Should All Identities Be Embraced?

The medical model locates disability within individual bodies requiring medical intervention or cure, viewing impairment as the problem needing fixing. The social model distinguishes impairment (bodily condition) from disability (social barriers), arguing that inaccessible environments and discriminatory attitudes disable people rather than their impairments themselves. Hepple illustrates this with concrete examples: a building without a lift disables wheelchair users through architectural failure, not their inability to walk; strangers assuming learning difficulties based on appearance create attitudinal barriers. The fire alarm analogy clarifies this: we disable fire alarms through our actions; alarms don’t inherently possess disabilities. This distinction matters because it shifts responsibility from individuals changing bodies to society removing barriers, fundamentally reorienting accessibility politics from personal tragedy to collective justice.

The comparison tests whether pursuing medical treatment constitutes capitulating to prejudice by changing oneself rather than demanding society change. Gay people seeking conversion therapy to escape homophobia would be abandoning identity pride to accommodate bigotry—something Hepple says he’d oppose because ‘we need to be proud of our identities to hold our ground.’ If this logic applies to disability, then reducing cerebral palsy symptoms might similarly constitute self-denial rather than self-improvement. However, Hepple doesn’t resolve this analogy because crucial disanalogies exist: homosexuality involves no physical limitation beyond social prejudice, while cerebral palsy objectively hinders capabilities like maintaining eye contact or reading. The comparison thus illuminates disability’s unique complexity—combining social barriers removable through attitude change with physical limitations potentially reducible through medical intervention.

The fire scenario introduces Darwinian survival logic demonstrating cerebral palsy’s objective disadvantage beyond social construction: ‘if there was a fire and I was without an assistant, CP could only be a hindrance.’ This thought experiment cuts through ideological abstractions about disability pride by presenting life-or-death stakes where impairment’s material reality becomes undeniable. No amount of attitudinal barrier removal or architectural accessibility makes cerebral palsy advantageous during emergencies requiring rapid independent movement. The scenario doesn’t resolve Hepple’s dilemma but rather sharpens it: even while acknowledging cerebral palsy shaped his resilient personality—’I would be a very different person without it’—he cannot deny its objective costs. This tension between identity constitution and survival disadvantage captures why disability resists simple pride frameworks imported from other civil rights movements.

Readlite provides curated articles with comprehensive analysis including summaries, key points, vocabulary building, and practice questions across 9 different RC question types. Our Ultimate Reading Course offers 365 articles with 2,400+ questions to systematically improve your reading comprehension skills.

This article is rated Advanced because it requires navigating complex philosophical tensions without resolution, tracking subtle conceptual distinctions between impairment and disability, and recognizing how analogies both illuminate and break down. Readers must understand disability studies frameworks (social versus medical models), appreciate why identity pride politics developed in LGBTQ+ and racial justice movements don’t translate straightforwardly to disability, and follow Hepple’s self-interrogative reasoning through hypotheticals testing principle consistency. The piece assumes comfort with ambiguity—Hepple explicitly states ‘I don’t have an answer’ and leaves central questions unresolved, modeling intellectual honesty rather than argumentative closure. Advanced readers should recognize this as sophisticated ethical reasoning acknowledging irreducible complexity rather than argumentative weakness, understanding that some dilemmas resist clean resolution.

The fiscal responsibility question introduces utilitarian considerations complicating pure identity-pride frameworks: ‘This is tax-payers’ money, so am I under a duty if there is an easier solution to fix myself or not, in an attempt to require less care?’ This adds economic dimensions to ethical analysis—if medical equipment reduces care needs, does receiving public support create obligation to pursue treatment? The question reveals disability’s unique position: unlike other minorities, disabled people often require material resources (assistive technology, personal care, accessible infrastructure) creating potential conflicts between pride politics and fiscal pragmatism. Hepple doesn’t answer whether such obligations exist but raises the question honestly, demonstrating how disability intersects with distributive justice concerns in ways race, gender, or sexuality typically don’t. This fiscal angle further distinguishes disability from purely social-barrier minorities.

The Ultimate Reading Course covers 9 RC question types: Multiple Choice, True/False, Multi-Statement T/F, Text Highlight, Fill in the Blanks, Matching, Sequencing, Error Spotting, and Short Answer. This comprehensive coverage prepares you for any reading comprehension format you might encounter.