Talk:Invisible disability

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 28 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marinarasauce21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jcm87njit.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Lists
I am considering creating a list of invisible disabilities on this page, but because there are so many, and because I don't know of all of them, I am hesitating. Perhaps a list of some "popular" (heh) ones, with a caveat that there are many, many more? --Jacqui M Schedler 16:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * One possible difficulty I would assume would be the number of disabilities that can be visible and invisible. Peoplesunionpro 17:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate promotion
I've removed this paragraph:

For more information visit the web site for National Invisible Chronic Illness Awareness Week. http://www.invisibleillness.com. It is held annually in September, and is a designated time, worldwide, in which people who live with chronic illness, those that love them, and organizations are encouraged to educate the general public, churches, healthcare professionals and government officials about the impact of living with a chronic illness that is not visually apparent.

on the grounds that it's inappropriately promotional in tone. Wikipedia is not an advertising forum. WhatamIdoing 23:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Mental retardation/Intellectual disabilities
Shouldn't this be counted? I mean, sometimes you can tell that someone has an intellectual disability, but the same can be said for autism and schizophrenia, and some other disabilities listed. You can't always tell.Gorramdoll (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hyperacusis
You should mention Hyperacusis as an invisble disability. I cannot tell you personally having Hyperacusis myself, the ignorance and negative attitudes of people when you suggest you cannot sit near children, cause your ears will hurt when they shreik or shout. There also is the issue of in general, people acting as if you're making up that you have hearing problems for attention for example.

I think there needs to be an adressing of Hyperacusis, on the level of Fibromyalgia. Which has a ad for a drug to help it, that says "If you could see how I'm in pain, would you care then?" Nobody seems to care about the pain people with Hyperacusis suffer, it's as simple as moving your family down a few seats at the resturant. When I visit Hyperacusis communities, all that is discussed is how to try and cope with the symptoms, because it's impossible to get most people to understand the concept that, no you don't hate children, you don't want to feel like your eardrum is going to burst. I think if this was a disability that didn't involve the need not to be around children, it wouldn't be so ignored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Violet yoshi (talk • contribs) 13:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It probrably should be added as an example. Whether or not people "care" about that specific disability is more appropriate for the page on that specific disability. It could be added as a general remark applying to invisible disabilities in general. 216.36.186.2 (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Examples
I've just been through the lists; removed some items; shifted others. What is the point of the lists? Doesn't the lead define the concept well enough? Presently the lists seem to be being used by some editors to push their opinion about etiology. I'd be happy to see the lot go and the article concentrate on the issues common to all IDs. Maybe the examples could form the stub of a separate article List of invisible disabilities. Though I would strongly recommend making it a simple alphabetical list to avoid classification haggles. Anthony (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what, I'll remove the lists entirely and direct people who disagree with the removal here. There are a lot of disabilities that can be either visible or invisible (sometimes in the person!). --I dream of horses (T) @ 01:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the point is merely validation of "my" disability as being one of these. We see this in a lot of articles:  You write something like "Fatigue (medical) can be caused by autoimmune diseases, cancer, depression, sleep problems...", and someone invariably adds whatever specific subtype of these general categories is on his mind.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just taken them out - again... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Psychological/psychiatric disabilities?
Shouldn't things like PTSD, bipolar disorder, etc, be included?--  TyrS  chatties  04:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They certainly seem to be covered by the description. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely mental illness is an invisible disability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4A80:5847:75F3:F78F:FB91:DFDD (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

restraint section removed -- needed more work than I could give it
I removed text in this edit. It's a good topic, but needs to be introduced from the topic of invisible disability, and with more neutral language. Hope someone else can do that cleanup. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I fully support your removing that "rant". The topic is not specifically relevant to this article. Apart from the NPOV and UNREF problems it really belongs in Disability rights or a related article. Segregation and restraint definitely does not affect only people with invisible disabilities. Roger (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ideologies which Affect People with Invisible Disability
I'm not sure this section belongs in this article. Also it appears somewhat biased. Ggrzw (talk) 23:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Attitudes
I can't put this in the article, but I have seen some anger towards persons with invisible disabilities (including myself). Reactions range from they're faking it to it's all in their head. Additionally, most people seem to think that a person must be crippled to be disabled. There also is a good deal of confusion between Welfare and Disability Assistance.--Auric (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Service Animals / Support Animals
This is a common issue for people with invisible disabilities. I think it is worth a mention and an internal link. I can think of the following points: 1. Service animals seem to display or 'prove' the existence of a disability, e.g. seeing eye dogs. For the same reason, they may make people more vulnerable to harassment. The fact of one's disability may be challenged constantly as they navigate grocery stores, restaurants, hotels, etc. who assume the animal's status is a ruse. 2. People with more unusual disabilities (such as narcolepsy) or service animals (miniature horses, rabbits, rats...) face unique difficulties. 3. Many areas outside the US or western culture have a long tradition of using service animals. Examples I have seen include dogs, horses, mules, donkeys, goats, monkeys, and apes. I am sorry I do not have time to find sources myself. Thank you for considering these suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.192.101.253 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 January 2013‎


 * There are several articles on the subject, including Service animal, that might interest you.
 * You seem to be in the US, so you may particularly want to look into the latest regulations. Rabbits, rats, etc., have been defined by federal regulation as not qualifying as service animals.  Service animals must be dogs (or rarely miniature horses), and they must be trained to perform specific actions.  Animals that merely lower a person's stress or anxiety level no longer qualify; legally, they're the same as pets and do not have to be permitted in stores, restaurants, etc.  As I understand it, any store, restaurant, etc., may legally ask a person with an animal "Is that a service animal?" and "What tasks has it been trained to perform for you?"  If the answer to the latter is "Nothing, I just feel better when he's here", then they may legally exclude the animal from the premises.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between ESA (emotional support animals) and PSA (Psychiatric service animals). A PSA is trained to perform a specific task for a person with mental illness, is ADA recognized, and has the same legal protections as a service animal that services someone with a physical disability

visible but not recognized as disability
The notion of 'invisible' seems limited. What about a section on misunderstood disabling characteristics, for example, erratic eye movements (some neurological disorders), trembling of hand (CP), overly intense gaze (AS), slightly off balance gait (CP). These are behaviors that interfere with successful interpersonal communication because of the feelings of discomfort felt by the non affected communication partner. They can be misinterpreted as disinterest, extreme nervousness, even substance abuse. With regards to employment, such interpretations may have a drastic affect on successful job interviewing. And yet the person with the mild symptoms of disability may not wish to disclose the disability, as was mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vakdevi (talk • contribs) 13:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That is an interesting perspective! If they are visible they should at least signal of disability but in a rude society its often not seen nor considered to be disability. Thabk you for mentioning and at least a point should be added into the article.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Invisible disability. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120701114110/http://www.tsa.gov:80/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1374.shtm to http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1374.shtm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"[People] with...'non-24' are as a rule unemployable"
"Non-blind people with the circadian rhythm disorder 'non-24' are as a rule unemployable and there are no visible signs of that."

To say "as a rule unemployable" makes the assumption that all such people are categorically unemployable. This would be not just a matter of subjective opinion, but a false one at that: independent contractors (artists, programmers, etc.) with non-24 could presumably complete contracts despite the disability. Moreover, no source is cited to corroborate the statement.

Perhaps the statement can be reworded: "Non-blind people with the circadian rhythm disorder 'non-24' are often unemployable and there are no visible signs of that." Still lacks a cited source, but is less of a misguided generalization.

74.100.54.53 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Want translation into many language
This article is related to a fundamental human right and about a tricky condition yet such an importan article has been translated into only 4 languages. Requesting to translate it to more language so that more people can know about it.

SimpleSilly (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

High importance
These conditions are heavily misinterpreted as 'laziness', 'intentional unwillingness', 'not trying hard enough' etc. Autism/ asperger type cognition also create lot of misunderstanding in the society.

Employment discrimination is reported to play a significant part in the high rate of unemployment among those with a diagnosis of mental illness. An Australian study found that having a mental illness is a bigger barrier to employment than a physical disability. The mentally ill are stigmatized in Chinese society and can not legally marry.

- from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder

Not by any chance "hidden disability" is any less important than anything. For the disabled people, it is all encompassing their life and, according to social model of disability, the society is responsible for it, not the disabled person. So hidden disability is utmost important for the entire society too. Also who do the 'mistake' of ignoring a disability (due to invisibility) is the society, so the society needs to be consider this as important. Please consider the article as top importance. SimpleSilly (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It is also very disheartening to see such a tricky disability condition is being rated as low importance. I am assigning it as high importance SimpleSilly (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have assigned it mid-importance. It is not a depth of knowledge, not a must-have for a print encyclopedidia, but not mainly of specialist interest. If you have any concerns, message me. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me!  12:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This kind of argumentation is exactly why WikiProject Disability does not use importance ratings. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Disability, Communication and Visual Culture
— Assignment last updated by Gkrolewski (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Perceived disability
I have just removed this from the article:

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 has been amended several times such that the definition of "handicapped" includes the statement, "any person who... (C) is regarded as having such an impairment".

This particular defining point of "handicapped" puts the assessment of impairment in the hands of observers who may or may not regard others as having an impairment. For people with disabilities, invisible or not, this creates a space for discriminatory practices which stem from the observer's perception of who is disabled and who is not.

I've removed this because the second paragraph leads me to believe that whoever added this (which hopefully wasn't me... ;-) didn't quite understand it. This US law covers people with actual disabilities and people with perceived disabilities. The inclusion of non-disabled people who are incorrectly perceived to have a disability does not take anything away from people with invisible disabilities. Including more people does not "puts the assessment of impairment in the hands of observers" or "create a space for discriminatory practices". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2023 (UTC)