Reply to comment

While I agree that sometimes “normalizing surgeries” are not "so terrible" (in life threatening cases for example) I think that the issues Garland-Thomson brings up are very important and should be taken seriously (and I do not think she is against life-saving surgery either). What is important to take from this article is the idea of the cultural constructedness and the arbitrariness of the definition of the term "disability". A "disabled" person should be the one to determine when surgery is desirable or necessary, and they should not feel that they should or need to have normalizing surgery in order to be accepted in society and looked upon as an equal, not simply as a disabled person. What if all of a sudden people with brown eyes were considered disabled and ostracized from society, should they change their appearance? The question of accessibility is an important one. If a given characteristic of your body prevented you from participating in an activity because someone who doesn’t share that characteristic dictated the norm, should you alter your appearance so as to be accepted? Individuals should not have to change to fit the "mold" of society; instead society should change the mold (or rather get rid of it all together) so as to accept people of difference.