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)?

  • Cagi@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Any health issues that affect your ability to do “normal” things is a disability, no matter how severe, but using the term ablist at people is counter productive. It’s a great term for describing types of behaviors and attitudes, but it’s not productive in a real life ablist encounter. It just makes them defensive and deaf to reason. Work with them to create knowledge and understanding, don’t oppose them or accuse them, offer friendly insight into your life. If they accept it, great, if not, move on. You can’t control others, don’t stress about it.

    That said, I’m not sure what you mean by “not recognized”. If it’s a medical issue of any variety, it’s recognized somewhere in the DSM. But it is very popular, especially among young people, to self diagnose and go on as of it’s a sure thing. There are crap doctors out there, so one should seek as many opinions as needed, but until a physician diagnoses it, it is ablist to coopt disabilities and misresent what being disabled actually is based on a hunch. The way to act in this situation is to say “I think I might have x, but I haven’t gotten a confirmation yet” or something. Totally fine. But saying “I have x” when no physician has told them so is lying to others and themselves for their own ego.

    If someone were to make up diseases not recognized by the DSM and claiming it’s a disability, this is just as ablist.

    I am on permanent disability, unable to work, with severe mental health shit. I live in Canada. If you want more info, feel free to dm me.

    • DragonWasabi@monyet.ccOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Thanks. Recognised as a medical issue but not as a disability, is what I meant. Certain medical issues aren’t considered disabilities as far as I know, even though they can affect a person’s ability to do things. Or are you saying that all medical conditions are disabilities? Apologies if I was mistaken

      Also I’m just wondering, isn’t it possible the DSM could be behind in recognising certain conditions? It may be widely recognised, but just not necessarily by the DSM. I get that you might not call it a disability then but perhaps still a health issue? I’m not sure

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        All medical or health conditions that impact your abilities are a disability and recognized as such by the ADA, etc.

        Pretty much by definition.

      • protist@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Also I’m just wondering, isn’t it possible the DSM could be behind in recognising certain conditions? It may be widely recognised, but just not necessarily by the DSM.

        For example? Vague generalities are hard to parse

        • SpudNoodle@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          I don’t know what OP might be thinking of, but I can give you an example. DSM-5 does not recognize Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD), which is associated with chronic traumatizing experiences (e.g., victims of physically abusive parents, victims of sex trafficking). The diagnostic criteria would be different than the currently recognized PTSD, which tends to be based on one or a few traumatic events (eg., soldiers/survivors of war, car crash, rape). Since it’s not recognized, many people who have PTSD-like symptoms but who don’t fit the current criteria get diagnosed with anxiety or other disorders, and subsequently don’t get access to the most effective treatments. CPTSD exists on a spectrum from sub-clinical to disabling, just like PTSD. People on the extreme end should get the necessary accommodations for their disability, but without the clinical diagnosis are often expected to kind of suck it up in the “everyone has anxiety” kind of way.
          Bessel van der Kolk and other mental health experts/clinicians have been working for decades to get it included in the DSM, but it continues to be excluded. It is, however, in the ICD-11.

          • DragonWasabi@monyet.ccOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Just want to add that I think it’s unfortunate that people dismiss anxiety issues by saying “everyone has that”. While it’s true most people might experience some anxiety, I don’t think everyone has the same level of anxiety, and not everyone has an extremely debilitating type of anxiety to where it warrants an understanding that they might struggle more with some things and deserve some leeway or simply understanding and empathy.

      • Cagi@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        If your medical situation impacts your life in any way, that’s a disability. Being short sighted is a disability, having chronic diarrhea or headaches is a disability. Having a disability and being disabled should be the same thing in common speech, but confusingly, it is not. You are disabled if you experience significant barriers to everyday life because of medical circumstances. If you believe that’s you, then you are free to identify as disabled.

        Another confusing wrench is governmental disability designations. The definition changes from region to region based on politics, not medicine. This is only a metric of whether or not you require the services available to you in your region. It is not your identity and does not mean you are not disabled or don’t deal with disabilities just because some underfunded ministry rejected your application.

        So in short, you get to identify as disabled if you feel the label is helpful, it’s not something doctors use because any medical impediment is a disability. It’s more a social term than a medical one.