The idea that “ableism not only intersects with other forms of oppression” means that people’s abilities are often used as an excuse to treat certain groups unfairly. For example, women in sports have often been seen as not strong enough or fast enough, which has been used to limit their chances in competitions. This combines ableism (judging people’s abilities unfairly) with sexism (treating women as less capable). Another example is in education. Students from poorer backgrounds might struggle because they didn’t have access to good schools or resources. Instead of recognizing these challenges, some people may wrongly assume those students just aren’t smart or capable. In both cases, unfair ideas about ability are used to justify treating certain groups poorly.

My test result showed a “strong automatic preference for Physically Abled People over Physically Disabled People.” At first, I was surprised and questioned the test’s validity. However, after learning how the test works, I realized it measures how quickly people associate certain concepts together. For example, I responded faster when ‘Physically Abled People’ and ‘Good’ shared a button than when ‘Physically Disabled People’ and ‘Good’ did. This made me reflect that, while I consciously believe I treat disabled people equally, I may hold unconscious biases I wasn’t aware of. This experience showed me how valuable these tests can be in revealing hidden attitudes and encouraging personal growth.

Crip theory is a way of thinking that challenges how society views disability. It questions the idea that being disabled is only a problem to be fixed and instead sees disability as an important part of identity and culture. For me, this theory is important because it encourages people to value and respect differences rather than seeing them as flaws. It reminds me to be more aware of how social attitudes and barriers can impact disabled people, and it pushes me to challenge those ideas in my own thinking and actions.

 

Should sport competitions be integrated?

I think integrating sport competitions can be beneficial, but it depends on how it is done. Inclusion is important because it allows disabled and non-disabled athletes to compete together, breaking down barriers and reducing stigma. It can also create more opportunities for disabled athletes to be recognized and supported. However, integration must be done in a way that ensures fairness.

Some sports, like wheelchair basketball, already allow able-bodied players to compete, showing that integration can work. However, in other sports, mixing disabled and non-disabled athletes may create unfair advantages or disadvantages. For example, a track race that includes runners with and without prosthetics might raise concerns about different performance levels. To make integration fair, sports organizations would need clear rules and adjustments so that all athletes have a fair chance to compete.

While full integration may not always be possible, finding ways to bring disabled and non-disabled athletes together—through mixed training, combined events, or unified teams—could help create a more inclusive sports environment.

 

TRUE,

This paradox means that sportswomen are expected to succeed in a space that is traditionally seen as “masculine” because of its focus on strength, competition, and aggression. At the same time, they are pressured to maintain traditional ideas of femininity, such as being graceful, attractive, or modest, to be accepted as women.

For example, female athletes are often judged not just on their performance but also on their appearance, outfits, or behavior. In some sports, women feel pressured to wear revealing uniforms or act a certain way to gain media attention and sponsorships. Meanwhile, if they appear too strong or aggressive, they may be criticized for not being “feminine enough.” This creates a no-win situation where female athletes must constantly balance between being tough competitors and fitting into gender expectations.

This challenge is even greater for disabled sportswomen, who may also face ableist ideas about what a woman “should” look like or be capable of. Society often views disabled women as less feminine, and if they succeed in sports, they may be seen as even further from traditional gender norms.

Overall, this paradox makes it harder for women in sports to be judged fairly based on their skills alone, showing that gender expectations still shape the way people view female athletes

I think Murderball does play into the “supercrip” narrative in some ways, even though it also challenges stereotypes about disability. The film presents wheelchair rugby players as strong, aggressive, and competitive, which pushes back against the common belief that disabled people are weak or dependent. However, it also focuses a lot on their ability to “overcome” their disabilities and prove their worth through extreme toughness, which fits the supercrip idea.

The supercrip narrative suggests that disabled people must achieve something extraordinary to be respected or valued. In Murderball, the athletes are shown as pushing themselves to the limit, reclaiming their independence, and proving that they are just as tough—if not tougher—than non-disabled athletes. While this can be inspiring, it also reinforces the idea that disabled people must be exceptional to gain recognition. It risks sending the message that being an “ordinary” disabled person isn’t enough and that worth is tied to overcoming disability rather than just living with it.

Gender plays a big role in how the supercrip narrative appears in Murderball. The athletes strongly embrace traditional masculinity—being aggressive, competitive, and emotionally guarded. This helps them resist stereotypes of disabled men as weak or dependent, but it also limits how disabled masculinity is viewed. The film suggests that to be respected, disabled men must prove they are still “real men” by being physically dominant and aggressive.

This connects to the blog’s argument that the supercrip narrative pressures disabled people to constantly prove themselves. Instead of showing disability as a normal part of life, it presents success as needing to be “superhuman.” Murderball challenges some stereotypes but still reinforces the idea that disabled athletes must go above and beyond to be valued.