The quote 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’” really made me stop and think. I interpret this to mean that society often uses perceived ability (whether physical, mental, or emotional) as a way to reinforce or justify other forms of discrimination. In other words, judgments about someone’s capabilities become a foundation for why certain people are excluded, devalued, or marginalized.

For example, take classism: people experiencing poverty are often unfairly judged as being “lazy” or “incapable,” which are ability-based assumptions. These ideas fuel the belief that they are somehow less deserving of support or opportunities, reinforcing economic inequality. Similarly, in racism, racialized communities might be stereotyped as having lower intellectual or social abilities.

The results of the Implicit Association Test didn’t really surprise me. I’ve grown up around disability in a very personal and positive way. My favorite person in the world has Cri du Chat syndrome, and that relationship has shaped a lot of who I am and how I see others. I used to run soccer camps and programs for children with special needs, and in high school, I did my co-op placement in an elementary developmental classroom. Those experiences not only showed me the challenges people with disabilities face in everyday systems, but also how much joy, resilience, and love they bring to the world. That’s a big part of why I want to become a special education teacher. I’ve always felt connected to the idea of seeing people for who they really are, not through what society says they can or can’t do. Special needs individuals have so much love and spirit to offer, even in a world that often fails to give that love back. At the same time, I don’t think tests like the IAT tell the whole story. I’ve met people who might score “neutral” or even “slightly preferring disabled people,” but still express ableist attitudes or make uncomfortable jokes. So while the test can be a good tool for self-reflection, I think the real work is in how we act every day, whether we speak up, include others, stay curious, and stay kind. For me, the IAT just confirmed what I already know: that this kind of reflection matters. And more importantly, that empathy, acceptance, and action matter even more.

I think sport should be grouped more by ability than by disability. Grouping by disability can sometimes ignore the wide range of skill levels within a group and can unintentionally reinforce stereotypes or assumptions. Just because two people have the same disability does not mean they have the same athletic ability. Grouping by ability, on the other hand, allows for more fair and meaningful participation and can promote inclusion by focusing on what people can do rather than their diagnosis. It also shifts the emphasis away from disability and toward creating equal opportunities for all athletes to compete and grow.

Ben Mattlin’s critique of supercrip stories helps explain this further. He argues that these portrayals make disability acceptable only when it looks like determination, toughness, or “beating the odds.” Murderball reinforces this by highlighting the athletes’ masculinity, aggression, and physical dominance. The film values them because they can compete in ways that are recognizable to non-disabled audiences through violence, grit, and performance. Gender is a major part of this. The players assert traditional masculinity to resist being seen as less than men because of their disabilities. However, in doing so, they reinforce narrow ideas of both masculinity and disability. They are accepted because they reflect a specific kind of macho, able-bodied ideal. There’s little space for emotional vulnerability, softer masculinity, or different kinds of disabled identities.