5
Section one: The fundamentals
A)
Exercise 1: Notebook Prompt
Many of you are likely familiar with the concept of “ability inequity,” which the authors of this article define as “an unjust or unfair (a) ‘distribution of access to and protection from abilities generated through human interventions’ or (b) ‘judgment of abilities intrinsic to biological structures such as the human body’.”
However, they go on to identify the following “ability concepts” that are less familiar:
1) ability security (one is able to live a decent life with whatever set of abilities one has)
2) ability identity security (to be able to be at ease with ones abilities)
How prevalent are these forms of security among disabled people you know? Or, if you identify as a disabled person, would you say your social surroundings and community foster and support these kinds of security? Furthermore, while the focus of the article is on Kinesiology programs, it is also important to reflect on how academia in general accommodates for disability. If you feel comfortable answering this question, what has been your experience of postsecondary education to date?
-OR-
The authors also observe that “Ableism not only intersects with other forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, ageism, and classism, but abilities are often used to justify such negative ‘isms’.”
What do you think this means? Provide an example.
| When considering the experiences of disabled people in educational and professional settings, the ideas of ability security and ability identity security strike a deep chord. I know very few disabled people who have both types of security. Structural inaccessibility frequently jeopardizes ability security, which is the capacity to live a respectable life with one’s current set of abilities. Inflexible work hours, inadequate healthcare, and public infrastructure based on a normative body all make it more difficult to live with dignity and independence. Accommodations are frequently presented as exceptions rather than essential components of inclusive design, even in academic settings where they are available.
Even more difficult to achieve is ability identity security, or the ease and self-assurance that comes from being confident in one’s skills. Many people feel pressured to “pass” as non-disabled, minimize their access needs, or constantly demonstrate their worth. In particular, academia has a tendency to reward output, speed, and hyper-productivity—qualities that can further marginalize people with disabilities. My own experience in postsecondary education has demonstrated to me that access frequently hinges more on the comprehension of individual instructors than on institutional support. The general culture still favours able-bodied norms, despite the empathy of some teachers. Whether or not disabled students feel like they belong is more important than whether ramps or extended deadlines are available. After giving this some thought, it becomes evident that promoting true ability security requires reevaluating the principles and frameworks that determine success, inclusivity, and human value—particularly in institutions like universities that influence our perceptions of the future. |
Exercise 2: Implicit Bias Test
Did anything surprise you about the results of the test? Please share if you’re comfortable OR comment on the usefulness of these kinds of tests more generally.
|
I was not totally surprised by the results of the Harvard Implicit Bias Test on Ableism, which showed a slight automatic preference for physically abled people over physically disabled people. This outcome made me realize how subtle and enduring implicit biases can be, even when our explicit values seek to reject them, even though I actively work to be inclusive and conscious of systemic barriers. The test indicates that I have been influenced by a culture that continuously emphasizes able-bodiedness as the standard, rather than necessarily that I harbour deliberate prejudice. Everyday presumptions about productivity or independence, media portrayals, and educational curricula all subtly reinforce ableism in our perceptions of “capable” people. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that even those who wish to advocate for disability justice may harbour unconscious prejudice. The test was helpful to me as a mirror—one that promotes introspection and a greater level of awareness—rather than as a moral judgment. It supports the reading’s contention that ableism is a systemic problem ingrained in fields like kinesiology, sport, and education rather than just a personal conviction. The extent of this bias is demonstrated by the continued marginalization of disability sports in discussions about diversity. Instead of merely acknowledging bias, the current challenge is to disrupt it by pushing for more inclusive policies, questioning conventional wisdom, and creating space for disabled voices in all fields—not just as participants, but as leaders. |
B) Keywords
Exercise 3:
Add the keyword you contributed to padlet and briefly (50 words max) explain its importance to you.
| Crip theory challenges prevailing notions of normalcy, ability, and identity by fusing disability studies and queer theory. Instead, it sees disability as a socially constructed and politically significant experience, criticizing the medicalization of disability. Crip theory promotes a rethinking of access, inclusion, and what it means to live a valuable life while challenging conventional expectations of bodies, minds, and behaviours. Additionally, it accepts the term “crip” as a reclaimed, empowering identity that celebrates diversity and defies ableist conventions.
Crip theory is significant to me because it questions conventional notions of ability and normalcy. It challenges us to reconsider how we define inclusion, value, and access in all spheres of society and reframes disability as a cultural and political identity rather than merely a medical condition. |
B) On Disability
Exercise 4: Complete the Activities
Exercise 5: Notebook Prompt
What do Fitzgerald and Long identify as barriers to inclusion and how might these apply to sport in particular?
In their chapter “Integration or Special Provision? Positioning Disabled People in Sport and Leisure,” Jonathan Long and Hayley Fitzgerald list several obstacles that prevent disabled people from participating fully in sports. One significant obstacle is attitude; unfavourable preconceptions and assumptions regarding disabilities frequently influence who is deemed “appropriate” for participation in sports, which can result in exclusion or tokenism. These attitudes may show up as a lack of support, low expectations, or a reluctance to change sports environments. Disabled people are further marginalized by structural barriers like inflexible programming, restricted access to adaptive equipment, and inaccessible facilities. Sports that are marketed as “inclusive” frequently fall short of meeting the unique and varied needs of people with various disabilities. Fitzgerald and Long also draw attention to the difficulty of striking a balance between special provision—disabled people’s own spaces or programs—and integration, which involves disabled people participating in mainstream settings. Even though integration is frequently hailed as the best option, it may not be sufficient if it only involves integrating disabled people into spaces without actually removing obstacles to their meaningful participation. These obstacles cause disabled athletes to have fewer opportunities, be less visible, and have fewer routes in the sport world. The authors contend that in order to achieve inclusive sport, attitudes, laws, and practices must drastically change to acknowledge and value disabled bodies as essential components of the athletic community.
C) Inclusion, Integration, Separation
Exercise 6: Complete the Activities
Exercise 7: Notebook Prompt
Choose ONE of the three questions Fitzgerald and Long argue disability sport needs to address and record your thoughts in your Notebook.
- Should sport be grouped by ability or disability?
- Is sport for participation or competition?
- Should sport competitions be integrated?
| 3. Fitzgerald and Long’s analysis of integrated sporting events brings up significant issues regarding equity, visibility, and inclusion objectives. By bringing athletes with and without disabilities together, integrated competitions can, on the one hand, advance equality by dispelling myths and raising awareness of disability sport. If integration favours non-disabled performance standards or subtly encourages disabled athletes to “fit in” rather than compete on their own terms, it may also run the risk of reiterating ableist norms. Integration needs to be more than just sharing a field or venue; it needs to rethink how competition is organized, how success is determined, and whose experiences are prioritized. To be truly inclusive, one should value diversity rather than erase it. Sport competitions can, in my opinion, be integrated in this way, but only if it is done consciously, with an understanding of power relations and a dedication to equity rather than assimilation. |
Part Two: Making Connections
A) Gender, Sport and Disability
Exercise 8: Complete the Activity
The paradox that sportswomen habitually face (as the authors observe, this isn’t confined to disabled sportswomen) involves the expectation they will be successful in a ‘masculine’ environment while complying with femininity norms in order to be recognized as a woman.
True or false?
Take a moment to reflect on this paradox below (optional).
| This paradox strikes a deep chord, particularly when considering how strict gender norms still influence expectations in sports. Women athletes are frequently expected to exhibit characteristics that are typically associated with men, such as strength, aggression, and competitiveness, while still upholding a socially acceptable definition of femininity. For disabled sportswomen, who deal with overlapping expectations regarding ability, gender, and appearance, this double standard can be even more complicated. Athletes are constantly under pressure to manage both performance and identity because they must “prove” themselves in a masculine-coded environment while still being recognizable as feminine. It emphasizes how changing cultural norms about who and how belongs in sports is just as important to inclusion as granting access to participation. |
B) Masculinity, Disability, and Murderball
Exercise 9: Notebook/Padlet Prompt
Watch the film, Murderball and respond to the question in the padlet below (you will have an opportunity to return to the film at the end of this module).
The authors of “Cripping Sport and Physical Activity: An Intersectional Approach to Gender and Disability” observe that the “gendered performance of the wheelchair rugby players can…be interpreted as a form of resistance to marginalized masculinity” (332) but also point out that it may reinforce “ableist norms of masculinity.” After viewing the film, which argument do you agree with?
a) Murderball celebrates a kind of resistance to marginalized masculinity
| Murderball does both of these things.
Murderball is a multifaceted movie that offers a sophisticated perspective on sport, disability, and masculinity. On the one hand, it challenges the marginalization that disabled masculinities frequently face by blatantly rejecting the notion that disabled men are weak or asexual. The film’s characters exhibit aggressive, competitive, and unapologetic toughness—qualities that are typically linked to hegemonic masculinity. In a culture that frequently marginalizes disabled men, particularly in settings like sports where physical prowess is exalted, this performance gives them a chance to reclaim space. In this way, it acts as a kind of protest against the myth that disabled men are incapable of being “real” men. |
Section Three: Taking a Shot
A) Resistance
B) Calling out Supercrip
Exercise 10: Mini Assignment (worth 5% in addition to the module grade)
1) Do you agree with the critique of the “supercrip” narrative in this video? Why or why not? Find an example of the “supercrip” Paralympian in the 2024 Paris Paralympics or Special Olympics coverage and explain how it works.
| The 2016 Rio Paralympics’ “We are the Superhumans” ad has drawn praise and criticism for how it portrayed athletes with disabilities. Although its goal was to highlight the abilities and tenacity of Paralympians, some contend that it reinforces the “supercrip” narrative, which presents disabled people as inspirational just because they “overcome” their disabilities. This viewpoint may unintentionally create irrational expectations and obscure the structural obstacles that the larger disabled community must overcome. Critics claim that by focusing on personal success over disability rather than addressing societal inclusivity, such narratives may alienate people who do not fit this mould. The way that 15-year-old French sprinter Marie Ngoussou is portrayed during the 2024 Paris Paralympics serves as an illustration of the “supercrip” narrative. Media sources emphasized her quick rise in parasports and her own experience overcoming a birth injury to compete at a high level. Although her accomplishments are certainly admirable, focusing primarily on “overcoming” her disability runs the risk of perpetuating the idea that success for disabled people is essentially about overcoming their limitations. By implying that a disability is something to be overcome rather than an essential component of human diversity, this emphasis may unintentionally reinforce ableist viewpoints and take attention away from the athlete’s commitment, preparation, and talent. In conclusion, it is critical to approach Paralympians’ stories with nuance even though it is important to celebrate their accomplishments. A more impartial and empowering narrative is provided by highlighting their athletic ability, dedication, and the structural adjustments required for greater inclusivity. |
2) Does the film Murderball play into the supercrip narrative in your opinion? How does gender inform supercrip (read this blog for some ideas)?
(300 words for each response)
| Murderball does, in my opinion, contribute to the supercrip narrative, albeit critically. The athletes are portrayed in the movie as tough, aggressive, and fiercely competitive, effectively shattering stereotypes of disabled people as passive or pathetic. But in doing so, it frequently perpetuates the “supercrip” stereotype, which holds that people with disabilities are inspirational because they “overcome” their limitations by performing amazing things. By pushing the boundaries of their bodies in a way that conforms to able-bodied standards of success, the players are portrayed not only as athletes but also as men who have overcome adversity and reclaimed their independence, masculinity, and sexuality.
This narrative is criticized in the blog post “I Am Not Your Supercrip,” which explains how it can be reductive and dehumanizing. The supercrip narrative marginalizes people with disabilities who lead regular lives or whose disabilities are less “media-friendly” by implying that disabled people are only valuable when they accomplish something extraordinary. Additionally, this framing places the onus of change on individuals rather than on society as a whole. The supercrip narrative is significantly shaped by gender. Hypermasculine behaviours, such as physical dominance, trash talk, and sexual prowess, are used in Murderball to offset the athletes’ disabilities. This implies that recovering one’s masculinity is a way to atone for losing one’s ability to be physically fit. This emphasis on masculine ideals, however, ignores other identities, especially women and non-binary disabled people, whose stories do not fit the stereotype of the tough, inspirational athlete, as the blog notes. Murderball both questions and upholds ableist and gendered norms by emphasizing male-coded strength and resiliency. |
By portraying disabled men as competitive, aggressive, emotionally complex athletes rather than as helpless victims or passive recipients of care, Murderball sets an example of defiance against both gender norms and disability. The idea that people with disabilities are naturally weak or dependent is actively contested in the movie. The athletes challenge the societal perception that disability is synonymous with weakness or limitation through their intense wheelchair rugby matches, demanding training, and inspirational tales of perseverance. Their confidence, skill, and physicality make viewers rethink what athleticism and strength look like in a body with a disability.
The movie also challenges prevailing gender norms. With its trash talk, sexual bravado, and hard-hitting gameplay, it leans toward traditional masculinity, but it also allows for vulnerability. The most impactful moments occur when players candidly talk about intimacy, loss, rage, and adaptation. Typical representations of masculinity that value toughness and stoicism stand in contrast to this emotional openness. By doing this, the movie quietly reinterprets masculinity as something that can involve emotional depth, interdependence, and reinterpreted ideas of strength.
The athletes’ full and unapologetic lives also challenge social norms. They represent a form of independence that embraces rather than minimizes their disability, whether they are dating, raising a family, or striving for athletic success. Instead of striving to emulate those without disabilities, they reinterpret what power and success look like in the context of disabled bodies. This demonstrates that strength can manifest in a variety of ways and that identity can be both strong and flexible, challenging both ableism and inflexible notions of masculinity.
