Unisex disabled washrooms "discriminatory"?

"Discrimination" is a word that people with disabilities throw around quite often. It is not without reason – we face it in employment, social activities, transportation and so on. We face a constant struggle to gain an equal status to people without disabilities.

But when is it not discrimination but, rather, common sense?

A friend of mine alerted me to an article from the Korea Times, an English-language newspaper from Seoul, South Korea. In the article:

'Unisex toilets for disabled discriminative'

Unisex toilets for the disabled in subway and train stations are discriminative, the nation’s human rights watchdog said Thursday, recommending their operators improve the situation.

“We concluded that unisex toilets in subway and train stations in the metropolitan area are discriminatory against disabled people as they fail to offer due convenient measures to them,” the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) said in a statement.

...

The decision came as four organizations for the disabled such as the Network of Accessible Environments for All and the Institute of the Disabled for Independent Living filed a petition last year, arguing the disabled experience difficulties in using the facilities in many subway and train stations.

According to the NHRC, the ratio of unisex toilets stands at 26 percent, 45 percent and 24 percent at stations of Korail, Seoul Metro and Seoul Metropolitan Rapid Transit Corporation, respectively.

The NHRC said it reached the decision on the grounds that the non-disabled use separated toilets and unisex toilets can make the disabled feel a sense of shame.

Upon the decision, the three operators pledged to renovate their toilets for the disabled, but expressed financial difficulties and space problems.

I have been to Seoul before. It is not a wheelchair-friendly city. Their subway system definitely tries to be accessible but faces many structural challenges. Unlike Vancouver's SkyTrain system, having washrooms at stations is quite common. Some of them have accessible stalls, some do not.

If they don't have room for accessible stalls, then they have the above-mentioned unisex washrooms instead. While I realize that they wish to maintain the sex segregation for accessible stalls to maintain equality, I also think it's somewhat stupid.

Let's face it. Without the ability of many mobility-impaired folks to stand properly or stand and maintain balance, it makes little difference whether someone is using a urinal or a toilet – we're more likely to use the toilet no matter what our sex is.

Also, personally, I've found that accessible stalls that are in regular sex-segregated washrooms tend to be used a lot by able-bodied people. They cherish the space and whatnot; I was once able-bodied and I get that. But in unisex washrooms, it seems much more of a rarity that an able-bodied person would be using it (unless he/she has a baby in a carriage; that is understandable). It is also often cleaner than the "regular" washrooms, which is a big plus for people with disabilities whose wheels roll through God-knows-what in "regular" washrooms.

Sure, sometimes it's weird to be separate from everyone else while you're doing your business, but it's nice to be able to catheterize or empty your legbag/Foley bag or whatever you do in peace without people rushing in and out only mere metres from you. I was never a pee-shy kind of guy but personally, I find it comforting.

I don't find unisex accessible washrooms discriminatory. I actually kind of like them.

Sappy media stories about "walking again"

I am going to get a lot of heat for saying this, but I really hate sappy news stories about paraplegics being able to "walk again" due to some miracle machinery.

It is in response to this story that came out a few months ago. A student, who acquired a spinal cord injury in 2007, is set to walk across the stage at his graduation at Berkeley, with the help of a robotic exoskeleton and forearm crutches.

While I am not against a cure for spinal cord injury (quite the opposite, actually), I really don't like the emphasis that some, such as the media, puts on the ability to walk.

This may sound bad, but hear me out. Read the news story. It puts so much emphasis on walking and portrays people who are able to walk as somewhat "better" than those who cannot. It is totally ableist -- its basic message is, "You're more worthy as a person if you can walk."

That kind of thinking is what propels millions of dollars into developing these exoskeletons, which are cumbersome and not useful for regular use anyhow. As it is right now, nobody is going to a) be able to afford them, b) use these regularly, and c) use exoskeletons as the "band-aid solution" to paralysis. With these issues, all those millions can be better spent trying to find a cure for spinal cord injury, don't you think?

I find that stories like these serve a "feel-good" purpose for able-bodied people more than anything. Not being able to stand and walk is the most visible complication of spinal cord injury, and this story makes people think, "Hey, we're making progress!"

That is not progress. Progress is not only finding a cure for paralysis, but also finding improved ways of managing the complications of spinal cord injury. Many (but not all) people with spinal cord injury say that the ability to walk is a secondary concern to other complications such as skin breakdown, pressure sores, bladder and bowel control, body temperature regulation, muscle atrophy, autonomic dysreflexia, and so on. I'd rather see improvements in handling those problems first, because some of these problems can be fatal if not treated properly! Meanwhile, nobody dies from not walking.

I'm sure this blog entry is going to create a lot of controversy for whoever comes across it. And to be honest, I don't know how many people would agree with me. But those are my thoughts and I'm sticking with them.