commentary on the globe article

I'd just like to quote someone's commentary on the Globe article and then my response posted to that commentary:

"Sara - Something else to consider: What if you didn't need a pump, but did need to bring drinks in with you to prevent hypoglycemia? Without the insulin pump you would have scant evidence of your condition and would be hard pressed to convince the proctor to allow your beverages. In such a scenario, would you not have informed the testing center ahead of time, to avoid the high likelyhood of being turned away? I would think so. So why would adding the pump to the equation make it any different?

Either...

(a) you didn't know the rules about food and drinks during the test,

(b) you did know the rules but thought the pump would carry weight with the proctor,

(c) you wanted to make a point. "

My response:

"In response to the imagining a scenario without a pump:
Imagine a scenario where you didn’t posses voice and therefore, lacked the means to express your experience as a human.

This is the point. If you don’t hear disabled americans, it’s not because they aren’t there- it’s because they are trying to fit in a world not designed for them. See that’s the thing, if we never changed our perception of normalcy and right, many more of us today would be appealing for accommodations, crying out and stating, certain rules are inherently unfair. Changing the rules is always an uphill process because people are ultimately afraid of change and also, altering definitions of the norm.

The thing is, many people everywhere are trying desperately to fit a circle into a square. We need to change the rules so as that disabled americans don’t have to keep knocking on normalcy’s door. Disabled Americans, along with all those who don’t meet the criteria of this defining line, are just as normal as anyone else. The only difference is, they haven’t been afforded a way in. The only path given to them is a set of unattainable standards that inherently puts them down while raising others up.

So we can sit here and say, they’d fit in if they followed the rules. But in the end, by rules you don’t mean rules for you, but rules only for us ‘other’ people. See the thing is, you don’t have books of ‘extra’ rules to follow because you’re ultimately a square rather than a circle or a rectangle or whatever ‘odd’ shape that’s outside the norm. but this isn’t a society of squares nor even a society of circles. It is a society of shapes rather than a particular shape. So we’d better make space for differences rather than accommodate them with extraordinary rules. In the end, the rule can’t be one of exceptional statuses. The rule must be acceptation over exceptionalization.

People are always afraid of change, of altering the game. There’s always a large out cry when someone speaks out about inequality. But the thing is, if no one knocked on the door of change, we’d still have two different sets of water fountains, different sets of schools for different types of people, etc. and the thing is, we’re essentially saying, because of Disabled Americans’ inherent difference, they must be relegated to a different set of rules, so as not to disturb all other Americans.

So many people are so afraid of change that they are willing to stick to the same old, beyond the point of dysfunction. A certain politician says, ‘it will take all of us to make this momentous change’. He is right. It will take all of us. And the wheel has to start spinning somehow before it can get rolling. "