It implies that people’s perceived or real abilities, whether they are innate or acquired, are frequently used to determine their value or potential. When this decision is discriminatory or unfair, it leads to “ability inequity.” In addition to being excluded, persons who don’t meet prevailing standards of competence may also be encouraged to doubt their identity or their entitlement to a happy existence.

When ableism coexists with other types of oppression, this becomes worse. For instance, when stereotypes and discriminatory behaviours overlap, people who are both disabled, and members of a racial minority may experience greater levels of marginalization.

An example of this could be an Asian girl with a learning disability in a low-income school. She may be perceived as less capable or intellectual due to racial and gender biases in addition to her disability. She could not have the same options as her peers or be directed into a lower academic stream. In this instance, racism, sexism, classism, and ableism all come together, and the unfair treatment is justified by her abilities, or perceived lack thereof. She may also lack “ability identity security”, that is, she may find it difficult to feel comfortable or secure in her skills as a result of continual exclusion and comparison. Additionally, without “ability security,” she could not have access to resources that help her succeed, such as inclusive extracurricular activities, mentorship, or modified learning materials.

The IAT can encourage critical thought even though it cannot accurately gauge personal prejudice or forecast a person’s behavior. It assists users in identifying the ways in which cultural conditioning and societal messaging may have influenced their thoughts. A crucial first step in combating ingrained prejudices and encouraging more inclusive conduct is raising awareness of this issue.

Critics counter that the test’s validity and reliability can change and that the results can change based on mood or context. As such, it should be utilized as a teaching prompt rather than a diagnostic tool.

Overall, the IAT is most effective when combined with ongoing discussion, deeper learning, and structural change. Although it’s not a solution, it can lead to fruitful discussions about privilege, racism, and our collective responsibility to build more equal societies.

According to the medical model of disability, a person’s physical, mental, or sensory deficits are the root cause of their disability. Its main goals are diagnosis, therapy, and “fixing” the individual so they can operate normally. Instead of taking social or environmental elements into account, this paradigm assumes that the primary obstacle to involvement in society is the individual’s condition. Because of this, it frequently ignores the ways that systemic inequity, inaccessible environments, and societal attitudes all contribute to disability. Critics contend that this strategy fails to foster inclusion and instead perpetuates stigma, advocating for strategies that emphasize social transformation and empowerment.

1. Should sport be grouped by ability or disability?

The authors argue that while disability-based groupings might provide safe, encouraging environments and fair competition, they can also serve to further isolation and the idea that athletes with disabilities are not welcome in mainstream sports.

Fitzgerald and Long stress that categorization shouldn’t be strict. Since some disabled people may thrive in specialized surroundings while others may prefer integrated ones, inclusion should instead be flexible and context-specific. Prioritizing liberty, choice, and access is crucial.

If done carefully and with an emphasis on skill level and participation goals rather than labels, grouping people by ability rather than by disability can be more inclusive. If aids and modifications are not offered, this strategy may still disadvantage athletes with disabilities if it is not carefully thought out.

Fitzgerald and Long contend that neither model is fundamentally superior and that what counts most is the way sport structures are created and the people they include or exclude. It is necessary to question ableist presumptions and develop varied pathways that enable everyone, regardless of ability, to engage in meaningful sport participation in order to achieve true inclusion.