Do you really think that able bodied parents don’t park in the disabled spaces? Or on double yellows? All places I’m legally allowed to park. The head put a comment in the newsletter and regularly asked parents to park legally. To no avail. No one gives a shit about the disabled person. People ignored me as much as possible, friends dropped me. Why would I publicise I’m disabled?
No, I know that able-bodied people park anywhere they can near the school - legally and illegally. Some may have a good cause to (the legal spaces anyway), others may well not. That also kind of underlines my point - you are legally allowed to park on double yellows because you have a genuine need to be able to park. If an able-bodied person has parked there illegally, that takes away your legal and necessary options.
I'm not saying you should have to publicise that you're disabled (although the law does obviously require you to display your blue badge if parking on double yellows). FWIW, I'm disabled too - I have a neurological condition which makes it feel like I'm wearing armour most of the time I walk for any distance at all. This causes me a lot of pain and exhaustion, but, fortunately for me, I'm not (yet) in a position of needing to apply for a blue badge. I know very well how nasty some people can be when it comes to disabilities and even most well-meaning folk clearly just don't have any understanding of how limiting it is. I too don't like to publicise my own circumstances.
What I'm largely getting from this thread is the assumption that lazy people somehow don't exist and that everybody driving very short distances must therefore be disabled. I don't see how that helps the genuinely disabled in any way at all - it merely downgrades their circumstances by lumping them in with the lazy, and I'm astonished that disabled folk seem to be sweepingly defending EVERYBODY who acts as if they have needs that they really don't.
I'm not saying that people should be challenged, harassed or visually 'diagnosed', but take the case of the woman mentioned upthread who, since childhood, has done anything she possibly can to avoid doing any washing up. Do we just have to assume that she must have had severely painful arthritis for her whole life - even though I'm guessing she IS able to do lots of fun things that involve using her hands that genuine arthritis sufferers just could not do - or are we allowed to suggest that she just might be lazy? Another PP then states that they use paper plates out of choice because they are lazy. There's nothing wrong with being lazy, as long as you don't then take advantage of others in so being - but it is worlds apart from being disabled and unable to do things (at least without significant difficulty).
I agree with you that the way disabled people are treated by society (and government) is appalling. I just don't see how widening the definition of disabled to include everybody who effectively 'self-identifies' as disabled - i.e. lazy - actually helps the cause of genuinely disabled people.
To use a commonly-highlighted MN scenario by way of analogy, if a 6'6" 25-stone weightlifter who used to be known as Kevin now decides to identify as female, that is entirely their legal right - but if that person should then go on to say that:
- I am female
- I am not frightened of being attacked or raped.
- Therefore, all females have no cause to fear attack or rape, because I am female and I don't - and any who try to raise genuine concerns are just attention-seeking and fussing about nothing....
Who are the losers in this situation?