Medical model thinking.

Ah, I disagree. On strictly the medical model, none of them are disabled. They are all perfect specimens.

Only on the social model are they disabled. They are disabled because of the social environment - the requirement to perform a task without any alterations to the environment.

Ah, I disagree. On strictly the medical model, none of them are disabled. They are all perfect specimens. — bert1

Then you seem to me to have missed something crucial here.

Suppose they are all perfect specimens. Then their inability to achieve is imposed purely by the choice of test put in place.

Yes, the social model is what shows the bias inherent in the test. While the medical model only sees the inability to climb trees. And the capabilities model looks to see what each might do, rather than imposing something they must do.

We may just have different concepts, I'm sure we agree on the ethics. Are any of the animals disabled in this scenario?

EDIT: I think the definition of disability is the same under the medical and social model, but maybe I'm just wrong. For me, P is disabled in relation to x if P can't do x. If that's not the definition, what is? The difference for me comes where we place the problem. Mr Medical must actually have a concept of the social model in order to even assent to the proposition that any of the animals are disabled, because only in the context of the task is a disability even possible. The difference comes in the solution/blame. Mr Medical says the animals are the wrong shape to climb the tree, and he tries to alter them, or to write them off as hopeless. Mr Social puts some concrete blocks for the elephant to climb, and a long sloping water run for the fish to swim up.

Good point about QR codes. They off-load various forms of labor (sign-making; menu-handling; in-person or point-of-sale information-providing, and so on) to a webpage . Of course, the organizations that use QR are not trying to disadvantage anyone. They are trying to be efficient and hip (up to date).

There are a lot of people for whom all sorts of barriers have to be navigated (if possible). Why is accommodation so hard to achieve? Well, money of course, the easiest excuse.

A 'deeper' problem is the dominant understanding of "embodiment" -- the manner in which human persons are physical beings. The preferred form of embodiment tends toward the ideal: (for men) tallness, athleticism, rugged features, deep voice, above average IQ, competitive drive, and so on. A real man; a man's man' etc. There is nothing wrong with having ideal embodiment; but not very many people actually meet the ideal, and it's perfectly possible for a person whose embodiment matches the ideal to be a total asshole.

The 'ideal' is a strong enough idea that even those whose embodiment involves missing limbs, poorly functioning sensory organs, failing hearts, degenerative diseases of various kinds, mental health issues, intellectual barriers, and so on have difficulty valuing their own and others' embodiment. They quite often feel not worth of acceptance and being valued, and they may view other persons like themselves in a negative way.

Persons who face barriers are sometimes viewed as "deficient people" rather than embodied beings like themselves and worthy of respect. Why spend so much money on all the accommodations needed? It's a waste of money, and able-bodied people have to put up with the ramps, large font signs, sign language, and so forth -- like the accommodations make their 'normal' lives living nightmares, or something,

First a parable.

The monkey - let's call him Amadeus - gets the job because of his obvious aptitude, and promptly sets up a fruit stall in a treehouse at the top of the tree, and for twenty years makes a comfortable living selling fruit to the birds and the other monkeys.

On his retirement the adjudicator returns and examines the books. He asks Amadeus why he only ever sells fruit to the birds and other monkeys, and never to the fish, elephants, seals, dogs or penguins that live thereabouts.

In a somewhat condescending voice, Amadeus intones: "We have never, in over 20 years (I've been here the entire time) had any fish, elephants, seals, dogs or penguins come in to the treehouse and express any interest in purchasing fruit"

"But..." begins the adjudicator...

"I gave you a fact. Suggesting we 'reconsider' our clientele is bizarre." retorts the monkey.

Are any of the animals disabled in this scenario? — bert1

Yes, against the test.

That's the point; the test is what does the disabling, literally, by deciding who's in and who is out. The social model is a tool that shows this aspect of the medical model. It works in contrast to the medical model.

If that's not the definition, what is? — bert1

Here's a social model definition from PWDA

The social model sees ‘disability’ is the result of the interaction between people living with impairments and an environment filled with physical, attitudinal, communication and social barriers. It therefore carries the implication that the physical, attitudinal, communication and social environment must change to enable people living with impairments to participate in society on an equal basis with others. — https://pwd.org.au/resources/models-of-disability/

The test is what creates the disability.

Of course, the organizations that use QR are not trying to disadvantage anyone. They are trying to be efficient and hip (up to date). — BC

Yep. And all that is needed is an awareness of the assumptions underpinning the use of QR codes.

And money is so often an excuse rather than a grounds.

At it's heart disabilities advocacy is another push for recognising the variety of ways of being human.