Or what would that be called? Pretty much the same things that would usually be considered ableism, but when there’s not a recognised disability involved but just health issue/s (which could be “disabling”).

For example, not believing someone about their health issue, dismissing it or refusing to believe that it impacts their ability to function or can be a valid excuse for things (often solely on the basis that it’s not a recognised disability), blaming someone’s health issue on different things they aren’t caused by (and trying to attribute it to the person’s behaviour as if it’s their fault), and/or claiming that their opinions can’t be taken seriously due to their health problem

Would it be called health-based discrimination or something (despite somewhat mimicking the same mentalities as ableism)?

  • Spuddaccino@reddthat.com
    1·
    10 months ago

    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.