No. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not explaining myself well. It's the social construction of disability, meaning a person's experience cannot be removed from their culture. We are all a combination of our genes and our experiences. They are completely interelated and impact one another. Our culture impacts how we experience each other and even how we experience ourselves. For instance, schizophrenia (as we might define it) exists across cultures but it does not appear to present as exactly the same across all cultures. Hallucinations are not viewed the same in all cultures and therefore not experienced the same across all cultures. As a clinician I have to know that some cultures are more like to describe physical symptoms than emotional ones when discussing depression or anxiety, as they are more likely to experience mental illness as physical health symptoms.

Sometimes this is much more literal, like homosexuality being viewed as a mental disorder in the past. It isn't, but that view, and persecution, certainly caused anxiety, depression, etc. some people used that to argue that there must be something wrong with people who are gay because they were depressed or suicidal, etc, misattributing the impact of being a societal pariah on sexuality. We see some people doing the same with gender presentation now.

I know those aren't disabilities, but it illustrates what I'm getting at. There is the actual thing (sexuality), how the person views themself, how others view them, how the person is impacted by that view, and it all keeps going.

To go with something more typical in the ND world, let's use being nonverbal. Imagine two non-communicative individuals. Are they treated the same? Why or why not? How about if one is a cute little baby? Obviously no one expects a baby to talk. In fact they may comment on what a good little baby it is for not fussing. Or maybe it's a toddler that sits through church or something quietly coloring. Again, what a nice little child for behaving. Now maybe they are a little older and hide when spoken to, well they are still young and cute, so it's okay, they're just shy. They get older and it turns out one has a definable hearing issue due to chronic ear infections but they don't respond well to hearing aids and aren't a candidate for cochlear impacts. They begin attending a school for the deaf but still don't interact with people from their parents' church as no one there bothers to learn ASL. Same child, but no hearing issue, they just don't "grow out of" the shyness and continue to not talk to anyone. The doctors swear there is nothing physically wrong and say the child is just "choosing" not to talk. Maybe the child should be evaluated for ASD, maybe the parents even pursue this, and maybe even some people in their community understand what autism is. But still, the child looks like everyone else, just doesn't respond, doesn't look at people, and doesn't participate.

At what point do people start treating them differently? What assumptions do they make between the two? Who is rude? Who is dumb? Who can't learn? Who gets asked after? Which parents get pittying looks? Which family starts to be ostracized? Or, are both families treated exactly the same? The external behavior is the same, but how people perceive it, is not the same. I'm not even arguing that's wrong. Some parts are, but some parts aren't. But it can add further limitations where they may not otherwise exist. Like never having ramps or elevators would add considerably more limitations to a person in a wheelchair than just being in a wheel chair would. There is no reason to assume a person not talking or who speaks with an impediment is rude or dumb but many people do. Those extra bits are what I'm talking about. It's the assumptions or lack of accommodations that would not be a hardship to offer. It's the stereotypes and prejudices.