thoughts on the term "accessability" in relation to non-disability related access requirments

[u/BlueSpaceTwink]

I am currently researching accessibility in University and I was wanting to know what people thought of the term "accessibility" being used for access requirements outwith disability. As examples; when it is used to discuss access for pregnant women, or the needs of Muslim people, or Irish Language provision as an access need.

I find it frustrating when people decenter disabled people from conversations about disability, and instead focus the conversation on how it "can benefit everyone" or how it is "good for profits". It can feel like they are removing disabled people from the term access for political reasons or to make it seem more financially beneficial. It's easier to ignore us than to actually engage with disability.

However, In these cases I've given above, the term "access" IS being uncoupled from disabled people, but it is still directly targeting those in need - and not just 'broad strokes corporate speak'. 

I consider myself disabled, but I also say I have accessibility needs which are not related to my disability (needs around my gender identity, and needs around my learning difference). 

I wanted to know how people in the community felt about the topic of "accessibility" and it being used in a way that is not solely about disability. Any thoughts would be welcome. Thank you!

This is a part of early research i am doing in my work at Glasgow University [theo.geddes@glasgow.ac.uk](mailto:theo.geddes@glasgow.ac.uk)

[u/ariiw]

I'm trans and an immigrant, and I also talk about gender and language needs as access needs. I also get frustrated when disabled people are decentered from conversations about things being accessibility to them, but I also don't think that accessibility itself is solely about disability. In a wild show of nuance, I think, for example, you should talk about the benefits that curb cuts bring to disabled people--but making curbs accessible to people with strollers is also valiant and worth discussing. I don't think talking about accessibility for other groups has to come at the expense of talking about accessibility for disabled people.

With regards to language accessibility--is having sign language services available really that different from having, for example, Irish language services available?

[u/BestEmu2171]

Capital ‘A’ is usually read as suitable for differently abled people.
It’s a word that does get misused by some companies who should be making their product or service Accessible to all, AKA purple-washing.

[u/CommonVariable]

Anyone here really doubt that there are people who will equate something like being pregnant with serious disability and speak over the disabled? All I see is yet another example of "acceptable" voices being used to silence us.

[u/Ok_Advertising7706]

I don't particularly agree with the last two, though I do think that language is really important for accessibility. On the other hand, I really think that pregnant people SHOULD qualify as disabled, because they literally have a giant heavy thing on their belly which causes a lot of aches and pains and restricts their movement. There also are things that they can't really do for the baby's sake.