Episode 27: Is "Invisible Disability" Ableist?

TRANSCRIPT OF “IS ‘INVISIBLE DISABILITY’ ABLEIST?”

[rock guitar music]

MALE VO [00:03]
This is Bad Attitudes.

[rock guitar music]

LAURA [00:21]

Hello friends and strangers! Welcome to another episode of Bad Attitudes: An Uninspiring Podcast about Disability. I’m your host, Laura.

Do you think the term “invisible disability” is ableist? Let’s discuss.

Today’s episode is sponsored by Terry Chase. Thank you Terry!

If you like this episode, share it and the podcast with your friends. Word of mouth is absolutely the best way to grow this podcast and our community.

If you can, take a second to leave a rating for the podcast on the Spotify app. From the main show page, click the three dots and then “Rate Show.” And please continue to leave ratings and reviews on Apple Podcasts and wherever you listen!

If you’d like to contribute to the show, please visit ko-fi.com/badattitudespod. Your contributions help keep the pod running and each donation gets a shout-out in a future episode.

For questions, comments, or ideas, email badattitudespod@gmail.com or reach out through social media. Follow @BadAttitudesPod on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter.

As always, I want to remind you that disability is not a monolith. My experience as a disabled person is going to be different from the experiences of other disabled people. I am one voice for the disabled community but I am not the only voice.

I follow a page on Facebook called Disabled Feminist, and recently they referenced a post from someone else by asking if the term “invisible disability” is ableist? They wrote, “According to Asiatu Lawoyin (author of the original post and I’m so sorry if I butchered your name), ‘Disabilities are only "invisible" out of ignorance. Invisible is centered within the outside perception & decenters the disabled as well as ignores our internal realities. Also, disabled behaviors rarely are truly invisible.’”

I’m going to take the possibly controversial stance that, no, using the term “invisible disability” is not ableist. At the very least, it’s not ableist in the same way using terminology like “special needs” is ableist. At its worst, I think using “invisible disability” is making the best of the language and terminology we currently have at our disposal.

As someone who is visibly disabled — IE, you look at me and know I’m disabled because I use a wheelchair — I feel like the term “invisible disability” is a way to remind people that not all disabilities are obvious. It’s wrong to say that looking disabled is the same thing as being disabled, just as it would be wrong to say that NOT looking disabled is the same thing as NOT BEING disabled. However, it’s also wrong not to acknowledge that differences exist between looking disabled and not looking disabled.

Undoubtedly, there are problems with non-disabled people not acknowledging or recognizing the veracity of disabilities that aren’t obvious to the naked eye. People with invisible disabilities are often dismissed or accused of “faking” their conditions. It’s a problem. And, yes, a lot of it is based in ignorance. The general populace is not educated on disabilities whatsoever, never mind being educated specifically about invisible disabilities.

Lawoyin says that disabled behaviors are rarely invisible. My question to this statement is, “What constitutes a disabled behavior?” What does that mean, exactly? This is not rhetorical. I don’t have an answer. I don’t know what “disabled behavior” means.

Someone posted a comment saying that if people paid close enough attention, they would notice that they were red-faced and sweating in cold weather, which means they are in a flare. They did not indicate a flare of what. Let’s be brutally honest: How much attention do any of us, disabled or otherwise, pay to other people, really? Probably not enough to notice if someone is red-faced or sweating. And even if we did, would our first conclusion be disability or chronic illness? Unlikely.

Even I, a disabled person, am not going to immediately jump to the conclusion that a sweaty, red-faced person is experiencing something related to a disability. I’m going to think hot flash or they just came from working out or they had the heat in their car turned up way too high. I’m going to go through a hundred different scenarios before I get to disability. Realistically, and this is true for most of us, I’m not going to give it much thought at all. Not because I’m a horribly callous person, but because I’m living my own life, going about my business, and a one- to two-second interaction with a passerby is not going to garner my full attention.

Consider something like epilepsy, which is considered a disabling condition. I am not an expert in epilepsy, but I do know that, generally speaking, the only evidence someone has epilepsy is the presence of seizures. So if someone is not in the throes of a seizure, what signs are we supposed to look for? (This IS a rhetorical question. I’m sure there are other signs and symptoms of epilepsy, depending on the individual. I am making a generalized comparison.) The point is, even an expert in diagnosing epilepsy isn’t going to be able to do so simply by looking at someone. So, for all intents and purposes, that person has an invisible disability.

Using the term “invisible disability” is a way to express the unique situation of a person whose disability is not readily visible. And having one or more invisible disabilities is a unique situation to be in. You’re dealing with the consequences of disability without the same consideration given to a visibly disabled person. There is no obvious source of pain. No obvious reason for struggle. To the average person, there is no visual evidence of disability. Is that an excuse for accusing someone of faking their condition or for malevolent ableism? Absolutely not. 

Lawoyin also says that using “invisible disability” ignores our internal realities. Now, this might be me just being difficult, but internal realities are, but their very nature, invisible. You can’t know what’s going on inside anyone’s body, regardless of their disability status, regardless of YOUR disability status. By saying you have an “invisible disability,” you are conveying that most of your struggles are internal. That doesn’t mean you can’t express your condition externally, only that, primarily, they affect you in ways that aren’t immediately noticeable.

I believe the ultimate question here is, if we decide as a collective that “invisible disability” is no longer appropriate, what terminology should take its place? The primary argument against ableist language is to just use “disability,” because “disability” and “disabled” are not dirty words and they are the preferred language for the majority of the disabled community. While this is one hundred percent valid, I also feel that it does a disservice to those who fall into the category of having an invisible disability.

We must acknowledge that there is a disparity between the ways people with visible disabilities and people with invisible disabilities are viewed. No one is ever going to argue with me that I’m not disabled. They’ll argue with me about what accommodations I need, they’ll argue they’re not being discriminating, they’ll argue about every damn thing, but they will not look at me, see my wheelchair, and then say I’m not disabled. People whose disabilities are not immediately visible have to argue this point every day. They have to spend inordinate amounts of time justifying their disability. PROVING their disability.

I think the term “invisible disability” carries a lot of weight. It is indicative of the different kinds of challenges these individuals face. 

So, to reiterate, at this point in time, I don’t believe the term “invisible disability” is ableist. However, if you fall into this category and DO find it ableist, I’ll defer to you.

So, do you? Do you find it ableist? Do you think it’s accurate? Do you have a preferred alternative?

Thanks for listening and I’ll talk to you in the next one.

[09:33]
[rock guitar music]