Up to this point, we’ve built shared language, concepts, and understanding of disability, ableism and access needs. We’ve explored how narrow and problematic storylines can shape expectations, decisions, and experiences in ways that are often normalized or taken for granted. These patterns reflect widely recognized definitions of ableism as a system that privileges certain bodies and minds over others (Lewis, 2022; Campbell, 2009).

But what does ableism actually look like in practice?

In practice, ableism includes: 

Thinking of non-disabled bodies and minds as neutral, preferable, or better

Image Description: A symbol of human figure with a heart symbol in the chest area, surrounded by a dashed circle. The design is simple and is used to emphasize a neutral idea of human body, mind and experience.

This means designing around a narrow idea of how people should learn, communicate, and engage, and expecting people to adapt, keep up and fit in. This can look like expecting everyone to move at the same pace, follow the same instructions, or participate in the same way. “Oops, I assumed everyone could just follow along at the same pace.”

Making decisions, policies, programs, and plans around non-disabled people only  

Image Description: A circular symbol on a dark background showing two human figures pushing or pressuring another out of the way. The figures are drawn with minimal white lines, and part of the circle is filled to create contrast. The composition emphasizes pushing people to the margins.

This means designing, delivering, and communicating as if disabled people are not present, and only addressing access reactively. This places the burden on people with disabilities to ‘speak up’, and often feels like forgetting or erasure -  “Oops, I didn’t think about accessibility”

Discrimination, prejudice, and dismissal of minds and bodies that are different from our own

Image Description: A simple icon on a dark background shows one person raising their hand to signal another person to stop. A speech bubble with an “X” appears between them, indicating dismissal or rejection. The figures are stylized with minimal white lines, and the speech bubble is filled to create contrast. The composition suggests a refusal to acknowledge or welcome different needs, expertise, or perspectives.

This means dismissing, devaluing and making assumptions about what someone can do, or how credible they are, or what they are interested in. This can look like overlooking, questioning needs, and not taking participation, leadership and input seriously. “Oops, I questioned their needs instead of trusting what they said.” 

People thinking about themselves as helpers, saviours, and fixers

Image Description: A simple symbol on a dark background shows a person in a superhero costume flying through the air. The figure is stylized with minimal detail. The imagery draws on familiar “superhero” symbolism, reinforcing narratives of saviourship often associated with ableism.

This means acting out of heroics, stepping in, taking over, or deciding what’s best for someone else. This often looks like helping without asking, making decisions about without, or expecting praise or closeness for just doing your job. “Oops, I jumped in to help without asking what they actually needed.”

In most cases, these actions reflect ‘business as usual’; ways of thinking and operating that are widely accepted, reinforced, and rarely questioned. Because of this, ableism often shows up not as a single, obvious moment, but as a series of seemingly small, everyday decisions that shape how programs are experienced over time (Hehir, 2002; Dolmage, 2017).

The next section brings these patterns into focus through lived experience.

An Umbrella Term

Ableism is an umbrella term used to describe discrimination and exclusion based on disability. There are also more specific forms of oppression that name real experiences and histories, for example:

• Audism – discrimination against Deaf people and Deaf culture and the hard of hearing (HOH), through privileging and normalizing or defaulting hearing and spoken language 
• Ableism toward people with chronic illness or episodic conditions – marginalization of people whose bodies and minds do not align with expectations of consistency, stamina, or productivity 
• Anti-fat bias (fatphobia, sizeism) – oppression toward people in larger bodies, often overlapping with ableism through assumptions about health, discipline, and worth 
• Lookism (appearance-based discrimination, aesthetic bias, facialism) - Bias or discrimination based on how someone looks. Includes people with facial differences (e.g., scars, burns, birthmarks, asymmetry, conditions like cleft lip/palate)
• Neuro-ableism – discrimination against neurodivergent people, including those with ADHD, Autism, learning disabilities, to list a few
• Sanism – discrimination against people with mental health conditions or psychiatric diagnoses, often rooted in perceptions of unpredictability, risk, or incompetence 
• Ocularcentrism (vision-centrism) – privileging sight as the dominant or default way of accessing and interacting with the world 

These are not separate from ableism but reflect how ableism is experienced differently depending on context, identity, and system design. There are entire bodies of scholarship, activism, and lived experience connected to each of these. This module focuses on ableism broadly, while recognizing that no single framework can fully capture all experiences. These terms reflect distinct histories and should not be collapsed into a single experience. 

Letters of Lived Experience

In late 2025 and early 2026, we invited community members to submit letters about their experiences facing ableism in STEM, as participants, but also as family members and staff with disabilities. 

We paid people for their contributions and did not script or edit their submissions.

On lived experience and labour

It is common for people with disabilities to be asked to share their experiences, perspectives, or feedback. This work is often framed as “helping,” “raising awareness,” or “bringing a voice to the table.”

Lived experience is not just a story; it is a form of expertise. It takes time, energy, and often emotional labour to share, especially when it involves revisiting moments of harm, exclusion, or trauma. All too often, this labour is undervalued and unpaid.

In some cases, this can show up as tokenism, being invited to represent a perspective without meaningful influence, or performative inclusion, where input is requested but not acted on (Ahmed, 2012; Sins Invalid, 2019).

If you are asking someone to share their lived experience to broadly inform your programs, decisions, or learning, that contribution should be recognized and paid. This approach is consistent with guidance from disability justice advocates and organizations such as Sins Invalid, who emphasize valuing the leadership and labour of disabled people.

Letter writers shared their stories with care and consent, and we ask that you treat them with equal care. There are a few composite letters which reflect patterns across many experiences, not just one person. Where this is the case, we have indicated them as such.

Before you Begin

These letters include moments of exclusion, dismissal, joy, pressure, connection, and of overt harm. We recognise that you come to this section with your own unique relationships to what’s being shared. Content notes are provided with each letter so you (the learner) can make informed decisions about how and when to engage.

For some, this may reflect experiences you’ve had or are still having. For others, this may surface moments where you notice or rethink your own actions, assumptions, or environments.

For many, it will be both. Because of this, how you move through this section matters.

You might choose to:

• read all the letters in one sitting 
• pause between letters 
• skip a letter 
• or take a break partway through 
• invite a trusted peer or friend to read and process alongside you

Pay attention to what you need, and what feels right for you. 

Please also notice where you might feel the urge to turn away out of defensiveness. This might sound like: “that wouldn’t happen in my program”, “I would never do that” or “I’m sure the program had great intentions”. 

These responses are common but are also part of how harm is minimised, individualized, or dismissed and how ableism persists.

Pause and Reflect

As you read, consider the following questions:

• Where do you notice yourself pulling away, disagreeing, or wanting to explain this? 
• What identities or experiences are shaping what this person is navigating? What might be layered or intersecting? 
• What is being asked for here, explicitly or implicitly? Where are their opportunities to do better?

Write your answers in your Becoming Anti-Ableist Workbook or a personal device or notebook.

Letters

Please visit inclusive-experiences.ca/actua to access the letters. 

Each letter includes an audio version and transcript. Content notes are provided to support informed engagement.

Across these shared experiences, several patterns emerge:

• Ableism is often subtle and shows up through everyday decisions, not just explicit exclusion 
• Participants are often navigating multiple layers of expectation, pressure, or misunderstanding 
• Good intentions do not prevent harm 
• Small moments (tone, pacing, assumptions) shape whether someone feels they belong 
• Responsibility for change sits with those designing and delivering programs

Closing

The experiences shared here are shaped by multiple, overlapping systems, including ableism, and racism, fatphobia, colonialism, and other forms of exclusion. We ask that you be mindful that no one story or voice can represent or ‘speak on behalf of’ the diverse experiences of people with disabilities. These letters speak to themes and patterns of ableism within and beyond STEM but are not representative of all the ways ableism shapes experiences.