Agreed. I like the framing that there are three kinds of disability: permanent (I lost my arm in a motorcycle crash), temporal (I broke my arm and can’t use it for a while), and situational (I’m walking my dog so I can only use one arm for other things).
Generally we only refer to someone with a permanent disability as “disabled” but in reality we are all disabled in various categories at different times of our lives. Accessibility is important to all three groups (you need to be able to use your phone with one hand), therefore accessibility is important to everyone.
And furthermore, ~15% of us are permanently disabled. So the percentages for temporary or situational disability rise even higher than that.
Where does that 15% number come from? Because I would have to assume it is using a very broad definition of disabled, which would include invisible disabilities. Certainly it's not true that 15% of the people I see are in a wheelchair, on crutches, missing a limb, obviously blind (e.g. walking with a cane), and so on. Even allowing for the fact that many people with disabilities stay home (often by necessity, sometimes by choice) rather than go out to run errands, still I doubt the number would get anywhere close to 15% if the definition only included the kinds of disabilities that are immediately obvious to anyone looking.
In fact, I would say it's probably too low! Like, how is prescription glasses to correct vision not an assistive device for a disability, like poor eyesight?
Honestly, what's the difference between a wheelchair and prescription glasses? Both are medical devices prescribed be a healthcare professional to assist with a physical impairment.
What's the difference between glasses and an iron lung? Only the degree, severity, dependance, impact, consequence, social implication, dehumanization, and every other meaningful aspect!
And yet, if someone cannot meaningfully participate in society without their glasses, then yes, they have a disability. Polio paralysis and vision loss are both examples of disability. They do have differences in all those things you mentioned, and yet, are both disability.
> Honestly, what's the difference between a wheelchair and prescription glasses?
Taking the silly question seriously for a moment: the difference is that with prescription glasses, you can function just exactly like someone who doesn't need them. Once you are wearing the glasses, your ability to do pretty much anything is unimpaired. Whereas a wheelchair restores some mobility, but does not, for example, impart the ability to climb stairs. It does not give you back all the mobility of someone who doesn't need one.
Might as well throw bald people in there because not having hair can be a disadvantage in the dating scene.
15% is from the 2011 WHO report on disability: https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/sensory-f...
The more recent WHO's Global report on health equity suggests 16%, as populations age: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240063600
The CDC considers this closer to 30%: https://www.cdc.gov/disability-and-health/articles-documents...
This number is generally considered to be rising for a few reasons. Aging population, wars resulting in higher injuries but fewer deaths, the number of people who are able to survive disease (rather than historically just dying.
You might find the Washington Group's definition, which applies a spectrum, and estimates an approximately 6-12% rate of disability. https://www.washingtongroup-disability.com/wg-blog/post/diff...
> I doubt the number would get anywhere close to 15% if the definition only included the kinds of disabilities that are immediately obvious to anyone looking.
Thank god that's not the definition. Deafness/significant hearing impairment isn't immediately visible, and that's estimated at ~5%. Plenty of folks are low vision enough to need assistive technology (like a screenreader) even if they don't have a cane and may be able to navigate. Plenty of people with MS have great days where they can walk, and days where they cannot. There are people who lack the strength in their hands to dress themselves, yet they can go out and about just fine.
Your definition is too narrow. Plenty of people experience impassible barriers that are not visible. Happy to provide some additional educational resources for you if they would be helpful.
> Certainly it's not true that 15% of the people I see are in a wheelchair, on crutches, missing a limb, obviously blind (e.g. walking with a cane), and so on.
Are you in a wealthy area? Think globally, do you think your town has better or worse support than other parts of the world for people with disabilities? Do you think your region has better or worse regional conflicts or disease? Think globally.
I love this. Thank you for sharing.