This is Thin Privilege

Scroll to Info & Navigation

Can I have a shot at "there is no universal definition of health"? I think there is – being physically and mentally capable of dealing with the world. Any good? :)

Asked by

No, because it’s ableist. Pretty sure we’ve had exactly this discussion with someone on here before.

I have bipolar disorder. My body works perfectly well, other than the asthma, I don’t get sick often, but some days I can’t deal with the world. Am I only unhealthy on those days, or am I unhealthy all the time because I still have bipolar? Does my asthma, which sometimes prevent me from walking distances or up stairs, mean that I am not healthy? I have a friend who has had a migraine for fifteen years. Other than that, she’s in excellent health. But she has maybe two or three days a week when she’s in little enough pain to be able to leave her home. What are you saying about her health? Someone in a wheelchair or with a missing arm maybe can’t do everything you can do; does that mean they can’t “deal with the world”? How about someone with a chronic disorder? How about someone who has HIV, but is managing quite well?

This is why broad definitions of health don’t work. They don’t take into account individual situations. You don’t get to define what’s good health for other people.



  1. stormqueen280 said: Rebloggable, please? This one is very good.
  2. alanaisreading said: It is also ableist because what if someone is completely healthy, but has no legs. They maybe can’t navigate every part of the world in a wheelchair because THE WORLD is designed for people with legs. Not because her missing legs are “unhealthy”.
  3. nailthatsticksup said: Being able to deal with the world is a pretty sure sign that society is set up to benefit you. This is dripping with all kinds of privilege.
  4. thorsockrock said: Can anybody really be healthy in a kyriarchal society?
  5. nudiemuse said: Wah wah try again.