Can We Talk About that Paralympics Ad?

British Broadcaster Channel 4 (which has the broadcasting rights for the 2016 Paralympics in Rio) recently released their trailer for the games and it’s getting a lot of positive attention.

Here it is

Here’s a version audio described by Australian comedian Adam Hills

I’ve actually been trying to write this piece for several days and have been having difficulty. Not because I don’t know how I feel about this ad but because I don’t know how to articulate it. I’m still not sure that I do. I have found that when I criticize the media representation of disabled people. I am often accused of criticizing the disabled people in that media.

I want to make it clear that this is not what I’m trying to do. I am trying to talk about the implications of how disabled people and their accomplishments are framed and disseminated for a majority nondisabled audience.

I want to like this ad. It has so much that I love. It has an almost entirely disabled cast and so many of them are doing bad ass things to appropriately themed music. If that was all this was, I would probably be sharing it all over social media to the point of annoying everyone connected to me.

There are two things about this ad that just end up making me cringe. The use of the term Superhumans to refer to Paralympians and the song “Yes, I Can”.

The term Superhumans is not new to the Paralympics. The commercial that Channel 4 used for the 2012 London Paralympics is called “Meet the Superhumans”

You can see it here,

There was no audio described version of this ad. Which I guess speaks to a degree of progress in this year’s advertising and general disability awareness.

So why do I dislike the fact that the Paralympians have been labeled Superhumans? It’s not because I don’t think they are phenomenal athletes. They absolutely are. In a way calling them Superhuman detracts from that fact.

It’s ironic how closely the term Superhuman is to the term Super crip.

Super crip is a term used by disability media critics to describe the phenomenon of celebrating disabled people in either a way that lacks meaningful context or in a way that seeks to effectively erase their disabilities except to add emphasis to the extraordinariness of their accomplishments. It’s not just that they’re amazing athletes. It adds a degree of “Can you believe someone like that could do this?”

The 2012 ad is particularly guilty of this with its juxtaposition of scenes signifying how people became disabled (often violently) with images of them succeeding as athletes.

It does from A to B without looking at any of the context of how people get to B or for that matter who CAN get to B. Because athletic success, particularly for disabled people is not just a matter of having the desire to do it.

Which brings me to the repeated refrain of “Yes, I can” from the 2016 ad, which buys fully into the “to believe is to achieve” stereotype. It is not just a group of musicians, dancers, and athletes showcasing their skills. They really sell the myth.

Consider the scene in the career counselor’s office where the counselor tells a wheelchair user “No, you can’t” which is immediately followed but by that young man playing wheelchair rugby while screaming “YES, I CAN”.

The thing is “No, you can’t” is far more than just the words of an individual who has vastly underestimated your potential. It is a systemic reality. It is far more accurately an expression of “No, you can’t because we won’t let you”. Wheelchair Rugby Clubs do do not appear fully formed just because someone has the desire to play.

Getting to be a Channel 4 “Superhuman” is in many ways as much about luck as it is about skill and hard work. The reality is that access to athletic training for disabled people is limited to those who have physical and financial access to it. If there is no training available in your area or even if there is but you can’t afford it, all the desire and willingness to work in the world is not going to get you to the Paralympics.

In many ways the oversimplification of “yes, I can” actually undermines the extent to an athlete’s success. It ignore the work they put in not only training but also in getting access to that training.

It also erases anyone who doesn’t have access to that training because as I mentioned it’s selling “to believe is to achieve” hard.

The video also delves pretty deeply into inspiration porn territory with it’s images of disabled people doing everyday things. Like looking after children or brushing their teeth. Considering that disabled parents still face the threat of losing their children solely because they are disabled and not from any identified inability to provide care, including Canadian Paralympian Charles Wilton. Wilton did eventually get to keep his son but that doesn’t erase the fact that it was considered acceptable to plan to remove the child before he was even born or before actually assessing it his parents could care for him.

The erasure of systemic barriers in favour of an “overcoming” disability narrative is  misleading. It not only erases the reality of succeeding as a disabled athlete–the need for specialized adapted training and coaches who are willing to work to make those changes–but it also erases the people who don’t have access to those things and completely ignores the reasons why.

It is a disservice to the real work put in by Paralympians whose work and not just successes deserve to be celebrated.

It also promotes social complacency by putting all of the onus for success on disabled people and letting nondisabled people of the hook for the perpetuation of an inaccessible world that actively limits rather than supports our success.

I want to see more bad ass disabled people doing bad ass things but I want those stories to contain context which holds society accountable for why there aren’t more bad ass disabled people being allowed to do bad ass things.

Advertisements

Could You Please Stop Insisting that People Have to Use Person First Language

There are so many of those lists explaining how to speak to disabled people respectfully. They are generally well intentioned and some of them are even really good. There is however an almost universal element that I wish would be retired. They inevitably include a statement that disabled people should ALWAYS be referred to using Person First Language (see an example here).

I have issues with the command to always use Person First Language for two reasons.

1. Person First Language is culturally geographic. It is only consider PC in North America. Interestingly if you were to read the same article in English speaking Europe they would insist that you say “disabled person”.
2. Despite it being widely considered PC in North America, a growing number of disabled people (myself included, see here and here) are intentionally abandoning it.

This isn’t about completely switching the script. I’m not suggesting that we ban Person First Language or that people shouldn’t use it (so don’t attack me in the comments). I’m saying that realistically person first language is not always appropriate (from a purely cultural sensitivity angle) and demanding that it be used anyway is a tad clueless.

The insistence  that people MUST use People First Language is also just disrespectful, not only to how many people are coming to self-identify but also completely ignoring that the reasons that we do so might actually be valid. Ignoring the voices and preferences of actual disabled people just reinforces the idea that we are incapable of determining what is best for us.

Whenever I come across the Person First edict on a “How to Be Respectful about”. Disability” list. I always wish it had been replaced with something along the lines of,

How to Deal with Disability Labels

Language around disability is complicated and there is currently no universally accepted term. Even the terms that are considered most acceptable like people with disabilities (in North America) and disabled people (in the UK) are not universally accepted by people in those locations. In order to be respectful it is usually inoffensive to default to the most acceptable term based on your location. However, if a person expresses an alternate preference, it is extremely rude and disrespectful to insist that they conform to the dominant preference. Best practice would be to utilize the term that the individual prefers.

I repeat. It is extremely rude and disrespectful to impose labels on people who have clearly expressed an alternate preference.

I wish this concept wasn’t so hard to understand.

 

 

But it Wasn’t Designed for You: How Ignoring Accessibility Becomes the Excuse for Perpetuating Inaccessibility

I am sick of seeing people responding to evidence of inaccessibility with “but it wasn’t designed for you”. This argument has been used to both try and shut down calls to make inaccessible things more accessible (which is what I’ll be focusing on) and to limit access to accessible things that have been deemed unnecessary to nondisabled people (see my piece of accessibility to fresh food here for an example of that).

So the much anticipated augmented reality game Pokemon Go was released in several countries last week (though not Canada yet). It is already wildly popular and has had a noticeable impact on Nintendo stock prices.

The game–which is based on one originally released for Gameboy and which also had a television series and card game–allows smartphone users to find and catch pokemon in the real world.

Since it’s release it has been criticized for being inaccessible to many people with disabilities. The game requires that players actually be able to get around public spaces to find the pokemon and visit pokestops (which provide players with necessary items for the game) and train at gyms.

For people with limited mobility or who have difficulty leaving their homes. The game is entirely inaccessible because movement is completely tied to an individual’s GPS location.

I am going to spend less time talking about the accessibility issues of Pokemon Go itself because others are already doing that better than I could. I am instead going to use the game and people’s reactions to having its inaccessibility highlighted as a timely way of addressing how people’s  reactions to inaccessibility being called out end up justifying and perpetuating that inaccessibility.

When a new product is called out for being inaccessible or when disabled people advocate that a company make an inaccessible product more accessible, two related arguments inevitably come up.

  1. This game wasn’t made with you in mind.
  2. You are not the target demographic.

On the face of it these arguments seem identical but there are some key differences. In the first case, the exclusion may just be an oversight but it is one that will be justified as an understandable lapse.

The demographic argument works best when a product is made with a specific demographic market in mind.

The problem is that with the first argument it is far to acceptable to brush off inaccessibility as “oh well, I guess this one thing just isn’t for you” despite the fact that it is very far from being “just one thing” and is in fact representative of a widespread problem. It is far to common and easy to ignore whether a product or service is inaccessible.

In order to head off reactionary comments, I am not arguing or suggesting that everything can or should be made accessible for two reasons.

  1. Accessibility is not and never will be a one size fits all phenomenon.
  2. There are just some things that people with certain disabilities shouldn’t do for reasons of safety. For example, I have a weak arm and should for my own safety and the safety of others never operate a chainsaw. So I’m not going to go after chainsaw manufacturers to their products because I shouldn’t.

So please don’t send me a rant about how [insert random unrelated product or service] is either essential but still inaccessible or which regardless of redesign cannot be made safely accessible.

When disabled people point out accessibility issues it is usually because a.) they think with some tweaking the thing itself could be made accessible or b.) they are expressing a consumer desire to have someone redesign an inaccessible thing to be accessible. It is not a wholesale attack on all things.

So continuing on I am now going to address the “they just didn’t have you in mind” argument. There are way to many things that just happen to be inaccessible because the creators either didn’t consider disabled people or determined that accommodating the would be to time consuming. Far to many of these products (Pokemon Go included) could be made accessible or have accessibility mods added on if the creators cared to put the effort in.

The fact that far to many don’t is where this argument of “oh they just didn’t make it for you” really falls apart. Almost nothing that is available to the general public is made with disabled people in mind. We are far to frequently relegated to the realm of “niche target market” catered to primarily by medical companies or adaptive technology companies.

This leaves us out of far to many mainstream pass times. This is where it stops being an oversight and becomes a problem where out exclusion and reliance on only specialized targeted products and indicative of systemic and socially acceptable exclusion.

As a target demographic we are also treated differently, with products geared towards us specifically only made available in specialty stores.

In terms of a more mainstream understanding of target demographic, we are still separate because generally target demographics are based on goals and an understanding of who will be interested in a product. Not actually mandating who can use it.

People use products not expressly geared toward them all the time without consequences. The problem comes not from who a product is targeted at but at who is expressly excluded from using it.*

But back to Pokemon Go. Where does it fit into all this? The game itself  has a very broad demographic target. It is as much as any single product can be geared to everyone.** This is what makes the complete lack of consideration of disability so frustrating because it is a case of “this is actually for everyone except you”.

The sheer scale of the game’s popularity only emphasizes this fact.

So, I would ask that any person who reacts dismissively to calls for more accessibility (whether it is in Pokemon Go or anything else) to ask themselves

Why is this request making me so uncomfortable?

I would then ask you to express solidarity, to show companies that you actually are comfortable sharing space (and pokemon) with disabled people. Tell companies that disabled people deserve accessible products and don’t deserve to be forgotten or an afterthought.

 

 

*I am aware and do not wish to minimize the fact that there are certain industries which don’t expressly forbid people from outside their target demographics do create cultures within those industries which are very unwelcoming and often abusive to people who are seen as outsiders.

**It is also important to note that disabled people are not the only group criticizing the game’s inclusivity (see here for another example).

Mentioning Disability is not an Invitation for Commentary or an Inquisition

I think one of the clearest examples that I experience regularly that disability is not an accepted experience is that I can’t casually reference the experience of being disabled without being met with either pity or inappropriate questions. Sometimes it is both.

For me disability is a huge part of how I experience the world. It impacts how I do every day things. If it is relevant I should be able to reference it in the same way a nondisabled person talks about their day.

When I reference my disability or how it impacted an activity (like referencing how I had to do something differently than the norm). I am not looking for pity. But I all too often get it.

Or in a situation where I am airing a grievance based on discrimination, where empathy (though I usually get pity) is appropriate, it is misplaced. People are sorry that I am disabled not that I experienced discrimination or prejudice.

I have written about how nondisabled people often treat disabled people like public spectacles before. Here, I’m going to address how casual acquaintances try to legitimize inappropriate questions about disability.

This isn’t about those people who accost disabled people on the street to ask “what’s wrong with you?”

Rather this is about those people who you are conversing with casually who take the remotest reference to disability to ask “what’s wrong with you?” even when that question is not a natural progression of the disability reference.

These encounters often involve social coercion on the part of the questioner to get you to answer.

The scenario might involve a peer at work or a fellow guest at a party. They are people who can have genuine reasons to speak to you. They will also use the circumstance of being at work or surrounded by other people to force compliance because failure to comply could have consequences.

For example, you are attending a bridal shower for a close friend but it is being hosted by that friend’s future in-laws so the only person you really know is the bride. Everyone else is either a future in-law or one of their close family friends. As often occurs in these situations people ask what you do.

For me this brings disability up basically immediately because I’m a Disability Studies student. It’s a miracle is people don’t immediately move a conversation about what I study to what I am. Usually, telling someone you are a student elicits questions about the program and what you are planning on doing after graduation.

Not so if you are both disabled and a student of disabilities. Somehow, people see to think that asking about my medical history is a perfectly natural progression from me saying that I study disability. It is always quite clear in these conversations that people aren’t just ascertaining whether I have a personal stake in my field. That could be more respectfully determined by asking why I chose disability studies.

A question like that also would allow me to determine what information I am comfortable sharing. Demanding someone’s medical information is about entitlement and voyeurism. Waiting for a disabled person to make even the vaguest reference to disability first does not make it more acceptable.

Making that demand in front of other people is just coercive. Particularly if refusing will put you in a awkward position. Either with the questioner or in keeping with the bridal shower scenario with the bride.

I have found that simply telling people that you don’t want to share that information is rarely received gracefully when the request originated as a demand.

People tend to realize that a refusal is also a message that the question was inappropriate so they feel the need to justify their right to ask it and shame you for noncompliance (remember this is not a private conversation but one that is happening in earshot of other people). So they ask follow-up questions.

You’re doing a PhD in disability studies, shouldn’t you want to educate people about disability?

The answer I wish I could give: Yes, and an integral part of teaching about and advocating for disabled people is making clear boundaries. It does not benefit disabled people to reinforce the idea that our lives and bodies are available for public consumption.

Additionally, as you point out I am doing a PhD in disability studies which means that in addition to my years of experience as a disabled person, I have spent years and tens of thousands of dollars becoming this qualified. University professors don’t work for free so why should I? If you would like to agree to an hourly rate, I’d be happy to share my extensive knowledge with you. Like any work arrangement though I have the right to have my medical privacy respected and I will not be sharing any personal information unless I choose to do so.

I am just trying to learn, why won’t you educate me? Don’t you want people to understand?

The answer I wish I could give: Setting boundaries is a lesson in respect. If you really wanted to learn, you would accept that lesson rather than expecting me to give you personal information which in the grand scheme of things would tell you nothing about the experience of being disabled. It really only serves to parrot information that can be found in a medical textbook or on WebMD.

 

Ultimately as much as I want to, I don’t say those things. More often than not I just give them the information that they want. This invariably leaves me feeling horrible. The consequences for noncompliance however are greater. In the bridal shower scenario it would put my friend in the awkward position of either defending me or defending a future family member or friend. Either alienating me from them or them from family.

These more public confrontations risk more than angering a single person but can have wider consequences from witnesses who are often just as curious as the original questioner. It is usually easier and often safer to comply in the short term and if the questioner is someone that you are likely to have repeated contact with (like a coworker) consider taking action to change the environment in the long term.

I wish these interactions didn’t happen at all. I wish people’s express desire to learn was genuine and not a convenient excuse to justify inappropriate behaviour. So in case you do genuinely want to learn about disability and don’t want to be an asshole in the process here are a few tips.

If you are able, make an effort to educate yourself on your own time. Read blogs by disabled people. Read academic disability literature (some disability studies journals like Disability Studies Quarterly are public access and can be read for free by anyone).

If you are talking to a disabled person, don’t take any vague reference to disability as an invitation to ask probing personal questions. Make sure any follow up questions are directly related to the person’s original reference.

Let the disabled person decide how much they are willing to share and respect their privacy and boundaries.

Recognize that diagnosis information often says very little about the actual lived experience of disability and should not be considered essential to learning about it.

Problems with the Disability Tax Credit Run Deeper than it Being Non-Refundable

On Friday CTV News ran a story titled  Six in 10 Adults with Disabilities can’t Benefit from Disability Tax Credit. The main focus of the piece is on the fact that the credit is non-refundable. This means that in order to benefit from it the recipient actually has to make enough money to pay taxes. The problem being that most people who qualify for the credit don’t make enough money. The recommendation they come up with is to make the credit refundable. This way everyone who qualifies gets at least part of the credit regardless of their income.

I would absolutely love for the Disability Tax Credit (DTC) to be refundable as I am part of the 60% who qualify who don’t make enough money to benefit (shameless plug. You can buy me a “coffee” by making a donation here or by clicking the “buy me a coffee” button in the right sidebar). The thing is that problems with the DTC run a lot deeper than whether people who qualify can actually benefit.

Let’s start with the big one. The title referring to 6 out of 10 adults with disabilities is misleading. It’s really 6 out of 10 adults who qualify. This is a huge distinction because the DTC is notoriously difficult to qualify for. The application process seems designed to arbitrarily disqualify people. It is so confusing and the standard so arbitrary that doctors don’t even want to fill it out. Not because they don’t think you qualify but because they worry that if they make an error that you will be refused.

In theory the DTC is designed to “provide for greater tax equity by allowing some relief for disability costs, since these are unavoidable additional expenses that other taxpayers don’t have to face.” (quote from the government of Canada website).

You would think based on that stated intent that qualifying standards would be based on things like:

Having a disability

Having expenses related to that disability

The first of those is true, the second is not and just having a disability regardless of the addition financial burdens it brings is irrelevant. Instead prospective applicants have to wade into an arbitrary level of disability that has very little to do with defining a person’s actual experience of disability. A person’s functioning is broken down into several categories in which you must be markedly restricted in at least one or significantly restricted in at least two (see the application form here. It’s a PDF. here’s a text version).

Markedly and significantly are quite subjective terms. Markedly is at least partially defined. Let’s look at the functioning category for feeding,

Your patient is considered markedly restricted in feeding if, even with appropriate therapy, medication, and devices:
• he or she is unable or takes an inordinate amount of time to feed himself or herself;
and
• this is the case all or substantially all of the time (at least 90% of the time).

Oh hey a new arbitrary and subjective word inordinate. This is confusing enough but the part that really frustrates me is the restrictions on what qualified as feeding “Feeding oneself does not include identifying, finding, shopping for, or otherwise obtaining food”. So shopping for food doesn’t count?

So the fact that I either have to take the bus to the grocery store–which seriously limits how much food I can buy at one time based on how much my physically disabled body can carry (people who use accessible transit may be even further limited as many such services limit how many bags a passenger can have) thus necessitating more trips to the store–or pay to have my groceries delivered–which is a cost that the DTC would offset–do not get counted in the “inordinate amount of time” it takes me to feed myself. Even though I’m either out money or additional hours just to have access to food much less to prepare it.

This leads to my second major issue with the DTC. It appears to assume that applicants aren’t independent and that someone (like a parent) will be collecting it. I suspect that this is why the credit is non-refundable. The government assumes that the disabled person is in someone else’s custodial care. Someone who is not disabled and who is making enough money to qualify for tax credits. Someone who will be able to do all the necessary grocery shopping in one go.

Why do I suspect this? Just look at the application form on page 1. The first two sections are “Information about the person with the disability” and “information about the person claiming the disability amount”. There is no box to tick which indicates that they are the same person. Rather the form doubles down with “the person with the disability is:  My spouse or common law partner______ or my Dependent(please specify)______”

I mean, I guess I’m dependent on myself but I don’t think that’s what the form is getting at. I guess if we’re being literal then I also meet the two follow up questions. Why yes, I do live with myself and yes, I do depend on myself for food, shelter, and clothing.

Correct me if I’m wrong but most forms where it might filled out by a qualified applicant or a guardian (think adult passports which are applicable to anyone over 16) usually assume the person is applying for themself. They just tend to have an extra section or box that says something along the lines of “if the applicant is a minor, the parent or guardian must sign here”. It’s clearly separate. The DTC form however, doesn’t even really acknowledge that you might apply yourself. Even though it is completely legal to do so.

My third major issue with the DTC is that it requires you to requalify every five years. So you have to go the pain of convincing a doctor to fill out that ridiculous arbitrary form again.

Now I understand that some disabilities are temporary and that some people don’t qualify on a permanent basis. The way to get around that? add a box for the doctor to indicate if a condition is permanent and have them set out a reasonable timeline to requalify. If the condition is permanent drop the bureaucracy of requalifying and don’t bring it up again until you can show us peer reviewed medical evidence that something can be cured. Otherwise it just appears that the government has decided to take an official stance on believing in miracles. Which is awkward.

So as much as I would love for the DTC to be refundable. In reality for it to work as the government itself claims to intend. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the system. An overhaul that is unlikely because it would acknowledge that far more people should be qualifying and also erase some of the roadblocks to maintaining access to the DTC. All of this would cost far more than the estimate cited in the CTV piece.

The status quo keeps costs down. The government doesn’t want it questioned to deeply.

No, Your Violence and Lack of Accommodation is Not Our Fault

So, a disabled woman set off the metal detector at an airport. This triggered additional screening. Her mother attempted to inform the TSA agents of her daughter’s needs. They ignored her. The woman became confused and tried to get away from the TSA agents. They tackled her to the ground and left her bloody. She was arrested (though the charges were later dropped.

Not surprisingly, the TSA and police are being sued over this. What I would like to talk about is the TSA’s defense of their actions. They are crying ignorance. Apparently, the woman’s mother telling them that her daughter is disabled and might become confused before the situation escalated was insufficient. They suggest that the woman and disabled people generally should call ahead to inform airport staff that they are disabled.

UM WHAT?

Not only is that not likely to have changed this situation. It is also an absurd burden to place on disabled people. We might as well hire town criers to precede us every where we go, ringing bells and yelling “Hear ye, hear ye, Cripple approaching”.

Now, I know that many disabled people do have to call airports ahead because they require assistance either navigating the airport or boarding the plane. I also know that for every person that I know who requires that assistance that I have heard at least one horror story. Stories that range from having there assistance requests lost (more or less reinforcing the idea that calling ahead was all that was required to avoid the violence exacted on that woman) to being left alone in the “accessibility lounge” for hours while being actively separated from travel companions.

It’s bad enough that systems aren’t in place to accommodate disabled people without advance warning (thus giving people an excuse to fall back on when a space isn’t accessible) but to suggest that we should have to announce our presence in situations we weren’t even expecting to require accommodations is absurd.

Violence against disabled people by law enforcement agencies is hardly rare. It is not just in airports. Should we also call the police non-emergency line every time that we leave our homes and provide them with a detailed itinerary and list of our diagnoses and symptoms? Just in case we have an unexpected interaction with police while we’re out?

I mean law enforcement (the TSA included) is totally equipped to keep track of every disabled person (and their specific needs) they might interact with in a given day; as long as we call ahead right? It’s not like there are very many disabled people or that our needs are particularly varied or complex.

The answer is clearly not to give people in positions of authority (particularly where they have training in responding with force) to be aware of the needs of disabled people. Particularly, in scenarios where there is someone trying to inform them of that fact.

It is not our responsibility to anticipate and stop violence against ourselves. We couldn’t if we tried. It’s a completely unrealistic expectation.

It is far more reasonable to expect people in power to be educated about disability and to listen when they are told that they are dealing with a disabled person and act appropriately.

It should go without saying that the appropriate action in this case was not violence.

 

Thoughts on Disability and Brexit

 

I wanted to take some time to talk about the EU referendum in the context of disability. I’m not going to focus on any disability specific policies held by the EU (though I’m sure they exist and Baroness Campbell tried to get disabled people invested in the campaign to Remain).

Instead, I am going to look at ableist responses to the vote to leave and how Britain leaving the EU could further limit the opportunities of disabled Britons to travel.

One of my pet peeves in foreign policy is the discriminatory way that disabled people are treated in immigration (I wrote a Canada specific critique here). Generally disabled people are severely limited if not completely barred from immigrating. The EU offers something of an exception in that it allows free movement for purposes of residency and work between many of its member states of which Britain was one (and still is for at least the short term). If the EU exit negotiations do not include keeping that freedom of movement, the possibility of moving countries will be all but eliminated.

As a side note the fact that Nigel Farage has all but guaranteed that the pro-Brexit campaign promise of spending more money on the UK’s National Health Service was a mistake will of course also negatively impact disabled British citizens.

But back to immigration. For the average nondisabled British citizen immigration is still an option, though it will now likely involve far more paperwork. Paperwork that often requires applicants to include medical information that would exclude disabled applicants.

This reality is frustrating as in standard form in response to an unpopular political shift, people are discussing emigrating. We see this rhetoric all the time (if X politician is elected, I’m moving to Canada), while the words rarely turn into actual action, and are unlikely to unless some of the more extreme and dire Brexit predictions come to pass (World War III) it is frustrating to see people fall back on an option that millions of British citizens just lost.

Add to that the fact that some of the anger over the result of the referendum has taken a decidedly ableist tone and disabled Britons are not faring well in the immediate response to the Brexit result.

The problem here primarily hinges on the fact that the largest demographic which supported the Leave campaign were over 65 while the youth vote overwhelmingly voted to Remain. Anger has therefor been targeted at the elderly with comments about people who are about to die (I was unaware that life expectancy was so low in Britain that anyone over 65 is in danger of just keeling over).

This demographic split has resulted in a lot of youth anger being focused on the senior population, with one person tweeting

The thing is people aren’t supposed to give up their seats to the elderly out of respect. They do it because age is associated with a loss of mobility. Note that the tweet has been shared over 16,000 times.

The tweeter later defended himself by claiming it was a joke but some responders have doubled down and insisted that they are sincere in their support for the tweet, with at least one going so far as to say that he would demand to know how someone had voted before giving up his seat regardless of whether the person was elderly.

The fact that the anger of the vote so quickly turned to ableism is concerning. The fact that it is used against the demographic that most often voted to Leave is bad enough but the fact that people are clearly willing to extend it to people who are not so clearly associated with the Leave result is especially troubling.

This is the danger of falling back on bigotry in the face of political disagreement. It takes the focus away from why the ideological split really happened and far to often spreads beyond the initial target group. Which doesn’t really make for a funny joke, now does it?