Read on Twitter
Let's talk about "accessibility theatre"...
Too often nondisabled people use "accessibility" to justify making themselves the protagonists in disability-related work.
Too often nondisabled people use "accessibility" to justify making themselves the protagonists in disability-related work.
Y'know when nondisabled people will concern-troll you about "plain language" but insist on using "person-first" language and refuse to use terms actively circulating in the disability community? It kinda feels like the issue isn't actually accessibility.
And when they'll leave you out of something because they're"mindful" of placing demands on you but they never ask you what your access needs are and how to make participation possible? Again: it kinda feels like the issue isn't actually accessibility.
And when they insinuate that you are not a "sufficiently marginalized" disabled person/can't speak to the experiences of "actually marginalized" disabled ppl -- while they exclude/speak for them instead? Once more: it kinda feels like the issue isn't actually accessibility.
By keeping the focus on nondisabled ppl and their role in disability-related work (patronizing and gaslighting us in the process) these "spectacles" limit the liberatory potential of disability work -- controlling the meaning of "accessibility" and how it is distributed.
(Ppl sometimes refer to this as "performative" accessibility, but "performative" in the literature means that the act brings the thing into being -- and this theatre most certainly does NOT bring greater accessibility into being...)
