Last week we shared some statements which seem all too familiar to most of us: 

“Everyone feels tired sometimes.” 

“So what? I get distracted too.” 

“Oh, you’re like that only – sad all the time.” 

“Oh, it’s all in your head!” 

“Nobody else seems to have an issue with it.”  

“ADHD?! But – you seem so organised.”  

“You can’t make it? This is why we didn’t consider you for the project. Needed someone goal oriented”    

“They’re quite brilliant, but very difficult to work with.” 

“Pagal hai, kya?” 

“I’m OCD that way – like Monica on Friends!” 

We don’t just hear these phrases in the personal or social spaces we occupy, but even at the workplace – at team meetings, in hiring decisions, in feedback sessions. Most of you who took the poll across platforms indicated that these statements are not okay – and that’s absolutely correct. 

So why then do we hear similar statements so often?  

It’s because they’ve been normalized within an ableist narrative.  

Ableism is a discriminatory bias that believes that bodies and minds with disabilities are somehow inferior to nondisabled bodies and minds. Ableism can manifest in really obvious ways, and these are the ones most of us are somewhat aware of now – like not hiring persons with disabilities or not creating accessible public spaces. Through decades of activism disability advocates have made the unfair segregation of disabled lives more visible to mainstream discourse. 
 
Yet, the subtle ways in which ableism flourishes often flies under the radar. This is where the narrative of who has greater claim to a seat at the table stays put, unquestioned. A narrative that defines what entails ambition, professionalism, or “fitness” and even worth. These definitions most certainly exclude, invalidate, and penalize people with disabilities—including those with mental health or invisible conditions. 

These phrases are so deeply interwoven into our daily vocabulary, that they are often said casually, with no intended harm. But make no mistake—they’re microaggressions. They reinforce stigma and strengthen systemic bias. They shrink people down to unidimensional labels, dismiss their potential, or turn very real experiences into punchlines. 

They reflect a deeper issue: ableist language that reinforces bias and stigma toward people with disabilities—especially those with invisible or mental health conditions. 

As a space who advocates for inclusive workplaces, we at Mental Health at Work, powered by Equilibrio Advisory, want to highlight how these seemingly “harmless” comments can have real impact on real people. They not only reduce people to their diagnoses, question their capabilities, or treat disability as something to be pitied or joked about – but also may lead to very real impact to a person’s mental health and wellbeing including: 

• Impact to self-esteem, self-image and self-worth through internalized ableism,   

• Social isolation and othering 

• Social Withdrawal and masking of one’s true self and needs 

All these instances are compounded when disability is not visible or apparent. These kinds of disability are referred to as Invisible disabilities, also known as hidden disabilities or non-visible disabilities (NVDs). 

The spectrum of invisible disabilities is wide and can include cognitive and mental health concerns like sensory processing disorder, depression, autism, ADHD and dyslexia. It can also include certain physical conditions such as chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, chronic illnesses, visual and auditory impairments etc. 

In these cases, people with disability may also experience gaslighting, leading them to question the authenticity of their own experiences. 

Through these experiences, the mental health impact is high yet remains invisible or overlooked within the ableist paradigm in which we exist. People experiencing this are also likely to experience chronic stress and fatigue, anxiety, depression, loneliness, shame, guilt, anger and even complex trauma. 

As we can see, the impact of ableist microaggressions could be quite high, regardless of it being intentional or not. So, before we speak, it’s worth reflecting: 

1) What is it that we really want to say?  

Saying “OCD” when we mean “organized” minimizes a serious mental health condition that can be really debilitating and reduces it to a little “quirk”.  

So, choosing and rephrasing our words mindfully goes a long way in breaking negative stereotypes that are embedded in such language.  

Words like “deaf”, “lame”, “blind”, “dumb”, “crazy” etc. while neutral in themselves, become discriminatory when used in a negative context. Some of these have become part of our everyday idioms, for instance, phrases and expressions like: 

“Falling on deaf ears”, (Meaning: Someone’s words are not being heard/ not being taken seriously) 

“Leading others blindly” or “The blind leading the blind” (Meaning: Someone in a lead position is clueless about their work, evoking a sense of incompetency and inexperience) 

“Gosh! Your taste in music is lame!” (Meaning: Someone has subpar taste in music) 

inherently paint the words ‘deaf’, ‘blind’ and ‘lame’ as bad. 

It’s important to reflect about the context in which are we using certain words and pause to reframe it supportively removing any negative connotations to disabled folx. 

Instead of the phrase “falling on deaf ears” can we instead use, “I feel unheard”? 
 

Instead of the using the word ‘lame’ to mean something ineffective, can we use words like pathetic, terrible, bad? 

2) What are we taking away from another?  

Oftentimes we have a very limited or biased understanding of neurodivergence. Neurodiverse spectrums like Autism and ADHD are still seen with suspicion or disbelief. Neurodivergent traits like struggling to regulate attention, the inability to initiate a task (also called “executive paralysis”), inability to read social cues and network, are reduced to tropes of incompetence like ‘unfocused’, ‘lazy’ or ‘shy’.  

For instance, statements like “She’s brilliant but… difficult to work with in a team” invalidates a person’s experience and contribution. 

Can we therefore, make space for curiosity and dialogue? Space for balancing performance, productivity and accommodations that support folx to thrive at work? 

Can we create space for disabled folx to be heard – in order to understand diverse experiences and allow our widened perspective to be reflected in the language we speak? 

3) What assumptions am I making?  

When we are unaware of a person’s lived reality, it is easy to make snap judgements about their capabilities. Even today, there’s a lot of confusion about the concept of assistive technologies and needing accommodations – though enshrined in the Law itself.  

To understand them better, we have to revisit the disability paradigm – which clarifies that a person’s disability does not come from their impairments, but from their environment which does not know how to accommodate the impairment of the person, so that they can live a full life.  

In this context, when a disabled person asks for an accommodation, or are relying on assistive technology, it does not mean that they are inferior to people who do not use them. It means their difference or impairment is being recognized and aptly supported. It means that accommodations are a right of persons with disabilities; and asking for accommodations is asking for their right to dignity. 

Sometimes a person’s accommodation can differ from the need for assistive technology. It can be more abstract and easier to misunderstand. A lot of persons on the disability and neurodivergence spectrum have a different relationship with time. Therefore, they may require more time than others to complete certain tasks, so that becomes their required accommodation.  

Or persons with sensory sensitivities and / or social differences might need a work-from-home option or even keeping their videos off during some virtual meetings. These accommodations are often looked at with disdain, or with the lens of comparison with other non-disabled employees, when there is no awareness about invisible disabilities or neurodivergence.  

Accommodations should be a natural and organic part of structures and designs that are built on inclusive foundations.  

Now that we have the framework of the disability paradigm, is it visible how suggesting that someone isn’t “goal-oriented” because of their access needs is a biased lens?  

It is an assumption we are making about their ability / approach to work because a person requests for support with their impairment – support which they are entitled to access in order to flourish. This bias can create active barriers to opportunity and leadership and is discriminatory towards persons with disabilities. 

4) Is it really “just a joke”?  

Ableism takes its most insidious form when it hides inside everyday language. Colloquial banter can be the most effective tool of ableism to spread stereotypes of unworthiness, incompetence and “disorders”. 

“Pagal hai kya?” or “Are you crazy!” has thrived as normalised light-hearted banter, unquestioned through the decades. But isn’t it perpetuating negative attitudes towards people with mental health concerns or neurodivergent traits? When “jokes” perpetuate harmful stigma and isolate and hinder the potential of real-life people, are they just “jokes” anymore? It is then bias disguised as innocuous humour. Such phrases are born from unconscious bias that propagate stigma towards a diverse spectrum of people and cut them off from accessing opportunities. 

Often, we may find ourselves engaging in these ableist linguistic defaults quite unintentionally; however, as allies this disability pride month, let’s ensure that we update our vocabulary and upgrade our understanding of language that can stigmatize and cause harm to folx at the margins. 

During Disability Pride month, we actively celebrate the strength, creativity, and leadership of disabled folx. However, a quieter and equally powerful way to be allies to the disabled community is take time and reflect on our own actions and speech. How are we inadvertently spreading harmful ideas that reinforce ableism? And how can we take stock and mindfully reframe our ideas and language around persons with disability?  

Because inclusion doesn’t start only with a policy—it starts with the conversations we have every day. 

FAQs: 

Written By Rosanna Rodrigues and Usri Basistha