who does visual training on a regular basis. Including kids in a description for situation disabilities DOES NOT hurt me.

I really agree and honestly it's kinda much more offensive to me how people in this thread who are also disabled continuously talking about what disabled status as if you have to be suffering so much to qualify than the term situational disability , and it's so shitty. It's going into gatekeeping territory that honestly destroyed my mental health the most when I got diagnosed and felt guilty about having to use accommodations.

And before anyone says anything, yes I have read the entire thread

It is not gatekeeping in the slightest and that is a needlesslly inlammatory and bad faith read of what people are saying. If you have read the thread, you didn't read it well if this was your conclusion.

No one has talked about suffering.

At this point I feel we need to start our posts with country of residence, because the UK side is fighting for our survival while US seems to be more progressive (and therefore more accepting of watering down to "situational disability").

I am from the UK but thanks for the assumption

It is not gatekeeping in the slightest and that is a needlesslly inlammatory and bad faith read of what people are saying. If you have read the thread, you didn't read it well if this was your conclusion.

As another person in the thread with just as much say, I for one did not find it inflammatory.

But what do I know, I'm just one person among many in the thread.

Oh for sure, I'm glad they're gone. But during the election no party had any disabled policies other than "getting disabled people into work". We even had a hustings (local debate) where candidates just made things up (https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...bility-policies-days-before-general-election/) and Labour couldn't even be bothered to send their candidate so we know where we stand... out in the rain looking in.

I'm trans and disabled so get the double punch from Labour trying to strip rights on one front and not even considering me worthy of inclusion on the other, I'm not sure which is worse.

I am from the UK but thanks for the assumption

I'm sorry for what you've been through, I undersrand very well how difficult this can all be. People are not gatekeep anything here though, the people pushing back against the term are not calling for it to be narrower in its view of legitimate disabilities. If anything, we very much need to recognise more conditions here and expand support not narrow it.

The issue is that the term is applied to things that feel dismissive to a lot of people, and it could very easily be adapted slightly to avoid that.

Thanks so much for this. I fully agree, that's how I feel about this thread too.

Great post.

You keep dropping in and propping up posts that are not even accurate, or outright dismissing many people, while ignoring all the people with disabilities explaining clearly why they have issue. Not every person with a disability will agree on this which is fair, but we should listen to those who are upset here and not just prop up each other to dismiss the arguments like this.

People have explained why it's harming them and the greater conversation surrounding disabilities. You might not agree, but now you and that other person (top quote in your post) are outright dismissing them which is not okay.

No one is gatekeeping here, and you adding to that is not helping. No one is asking for the term disability to be narrowed, if anything I would imagine everyone here is in favour of it being expanded as currently visability of many disabilities is low or even non-existant.

Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean the posts are inaccurate. Looks like I just happen to think differently than you on this particular subject. Also, in this post I replied to two people with disabilities to support them, and I'm... ignoring people with disabilities? What?

Frankly, you sound like you really think your opinion is the only one worth having. What even is this reply?

It is absolutely inaccurate that people are gatekeeping. They are not. If you can find any specific posts that are, point them out.

And the post you quoted, here:

"Is calling something a situational disability actively hurting anyone who is disabled?"

This has been explained many times. There are a few very articulate posts on the last few pages from other people that explain the impact of terms like this. These things do not exist in vacuum. Disabilities are dismissed all the time in society, and anything that feeds into that even on a micro level should be avoided. This is not an unreasonable thing.

Well, even if it has been "explained" (explained? What? Again, this sounds like you think your opinion is the only one worth having), I happen to disagree.

And for the reasons these recent posts expressed very well:

And there are a lot more posts in this thread echoing this sentiment. And many made by people with disabilities. I feel the need to mention it before you're tempted to accuse me of ignoring people with disabilities again.

Okay, and it's my opinion that the posts you quoted are incredibly dismissive and your supoport of them is only adding to it.

Saying "the more the merrier" might sound positive, but what does that mean here exactly? What is the precise thing about the term that people are upset with?

Currently, the term is used to apply "situational disability" to people who have no disability at all, like a child distracting them somehow. It's not a good thing to include people in those situations as having a disability. If you asked anyone outside of this conversation if having a child disrupting your activity should be considered one, the vast majority would say of course not.

And as we live in a society that routinely dismisses people with disabilities, the micro effect of a term like this can have impact.

You seem completely unwilling to even consider this, which is what I'm finding dissmissive. If your only response to the above is "well, my opinion is different", I don't really know what else to say.

Ultimately, all the people who have disaiblities who don't mind the term would not be negatively impacted by a slight change. This is key here.

The responses some have given here like "maybe someone would be offended by the new term" are nonsensical, too. Anyone could be offended by anything, we don't stop striving to be better because of that, this is a journey and we learn as we go. This is just a small step we could take to prevent a large amount of people with disabilities feeling dismissed again on top of all the other ways society does that. It is a very tiny, reasonable ask, and I don't understand people standing in the way of it.

Then stop ignoring the people with disabilities that are disagreeing with you, it's belittling.

Everything has settled down and you want to stir shit by antagonising people that object to the term "situational disability" and it meaning things like accent, bartending and having kids... you seem to conveniently be missing that out each and every time. Do you believe that having an accent is a disability? Everyone has an accent afterall.

As I said a few pages back "
So I went and watched the explanation video and yeah it's about corporatised language being used to say that "disability" includes things like having an accent, and working as a bartender. She also says that using the term disabled is common in the tech space for when something isn't working... "which is fine" apparently.
Again, Alanah is using corporate speak to explain something, and it is that corpo double speak that I take issue with. They are taking a defined term and trying to expand it to something that doesn't need it, that will water down the term until it becomes meaningless."

So yeah leave our word alone and go find another one...

"Situational load" is a better term, as it implies that it is something that can be changed by altering the situation.

What a weirdly antagonizing post.

My posts in this thread were to highlight posts from other people I thought made sense from my own experience, both professional and personal. People who made posts expressing things better than I could ever do myself. I didn't want to "stir shit" or even "antagonizing people"... And with this recent one in particular, I wanted to support both Kongroo and rras1994 for some great posts that I really appreciated (I interacted with rras1994 in quite a few threads during my time on this forum and I really like her, I thought that replying to support her would be appropriate, especially since I really agree with her post).

Anyway, I'm out of this thread.

I really agree and honestly it's kinda much more offensive to me how people in this thread who are also disabled continuously talking about what disabled status as if you have to be suffering so much to qualify than the term situational disability , and it's so shitty. It's going into gatekeeping territory that honestly destroyed my mental health the most when I got diagnosed and felt guilty about having to use accommodations.

And before anyone says anything, yes I have read the entire thread

This is how I feel about this thread's direction for a while now. I stopped posting because of this gatekeeping. I think we should aim towards inclusivity and understanding.

I appreciate this post.

What gatekeeping? Show specific posts. This isn't happening. It's ridiculous that it keeps getting brought up.

It's actually ironic because the people saying this are working against the idea of inclusivity and understanding. The very tiny thing some people are asking for is a slight change to a term a lot of us find dissmissive, and some of you are twisting that to somehow mean gatekeeping which is really not okay.

As always, good talk.