Exploring Disability and Societal Attitudes

Ever wondered how language shapes our perception of disability? Join us on Access Chat for an engaging conversation with Professor Gregor Wolbring, a distinguished Disability Studies Scholar from the University of Calgary. Born in Germany and personally affected by thalidomide, Gregor takes us on his transformative journey from biochemistry to disability studies. Gain fresh insights into the historical and public perception of thalidomide and discover why Gregor champions terms like "mobility divergent" over "walking impaired" to foster a more positive narrative around diverse abilities.

Explore the concept of "accessibility anxiety" in our second chapter, where we delve into the significant barriers disabled individuals face in everyday life. Gregor discusses how systemic obstacles and societal attitudes influence the choices and behaviors of disabled persons, often resulting in isolation. By comparing assistive technologies to everyday tools, we challenge the conventional perceptions of reliance on external aids and highlight the universal nature of seeking assistance. Understand how ableism operates as a societal mechanism that affects everyone, not just disabled individuals, and perpetuates inequality.

In our final segment, we tackle the complex issues surrounding disability terminology and its intersection with poverty. Gregor provides an insightful critique of person-first versus identity-first language and emphasizes the importance of self-determination in identity choices. We also shine a light on the critical issue of poverty among disabled individuals, revealing that a significant percentage live below the poverty line. Highlighting the need for greater representation and attitudinal accessibility, we discuss the Canadian Accessibility Act as a step toward a more inclusive society. Join us for this thought-provoking episode that underscores the broader implications of societal attitudes towards disability and the necessity of cultural inclusivity.

Chapters

• 0:01 Disability Studies Scholar on Thalidomide
• 8:32 Accessibility Anxiety and Ability Judgments
• 19:53 Necessary Reconsideration of Disability Terminology
• 37:39 Accessibility and Poverty

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:01

Hello and welcome to Access Chat. I'm delighted that we're joined today by Professor Gregor Wolvering, who is a Disability Studies Scholar at the University of Calgary. So welcome, gregor. We've been chatting a lot off air about your infamy or your fame, should it be so please tell us a little bit about yourself and the work that you're doing. I'm excited to have you join us today.

Speaker 2: 0:28

Sure, I'm born in Germany, trained as a biochemist, and then I came to Calgary as a postdoc and then I became a faculty member within disability studies in 2008,. And that's where I still am and I do, in essence, disability politics, since I'm born, more or less, I'm a solidomide person, a solidomider, and so I deal with I mean public reaction to, I mean not being ability normative all my life, and so I was doing politics all the time on the side whereas I was training for biochem and so on, and then in 2008, I simply switched and do it full-time.

Speaker 1: 1:14

Okay, now we have an intergenerational audience who the younger members of our audience may not be fully aware of the impact of thalidomide and what that drug impacted on the children of the mothers that took it. So maybe you could just explain what that means. Well thalidomide.

Speaker 2: 1:40

I mean depending how you, I mean phrase it. I mean, of course. I mean depending how you, I mean phrase it. I mean, of course, the public phrased it as the mother took a drug during pregnancy and then you received this malformed child, right, that is normally the narrative around thalidomide, right, defective product, and we were used a lot.

Speaker 2: 2:09

The images of us, right, as our body morphology is not quite, I mean, up to the standard, right, um, I myself do not use that. I mean, uh, that's why I also don't use a little my victim, I use, which often is used. I, I'm just a little miter, okay, right, that's new to it. The same as I mean, when people go on my website, they can see me how I look. I mean without just the face, they can see the rest of it and but in essence I'm, I have no legs but I have feet right, and so that, of course, then means that people, right, would call me walking impaired and all that kind of stuff, right, which which, again, I refuse, right, I like factual language.

Speaker 2: 2:49

Factual is I don't walk, right, but walking impairment is a judgment that assumes I have to walk. I just use, I mean the same as we use neurodivergent. I call myself mobility, diverge or diverge, which, funny enough is, no one uses. It's the only group where you see a positive imagery is around deaf culture and then neurodivergence, but all the others, I mean, are stuck with the impairment label, which I simply refuse, and are stuck with the impairment label, which I simply refuse. If I'm walking impaired, then of course the rest of the human race is flying impaired. Well it is, it's a fact. You do not fly right? Well not. And survive?

Speaker 1: 3:39

Huh, well, not, and survive. Your trajectory is only downwards, and then you have impact.

Speaker 2: 3:48

Well, that is falling. But in essence it's all about language, right, and I refuse to be labeled, I mean in a negative framework, I mean without, I mean having any say so only because I don't use, I mean legs for mobility. I use other things. I crawl right normally, and that again gets demonized right. I published a piece called Cherry Picking right, because we cherry pick, which abilities we want to see. And then if you have not only if you then don't have some, but if you have some they don't want to have you still get demonized right. So crawling is, for example, constantly used in a negative fashion. So that's why I'm simply a mobility divergent and not walking impaired.

Speaker 4: 4:42

I love it. I love it. Can I ask a quick question? I just want to sorry, Antonio, I want to. You made a comment about the mothers using these drugs, these mothers using these drugs, and I just want to make some comments there, because the mothers, of course, as Gregor will know, use these drugs, because our doctors told us to use these drugs and the reason why they were using these drugs were to help do that. Excuse me, I have a cough. If I remember correctly, I think it was to really, if the mother was having pain during her pregnancy and stuff. It was supposed to help the mothers feel better. The mothers had no idea that if they took this limonide, that it was right. The pharmacy companies had not. Well, the data was not given. We learned it on people like your mother and you, Gregor, and so I just want to state that this was things that women took because they thought they were doing the right thing by themselves and by their babies.

Speaker 2: 5:43

That's what they were told right thing by themselves and by their babies. That's what they were told. Well, originally, thalidomide was I mean, was developed as a sleeping pill.

Speaker 4: 5:50

All right, all right, I was trying to remember what it was called.

Speaker 2: 5:52

That's how it started. Right, it had nothing to do with, and it was used as a sleeping pill because you could not overdose.

Speaker 2: 6:01

All right so it was seen as a safe alternative to sleeping pills where you can kill yourself. That's how it started and the pregnancy one. That was not the market, but of course a lot of women are having sleeping problems. And then they took it. That is actually. One could have a tagline around solidamide, right, right. And then they took it. That is actually. One could have a tagline around thalidomide. The original idea when they were developing it was that it would be an antibiotic, and that is what it never became. Literally every application of thalidomide was found by accident because you use this for something else and which it didn't do anything for. And then, for example, e and L in leprosy they found because I gave it as a sleeping pill to their people. So all the thalidomide applications were mostly found by accident and the original idea of why they developed the drug actually that it never became because it's not antibiotic.

Speaker 4: 7:11

Right, I know that John Kemp was affected by this as well. Just for the audience that knows that amazing man.

Speaker 2: 7:18

Yeah, right, yeah, and it was in the 60s. I mean you can see with my beard, I mean this is not. I mean glaring out, I actually white, not even play. I pass that stage already.

Speaker 4: 7:35

Yeah.

Speaker 4: 7:35

I just, we learned a lot from as a society these times with thalidomide we did what we shouldn't. Yeah, I think society learned a lot. But I noticed your work because you have really written some amazing disability, you know papers and really dug into research and stuff, and so I was very impressed with and I know my audiences as well, because you're always like oh yeah, I wrote about that. Oh yeah, and I wrote about that. You've really written a lot. You've been putting a lot of content out there for our community. So that's one thing I would love to hear about. And then I know that Antonio wants to come in too, so let me give the floor to you, gregor, and then to Antonio.

Speaker 2: 8:24

Give the floor to you, gregor, and then to Antonia. Well, I mean, the thing is, the only thing I can do is provide data, right, I mean I do very little in the community because of access problems, right, so I do mostly everything, I mean right through my computer, because that is accessible to me. I don't have to worry about whatever doesn't work. Again, given that, I would say, in the last 30 years for me, the access actually hasn't improved. You can never predict where you get pitfalls, whether it's when you fly somewhere, I mean right, I mean how often the wheelchairs get broken and so on. So literally what you're doing is, I mean right, this is my adaptation, in essence, that I'm sitting at home and do this from computer because I don't have to worry what might go wrong on the journey, which, in essence, many disabled people have.

Speaker 2: 9:27

There was an independent study from 2019 saying 75% of disabled people in the UK have anxiety because they don't know whether, when they travel, whether actually everything goes according to plan, or whether they have pitfalls with accessibility. Right, which then I called accessibility anxiety, right, or disablism anxiety, right, if you are constantly anticipating that you encounter problems, eventually you don't do that. I'm trying to avoid that problem, right? That's what anxiety is about, right? I mean, you predict something and predict something, and if you don't know, then you simply avoid certain things. And that's exactly happening. If you're getting constantly systemically discriminated so disableism, eventually you try to avoid it and then you don't do this activity. That is not specific to disabled people, of course. This is simply, and you already can anticipate that you will have again a problem Eventually. You don't do the activity anymore. That's simply how we as human beings try to compensate.

Speaker 3: 10:39

We have a guest on AXSChat where we talk about the topic of traveling, and the situation is people end up going always to the same place because it's predictable, they know that it's going to work, people know them and that's the scenario that we end up. That's that's something that we got from the conversation that we have been having over the years. We started this part of this conversation when you were talking about, you know, impairments, you know and terminologies to use, and I'm very curious to know how do you see this dictonomy between disabled and non-disabled in trying to get you know, there's a billion people with disabilities. There are people who don't have disabilities. How do you see this separation when, in fact, this is just part of the human condition?

Speaker 2: 11:35

Well, I don't like silos, right? Well, that's why I use walking impaired, flying impaired as an example. That's why the other one impaired, flying impaired right as an example. Right, that's why the other one I normally use. If I'm confined to the wheelchair which of course we read everywhere right then of course, very likely I don't see your bottom part, but I assume you're all confined to your legs, right? I mean, the irony is I can get out of my wheelchair, whereas you can't get out of your legs, right. But the thing is we, right, the people in power, set the stage in such a way that, of course, they would not see themselves as confined to their legs Right, or confined to walking Right, or assistive technology Another example.

Speaker 2: 12:28

Or confined to walking right, or assistive technology another example. We call the wheelchair assistive technology within a medical framework. Right, it's a medical technology, right, and the thing is, everyone uses an assistive technology. The snowboard is an assistive technology. The snowboard is an assistive technology. Public transportation right, the bus, the car, the plane. Because we can't fly, we use a tool right, the assistive technology of the plane.

Speaker 2: 13:03

But we treat this as if only disabled people need assistance, right, so we have developed a whole I mean right culture of using certain words so you can other that group as being something special, as in not so cool, right, um, and that you need help and you have to be grateful, and I use every that we are all in the same boat, right. Even when I coined the field of ability studies, I coined it not with the meaning of what we normally use ableism for synonym for discrimination against disabled people. When I started with that my part there's, of course, I mean two others. I mean, like Fiona Kemper's studies in ableism and critical studies in ableism from Dan Goodley, right, who both focus more on disabled people. As right, as when you ask people what is ableism, people normally will say right, it's discrimination against disabled people. I use this back when I wrote my first paper on it in 2008, as everyone has ability expectations. Right, I mean some people like to have a cell phone. Right, and so on. I mean, every day you make a zillion decisions based on abilities you expect and then sometimes I mean right, these abilities become an essential. Then it's ableism. Right, that you need this ability and that is with everyone, that you need this ability and that is with everyone. But then what you do with disability judgment is you can disable people, but it's everyone.

Speaker 2: 14:51

I mean, for example, for the US listeners right, the suffragette movement, the right to vote. Right, men decided rationality is important as an ability. Right, men decided women aren't rational and then man decided women can't vote. So we're using ability judgments to other people constantly. So, certain groups you come up with certain abilities, whether you have them or not, because obviously women are not irrational, not more than men. Right, but you use this as a tool to other to put yourself up in a superior position. That's also why we use a language as if only the other group is, I mean a problem, right, that's I mean who we label impaired, who we call confined and so on and so on. And so the ability I coined then in the way I do this is we have to look at ability judgments as in, as a system critique. Right, because everyone judges and gets judged, and the question is who has the power to put through their judgment and for what purpose is? Who has the power to put through their judgment and for what purpose? Right?

Speaker 2: 16:09

I, for example, see also ability expectations and ableism can also be used to enable. This is not. There's a difference between ableism and what you do with it. Right. In many places we use ableism, disableism as equal right, but ableism and disableism are two different things. Ableism simply means you see an ability as essential and then you can use it to disable people and it just classifies sexism, racism, casteism and so on and so on. Right. And you can also use it to enable the social determinants of health, the UN human security indicators, all of these. Equity, diversity, inclusion to use the Canadian version, us is diverse is DEI, we have to use different orders is enabled Capability approach from Senn and Anand and Reit Nussbaum is to enable the capability to have a good life.

Speaker 2: 17:15

These are all about abilities, but you can use them to enable. So I use my framework in the way. I use it simply as a narrative where I can question how we come up with what is essential, and it also constantly changes. There is an ability coming and people see this, oh, that's weird and eclectic, and people are smirking. And then some of these new abilities move on to, hey, they're actually useful, right. And then some of these will then become okay, you have to have this, you can't do without. So it's like a timeline. And then the next step is well, what? The ability you have now is actually obsolete, right?

Speaker 4: 18:08

Gregor. Yes, gregor, I have a question for you. I was recently having this conversation with some other leaders and there's really a lot to complain about because we just really have not. I mean, this was the conversation. There's a lot to complain about. A lot, a lot of our accessibility inclusion efforts have failed. There has been some efforts, but it seems sometimes like we're going backwards. But I think, from somebody like you that has spent your whole life doing this, how, how, what does it look like going forward? What do we do now to move this forward? Because, um, you know we're we're redoing this world while we're all living in it, and it's very messy. But I just wonder, in your opinion, gregor and I know you talk about this sometimes, you answer questions on LinkedIn and stuff but what's your hope for the future for us? How do we change all this brokenness we have?

Speaker 2: 19:09

Well, I mean, it's not that simple to answer and there's so many problems. The only thing I can really contribute to come up with a framework where we find a way that I mean a given problem is I mean, we're all in the same boat, right? If we're setting it up for us, it's only the disabled people, right? Then it's of course. I mean right, and you can see I use disabled people, disabilities, right, of course. I mean right and you can see I use disabled people, disabilities, right, which, of course. When I asked my students in the first year, I mean right, how to?

Speaker 2: 19:53

They always say people with disabilities, because that's how they're conditioned. Right, and I think it's a problem because look at all the other right, marginalized groups. We don't say person who is a woman. We don't say person who is black, person, who is LGBTQ2S+ person, who is indigenous. Why is that that? Only for disabled people? The solution is to ignore who I am and put people first, right? Normally, when you use a certain narrative, a sentence, and you put another group into it and you're questioning that way with how it's written, then there's a problem with it, right? So people first, in essence was coined from the in this right, indeed to detract from the disability part from the disability part, because the disability part was seen intrinsically as a negative Right. So normally people with disabilities really means people with a defect Right, and if that is a given then it might be better to use that than a defective person.

Speaker 3: 21:01

Right.

Speaker 2: 21:01

Right. Then we have people say identity first right. Like autistic person versus person who is, I mean having autism. That works within a given characteristic. Right To say deaf person versus a person who is deaf, right. It's not so much working when you use disability as a group thing, because then what is your identity? And there we're getting what is identity being called disabled? And there you have two options again. For me, when I say disabled person, that's what I mean a person who is discriminated because they're not ability normative. That's how I use disabled, because the problem we have is disability. Disabled are used for two totally different discourses the same word. One is how you define the body and the second is how you, amir, characterize how you're treated in society. Both use the same word.

Speaker 1: 22:07

So I work for a multinational organization and we have 70 countries in our organisation and the variance in how people describe disability culturally is significant. So we've taken an approach to follow the UN, which does mean that we use person first. But we've been writing a language comic recently and you know there are so many exceptions to the person first, bit and um, and then also when we're talking about neurodivergence, whilst in in many terms it's been, in many circumstances it's been useful for having the classification of disability, many neurodivergent people don't consider themselves to be disabled or part of the disability community, so it's a really fraught topic even within our sub community. So I was really interested to sort of hear your take and some of the spins on how we frame ourselves and also how we frame assistive tech and the devices that we use. So not confined to a wheelchair.

Speaker 1: 23:29

Tara Moss, who we've had on a couple of times, talks about her wheelchair as a freedom machine. You know it's the thing that enables her to go places, and I've not thought about ableism in terms of a positive effect of people designing stuff to give people ability. So that was interesting to me. In the UK we tend to use disabled people a lot more.

Speaker 2: 23:53

Yeah, but you use it with the meaning discriminated people.

Speaker 1: 23:59

People who are discriminated.

Speaker 2: 24:01

You don't use disabled people with the meaning of defect, filling the word disability right, so use it right, and the same as in the UK also they used right I mean they make much more of a distinction, right, long time. Right, I mean Rachel Hurst, right and right, and I mean Paul Miller, their paper for demos. Right, I mean where they say disablism is the last discrimination, not ableism, disablism, right. So that's the thing. Every place has different culture how they use words, right. We also have disabled people, right, who see their body as a problem, right.

Speaker 2: 24:43

I normally use a matrix with my students like a two by two. Right. You have two options to define your body. Right. You can say your body is, I mean, a medical problem, and you can say your body is diverse, right. Whatever you want to use, right. So if you have cancer, you very likely will say your body has a medical problem, right. If you're deaf culture, you say right, well, it's right. If you lose your hearing, you very likely think more about hearing impairment than deaf culture.

Speaker 2: 25:24

So then, where the disablement then comes from, you have again two options the body, which very likely a cancer patient, will say my body is disabling me, and deaf culture will say my body that I don't hear is not the disablement, and you can say or you can say my right, the society is disabling me, right, and then you can have people, right, I mean deaf. Culture can then, in the matrix, only have on the bottom right, social, social. So you're right, your body is a variation of being and you're getting just discriminated by society. The cancer patient could do all kinds of stuff. The cancer patient, my body is a medical issue, okay, and then I'm getting right, the disablement is my body.

Speaker 2: 26:15

And society, only because your body has a medical issue doesn't mean you don't have a disablement, as in the society treats you badly, right, and so for me it's important, self-determination, what I normally call debility, identity, self-determination. You should right, be able to say how you fit. So there are many people who see their body not as a variation, right, chronic pain, whatever. But they still then, right, should have the option okay, so, right, I feel like I'm, I mean right, I'm pain impaired, or whatever you want to call it. And then they can say and therefore, because I have, I mean pain, right, I get treated badly by society.

Speaker 2: 27:00

But it's about everyone has different views how they see themselves and they should be able to use the full matrix in a way it suits them. The problem is that's not how it is. Disabled people by default have to identify as defective products because impairment is a given. Look at the UN Convention. It uses impairment of the body as a starting point, and then you also have some social discrimination due to that your body is impaired, so you've got all of the ICF stuff which basically just forces you into these boxes.

Speaker 2: 27:37

Well, the ICF also sees the body as impaired by default. Yeah, exactly, it forces you into these boxes. Well, the ICF also sees the body as impaired by default.

Speaker 1: 27:41

Yeah, exactly, it forces you into a box.

Speaker 2: 27:44

Right, and I think you look at any document, impairment is the default. So it's like saying women have to say we are double X syndromes. Deborah, I mean right, you obviously have double X syndrome, right, double X, yes, right, and I do normally have double X syndrome because most in my class are women. Right, you could just as. And then you can come up with a scenario where you read that out, where then, really, women are diseased, right, the double X syndrome? Right, because they have characteristics which are only for women. Therefore, and then you label it as bad.

Speaker 2: 28:24

And then, all of a sudden, women are medicalized, which of course, is not new, right? Remember in the Middle Ages where they said hysteria was located in the uterus? Yes, and with that man could guarantee that it's only women who are hysteric, right. So anyone can set a framework where they and women could come up easily with an argument, with a lineup of specific characteristics of men and then call it XY syndrome, right. But the thing is, if the only way you get human rights by first defining yourself as a defective product, that is a problem. And I think that is why we have so many problems, that we are still fighting the same things over and over, because reality people we label as defective by default as health issues. We're looking for health solutions, not social solutions.

Speaker 1: 29:19

So within the programmes I'm running within the organisation, we're taking a biopsychosocial model and we're also asking people who don't consider themselves to be disabled whether they find themselves in a situation where they cannot do something or a situation where they are disabled by technology, by circumstance, by management. So we're trying quite hard to get away from that sort of medicalization model to really understand how we can create a more enabling and inclusive environment. But it's not simple to sort of get that across in a multicultural environment as well.

Speaker 2: 30:00

Yeah, because it's not black and white and I totally understand if someone, as I said, someone will, I mean see themselves we know this with, I mean people who become amputees, right, they will see their body as impaired because many of them, because they had legs before and now you get rid of them, right, you simply do not function as an impairment, right, so the thing is, you need simply be allowed to do that. I mean, often people say the social model of disability is not working because it does not take into account right, I mean medical realities. I think that's why you have to disentangle, right, that people should have the right of self-determination how they define their body medical or not. And then they have to also be able to say right, whether I mean where the disablement originates, the body or society, and everyone in different stages in life and different stages of where they're exposed to, will simply use different versions. The problem is that by default, right, you have to see your body first as defective. That's why, with students, if you want to get accommodation, you have to get a medical certificate right in schools, otherwise you can't.

Speaker 2: 31:21

You see, accommodation is another of these terms. When I get a wheelchair washroom, I'm told I'm accommodated. And then I say, well, there is a washroom there period, and that is an accommodation to the human physiology period, and that is an accommodation to the human physiology. But of course, again, the, the ones who write the script, would never see themselves as accommodated by having a washroom. Right, so for me, having a wheelchair washroom is nothing special because, well, we accommodate everyone. Everyone needs accommodation, right, this is not specific to me. The very building code is accommodation to the human body.

Speaker 2: 32:09

So all these terms and that fits with the term of ability privilege, which in essence was the reason to coin ableism originally right, saying okay, how do people do that? Because once you have it, then fit certain ability norms set by certain people, you then have I mean access to all kinds of other abilities. Right, so if you have legs and you get education right or you can use transportation. But even ability privilege is a generic concept. If you are rich, you can do green consumerism right, like buying organic food. Right, I mean getting a Tesla car and so on. But you need money for that right and generically, certain abilities give you the privilege of other abilities. But interesting enough is also it's literally everywhere ability privileges and how they play them out.

Speaker 2: 33:05

We hardly use the term we use I mean white privilege, and and and but ability privilege is rarely used right Also, of course it is right. I mean everyone. Depending where you are right, depending on your background. You have ability, you have certain abilities give you the privileged access to other abilities. All these terms, how I coined them over the years, are there to show that ability is a generic I mean right reality and we really have to debate I mean, for example, right how we deal with disability privilege in general and then maybe then disability becomes part of the solution, more or less by default. If we are questioning the very framework of reference, if it's all the time done just for disabled people, we are all the time running behind.

Speaker 3: 33:57

We are all the time running behind. Yeah, so, greg, so I have a. So when organizations say to their sometimes internally, to their own employees, or even sometimes externally when they relate with business, when they say something like this well, disability self-ID can transform business for the better, do you agree with this?

Speaker 2: 34:25

Okay, say again.

Speaker 3: 34:27

Would you say that when organizations and entities are asking that disability self-ID can transform business for the better, basically asking people to identify themselves as a forefront to improve things?

Speaker 2: 34:45

Well, I know me Because I'm in a wheelchair. There's no need to hide or no use to hide Because eventually they'll find out. And I actually see my wheelchair as a very cool pre-screening tool. If people can't look beyond my wheelchair, very likely I will. I'm in clash with the people anyway, so for me.

Speaker 2: 35:07

But we have a big problem, of course, if the cost benefit is high, if you're out yourself. That's why so many people camouflage mask. Right, because outing oneself comes with a lot of negative consequences, right, and then they're trying, right, I mean. And then, of course, because. But then also the camouflaging comes with consequences because you're playing a role, you are not, and eventually that leads them to burnout. Right, and we published last year a paper on burnout. Right, we covered that. Right, because the thing is, if you constantly have to be someone, you are not Again, this is not disability specific. If this is for anyone who has to play a role they are not. Eventually that camouflaging leads to burnout. And look at that In Canada, 0.8% of disabled people are on the executive level, on a company level, right in companies 0.8%.

Speaker 2: 36:27

We're talking about the glass ceiling of women ending up on the executive level. I mean 0.8 disabled men and 0.6 disabled women are on the executive level. Not I mean eight or six men 0.8, 0.6. Disabled women on the executive line. Not I mean eight or six men 0.8, 0.6. That means right, you better camouflage and hide who you are, because otherwise you never advance in your company. Right, and that means you burn out. And that means we're looking at the literature and we could not find, for example, right any paper on activist burnout. There's a lot of literature by now around that activists are burning out. Right Makes sense. Right, you're constantly I mean fighting, I mean right, all kinds of stuff and eventually you burn out.

Speaker 2: 37:15

Not one academic paper covered disabled activists to be burning out and when you look at my work, all my scoping reviews, literally the storyline is all the time the same. I choose a topic, I look in the literature. I find nothing. I write the paper and the storyline is we are not there. Totally boring, because I can use literally any topic.

Speaker 2: 37:39

We just had one out on poverty which shows that very little around disabled people actually on poverty, for that I mean in many places it's at least 30% who are living below the poverty line. Right and right. For example, the paper showed for Canada and poverty and so on. Right was, in general, already low and then with disabled people, you and so on. Right was in general, already low and then with disabled people, you have hardly anything right. The academic literature is very biased. Which research questions show up? Right and like burnout. There was a very nice ABC News item I think it was ABC News but Agravalal a couple of years ago, 2021, I think about climate change burnout. Right, disabled climate change activists being burned out because of the lack of accessibility of the activist movement and tools they use. Right, absolutely.

Speaker 1: 38:38

And it's the same with people in accessibility. We know a lot of accessibility. Also, you know it's the accessibility to burnout pipeline. I really need to thank you and sorry to cut you short, but we've reached the end of our time and I want to have another conversation with you because I know you've done stuff on ESG and sustainability, and that's the topic that I'm particularly passionate about. So let's get you back on, because there's a wealth of other conversations to be had.

Speaker 2: 39:13

So thank you, there's one thing more. One thing more when you say accessibility that's another term, I think I mean the Canadian Accessibility Canada Act has listed all kinds of barriers and added attitudinal barriers which most people, when you say accessibility, they think ramp and they're all honky dory. So attitudinal accessibility is absolutely important and without that the rest will not come. And we haven't reached the attitudinal accessibility.

Speaker 1: 39:48

And we've even put that in our company's definition of accessibility, so it's culturally and attitudinally available as well. So I agree with you wholeheartedly. I need to thank MyClearText for keeping us captioned and Amazon for helping keep us on air. And thank you, Gregor, and I really look forward to continuing this conversation.

Speaker 2: 40:10

Yeah, sorry that I'm all the time. Once I get, I mean I ramble on.

Speaker 1: 40:15

No, no, it's good stuff. It's a big topic, yeah.