Yes. And it tries to change the focus of questions of the abled looking at the disabled towards asking questions about abledness
-
-
Replying to @fronxer
What kind of questions? Are we talking about anatomy & physiology or attitude towards disability.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
If "normal" or "abled" is understood as a social construct, you can ask what effects it has. E.g. pressure to present as abled.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer @HPluckrose
…Instead of accepting it as a given, unquestionable, universal reference point.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
People must have the right not accept treatment which could bring them closer to that point, of course. But also to be offered it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I think we're having a hard time talking about this because we're using different mental models.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
Probably. I'm mostly interested in equality, rights & freedom but this includes the freedom to think abt ableism as you see fit.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Ok. So if I think that ableism is a kind of oppression that ought to be reduced, that's also cool with you?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer @HPluckrose
And if the underlying theory that motivates certain suggestions has postmodern qualities, that's also fine?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
It depends what they are. If they are compatible with human rights, equality & freedom, its those which should be legislated.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This allows for people to apply all kinds of religious & philosophical understandings of disability on their own lives but no-one else's.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.