#anyways i just find this whole debate really neat bc its such a good microcosm of the way disability is inevitably culturally defined

[audliminal]

So, the thing about disability, that nobody really likes to talk about, is that it actually is innately tied to cultural context. To be disabled means, on the most basic level, that you are incapable of performing actions that are expected of your 'standard' individual. This is a concept that is extremely easy to understand when you're referring to a wheelchair user or someone who struggles with basic math, but when you get into the weeds with it, you'll find that it quickly becomes very difficult to find the line in the sand.

A person who can't walk at all is obviously disabled, but what about someone who can walk but only for 30 minutes at a time? Or an hour? Or two hours? How long is a standard person capable of walking for? Or what about someone who can do basic math but can't do algebra? Or what if they can do algebra but not geometry? Everybody is going to have a different idea of what the 'standard' person should be capable of.

So, it's really not surprising to find such disagreement about the glasses thing. Sure humans have the potential for 20/20 vision, but if most people don't reach that standard, does it really make sense to expect the standard human to have perfect vision? And if not, where do you draw the line of abled vision vs disabled vision? Undoubtedly, your opinion is going to be influenced by many things, from the percentage of people you know who need glasses, to your own perception of the concept of disability, to your own innate degree of vision, and your personal experience with glasses.

But really in the end, there's an extremely easy answer to this question: if an individual person views their need for glasses as a disability, then it is one, and if they don't, then it's not.

Thanks, Anon!

-submit your poll!-