Leisure Discrimination and Constructs of "Normalcy"

A couple years ago I went to a queer hangout here in Sonoma County. Not far into the evening the conversation turned to a bar down the way that advertised “midget wrestling.” One of the hangout organizers was simultaneously saying how awful it was and encouraging everyone to go.I was beside myself. I attempted to explain how offensive this was from a disability perspective in which there is a long history of both marginalizing and exploiting disabled people as a spectacle for mass entertainment. (I later contacted the bar to say so directly!)The organizer blew me off, saying, "How do you know there aren’t little people who want these events?" I responded by saying that even if this was the case it is highly problematic if the audience and the people profiting from this event are predominantly not little people."Well maybe it’s for little people by little people,” the organizer quipped.As is so often the case with ableism, and other systems of oppression, I then became the object of scrutiny. Why couldn’t I just keep quiet and go along with exploiting dwarfs and little people as the rest of this predominantly white, slim, able-bodied, cisgendered, economically comfortable group of queer people was doing? This attitude of dismissal underscores how little the history of discrimination of disabled people is understood and how frequently otherwise self-identified "conscientious” people embrace ableism without a second thought.(See also: "How Sonoma County is slowly killing me” and "Why I desperately need to move to be closer to queer and trans disabled family/community.” Just kidding, these are not posts. But OMG they could be!)My goal in the paper that follows, "Leisure Discrimination and Constructs of 'Normalcy’,” is to encapsulate how historic discrimination like the Ugly Laws are directly linked to current segregation and discrimination against disabled people and fat people in leisure settings.It's a long paper. However, for a quick primer on the Ugly Laws, here is a wonderful PBS video (less than 6 minutes long): https://www.pbssocal.org/programs/origin-of-everything/why-it-was-illegal-to-be-ugly-c8ps4i/I'd love to know your thoughts or other resources you recommend in the comments below! As ever I thank you for your compassion and support.In solidarity and with lots of love,Ma’ayan  

Leisure Discrimination and Constructs of "Normalcy"

by Ma'ayan Simon (copyright 2020).

1 Aug. 2020

Leisure and recreation activities provide social, emotional, and physical opportunities that are critically important to the wellbeing of individuals and communities alike. However, for people whose bodies are marginalized, such as fat and disabled people, stigmatization and lack of access significantly restrict opportunities to participate in leisure. The marginalization and leisure constraints experienced by disabled people and fat people are representative of long-standing western cultural ideologies that seek to segregate, denigrate, and eradicate anyone deemed to inhabit a "non-normative” bodymind.

Background and Historical Context

The exclusion and persecution of people with "non-normative” bodyminds and the construction of white supremacist ideologies of normalcy casting disabled people as aberrant or deviant are prominent throughout western history (Saxton, 2016). Ancient Greeks and Romans "celebrated able-bodiedness” while disabled people of any age were "ostracized, marginalized, vilified or killed” (3). In the 1890s the Eugenics Movement, which began in the United States and Britain, aimed to eliminate or institutionalize anyone considered “unfit,” including disabled people, ethnic minorities, people of color, and the poor. While the eugenic targeting of people with disabilities in the U.S. may seem like far off history, the belief that people who do not reflect constructs of normalcy are undesirable, unworthy, and disposable continued well into the 20th century and endure today.Even with the dismantling of eugenic laws in the U.S. and Britain, institutional discrimination against people with "non-normative” bodyminds remained. Consider the Ugly Laws (Schweik, 2009), for example, which refer to ordinances in cities and municipalities around the U.S. that prohibited people considered to be "unsightly,” "deformed,” "maimed,” and "diseased” from public (pp. 10-11). These ordinances, which codified discrimination into law beginning in the 1860s and persisted into the 1970s, largely targeted poor and disabled people who were unable to work yet had no supports to fall back on, and resorted to begging on the street. Schweik explains,

One of the most important foundations of the ugly law involves a specifically American socioeconomic determinant: the broad cultural emphasis on individualism, which enabled the law’s supporters to position disability and begging as individual problems rather than relating them to broader social inequalities. (p. 5)

With the institution of the ugly laws around the country, anyone considered "unsightly,” especially the poor and apparently disabled, could be criminalized and forcibly removed from jobs and the public (PBS SoCal). Consequently, to support themselves many people with physical variations considered aberrant, including little people, fat people, people with intersex conditions, and people with musculoskeletal differences, sought the only employment that they could, often as freakshow or sideshow attractions, which were permitted by law. Thus, people with "non-normative” bodies were not only oppressed and subjugated by the ordinances known as Ugly Laws but were also subjected to being objectified as spectacles for the leisure and entertainment of dominant culture.While it is not specifically the focus of this paper, it is important to note that, like disability and fatness, abuse and targeting of transgender and gender-variant people is also propelled by the legacy of institutional discrimination like the ugly laws. Schweik (2009) writes, "What the ordinance embodied was disability oppression deployed and embedded, ideologically and structurally, in class, capitalist (and also gendered and racialized) social relations” (p. 16). The proponents of these laws may have framed them as being in the interest of the social good, but it is clear that, like the Eugenics Movement, the intent of these ordinances was to provide carte blanche power to authorities to exclude, institutionalize, police, and punish anyone not reflecting the imposed standards of the largely Christian, white, middle and upper classes.Although the concept of "fitness” in a leisure and recreation context may seem innocuous in modern vernacular, its eugenic origins are evident in whose bodies are deemed socially acceptable and who is "made to feel unwelcome, incapable, burdensome, unattractive, despised and unworthy even of life itself” in contemporary culture (Saxton, 2016 p. 3). While disability and fatness are routinely denigrated and discriminated against (Lewis & Van Puymbroeck, 2008), "hard bodies” connoting "the culture‘s ideal of a buff, abled physique” are valorized and celebrated (Saxton 2016, p. 3). Like disability prejudices, obesity stigma and anti-fat bias are rampant both implicitly and explicitly, casting obesity as "a form of assessed moral and social deviance" (Lewis & Van Puymbroeck, 2008 p. 576), echoing eugenic conceptions that anyone whose body diverges from what is considered “fit” or “normal” is subject to socially sanctioned persecution.

Research Findings

The long shadow of eugenics, ugly laws, institutionalization, and sequestering of people with "non-normative” bodyminds continue to have vital implications in leisure today. For instance, in the 1970s opponents to disability rights and public access laws based many of their objections on the premise that people with disabilities should not be included in public life, arguing that modifications such as ramps and curb cuts are therefore unnecessary (Schweik, 2009). Similarly, disability scholar Simi Linton (1998) quotes a letter to advice columnist Ann Landers that describes how restaurants should have special areas "for handicapped people—partially hidden by palms or other greenery so that they are not seen by other people,” suggesting that people with disabilities are not only undeserving of the same access to leisure, but are a blight that disturbs others’ leisure (p. 34). Schweik (2009) further notes that numerous readers subsequently responded in opposition to Landers’s admonition of this suggestion, making such comments as:

The sight of a woman in a wheelchair with food running down her chin would make me throw up. I believe my rights should be respected as much as the rights of the person in the wheelchair. ...maybe even more so, because I am normal, and she is not. (p. 301)

As egregious and politically incorrect or even outdated as this comment may seem, it reflects the deeply entrenched western precept that "normal” is superior and to be disabled is to be revolting. Even if not overtly expressed, this belief is telegraphed far and wide through media, politics, and the winces or recoiling of others or infantilizing that disabled people experience in public on a daily basis.Leisure constraints for people with marginalized bodies go far beyond isolated incidents, however. Numerous institutionalized economic, social, and attitudinal inequities and oppression exist, of which leisure is a microcosm. For example, people with marginalized bodies are often excluded from leisure under the premise of not "earning” the privilege. Linton (1998) asserts:

Society's choice, and I see it as a choice, to exclude disabled people from social and cultural events that afford pleasure… are indications of the belief that pleasure is less consequential to disabled people than to nondisabled people…. How dare we crippled, blind, and crazy folks ask for parity? Shouldn’t we be satisfied with the provision of medical care and sustenance, and leave the luxuries for those who are thought to drain fewer resources from society? (p. 111)

Linton’s poignant words underscore how despite progress, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) passed in July of 1990, widespread attitudes regarding disability access—and lack of access—continue to reflect negative biases that hark back to eugenics, ugly laws, and institutionalization. In my experience, it is often as though disabled people and fat people are expected to bow down and be grateful to be included, which is indicative of the culturally accepted belief in the west that incorporating or recognizing the humanity of disabled people and fat people is generous or heroic.Furthermore, many disabled people and fat people who rely on public assistance and are on limited fixed incomes, such as myself, are additionally financially constrained due to the confluence of being low income, having significant medical costs, and having additional expenses to engage in activities, like transportation, adaptive equipment, and attendant care (Saxton, 2016). Added to these barriers is the threat that leisure participation will be used to undermine public assistance benefits. Brittain, Biscaia, and Gerard (2019) note that in a 2018 study in the United Kingdom, "despite 83% of disabled research participants wishing to be more active, 43% were fearful of being seen to be more active in case they lose their benefits” (p. 6). Similarly, in the U.S. social media posts of people engaging in activities that are perceived as being in direct contradiction with their disability claim have been used to pursue Social Security fraud charges (Miller, 2019). The Trump administration has been further pushing to use social media as a mechanism of surveillance of people applying for disability benefits to disqualify the person from government benefits based on recreational activities. This surveillance is indicative of how legal ordinances, as well as social attitudes, are used to police and control who gets to participate in society, including leisure, and who is excluded. It also underscores the idea that disabled people are not entitled to pleasure or fun, and perpetuates the misnomer that to be legitimately disabled a person has to be consumed and “crippled” by their impairments to the extent that leisure is not an option (Ebba, 2019).Disabled people who are employed encounter financial constraints, as well. It is common for disabled people to use a disproportionate amount of paid time off, when available, for impairment related absences, which depletes available time off for leisure and may also compromise competitive opportunities in the workplace (Cook & Shinew, 2014). It is also well documented that, as a consequence of disability discrimination and anti-fat bias, many disabled people and fat people who could work are unable to secure employment or resort to working for lower wages than they are qualified (Cook & Shinew, 2014; Martin, 2017).When disabled leisure is available it is frequently segregated. For example, organized leisure such as day camps and sleep away camps, like Camp Jened featured in the recently released documentary Crip Camp, are popular for disabled youth and adults alike (Disabled World, 2020; Newnham & LeBrecht 2020). The Special Olympics and Paralympics are also popular among disabled athletes (Saxton, 2016). Businesses such as Autism on the Seas, Travelin Wheels, Autistic Globetrotting, and Special Needs at Sea also specialize in travel for families with disabled children ("Cruising with Special Needs”).While many disabled people and their families may prefer disability-specific programs because they reflect and celebrate the communities that they identify with, the question of whether recreation programs specific to disabled people would need to exist to the same extent if segregation and discrimination were not so prominent is complex. Defining ableism as "both the impacts of the environment and societal attitudes as forms of social oppression that can lead to barriers to participation” (p. 2) Brittain et al. (2019) explore how disabled people are excluded in sport and physical activity (S&PA) in which "the imposition of architectural and attitudinal barriers, with inaccessible public spaces (including S&PA facilities) [curtail] opportunities to build the social relationships necessary to gain social capital” (p. 7). The practice of "opportunity hoarding,” in which the dominant group, in this case non-disabled people, continue to build inaccessible facilities is described as "both an exercise of power and value judgment” because "DP [disabled people] are not seen as important enough to be worth the perceived extra costs of making the necessary alterations” (p. 8). Whether conscious or not, opportunity hoarding further compounds the loss of social capital and enforces social closure to disabled people in many sports and recreation environments.Neglecting structural access needs is frequently defended with the uninformed and ableist excuse that disabled people are "incapable or uninterested” (Brittain et al., 2019 p. 10) in participating. In this catch-22 many disabled people are unable to participate because of inaccessibility, while inaccessibility is justified by lack of disabled people’s participation. Consequently, the preference among some disabled people for disability specific recreation is complicated by the lack of access or exposure to other options or opportunities. Regardless of whether disabled people want integration—to be sure there can be significant drawbacks to integration—the lack of choice due to enforced segregation creates a power differential in which dominant, able-bodied culture is deciding for disabled people without including them as important stakeholders.Although progress is slow, there has been an increase in integrated recreation facilities in recent years. For example, Scarlet's Playground recently opened in Oakland County, Detroit and is the largest ramped playground in the Midwest, built to appeal to both children with and without disabilities without segregating them (Mann & Kelly, 2020). However, even though the ADA mandates that public parks and recreation facilities in the U.S. remove access barriers, even decades after this legislation passed there is a long way to go to realizing this goal in many areas (Labiak & Trieglaff, 2016). Furthermore, numerous parks around the country technically qualifying as "accessible” are lackluster or still pose significant functional challenges. Consequently, disabled people continue to be second-class citizens, if considered at all, in these public spaces ostensibly intended for all.Fat people have also resorted to making their own separate spaces after being both structurally and socially discriminated against. For example, Abundant Travel is a travel agency catering specifically to "people of size” and their specific considerations in finding accommodations that are both hospitable and physically accessible (Abundant Travel, 2020). The inclusive yoga movement featuring exercise programs for fat people by fat people has also grown immensely in popularity (Rich & Mansfield, 2018). Even so, barriers such as one-size-fits-all seating in movie theaters, sports stadiums, planetariums, restaurants, airplanes, limousines, trains, buses, and amusement parks continue to pose a challenge for fat people (C. Rubenstein, personal communication, June 7, 2020). The anxiety among fat people over whether a leisure space will be accessible and comfortable is so commonplace that the app AllGo was created to provide a platform for fat people to share real world feedback for other fat people to consult (AllGo, 2019). As clever and innovative as it is, the fact that there is a need for an app like AllGo is indicative of the systematic and widespread fat phobia that continues to go unaddressed.While architectural and environmental barriers are frequently the primary focus of accessibility, for many disabled people and fat people intrapersonal and interpersonal leisure constraints can be more prohibitive than structural barriers. For instance, it is well documented that disabled people (Cook & Shinew, 2014) and fat people (Lewis & Van Puymbroeck, 2008) are widely socially discriminated against by others for fear of stigma by association regardless of the person’s other merits and positive attributes. Lewis & Van Puymbroeck (2008) note that, "Even if constraints related to obesity stigma do not preclude actual leisure participation, they can still negatively influence other aspects of the leisure experience such as enjoyment and level of engagement” (p. 584). In one study that included pictures of people with physical impairments alongside pictures of “obese” people, children ranked the "obese” person as "least socially desirable” (p. 577). Fat stigma is so pervasive that it is considered a social disability among some researchers because of the barriers that fat people encounter as a result of prejudice.I know the experience of fat phobia and disability discrimination first-hand: being fat from the time I was in elementary school, I frequently experienced fat-phobia and bullying from family and peers alike, even those who were themselves fat. When my disabilities became more acute, my social undesirability as an “other” was further compounded and reinforced. For instance, due to hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, food intolerances, and Fibromyalgia I have significant chronic pain and fatigue. To extend my sitting capacity I bring pillows with me everywhere, including restaurants, classes, and events. I also frequently stand up or lie on the floor. As such, being around me means that other people are subjected to the hassles of disability and inaccessibility, which means I am limited in my social options. Because many find my accommodations and food restrictions inconvenient or embarrassing, it is not uncommon for me to be omitted from social invitations. Like numerous disabled people who spend their leisure time passively (Cook & Shinew, 2014), I have become accustomed to being more solitary because of my experiences as a fat and disabled person (I would say being disabled more so than when I was fatter but not acutely disabled), and it can be extremely lonely, frustrating, and isolating.Despite the rewards of leisure, "interacting with people from the dominant culture” and the expectation of compensating for one’s disability can be extremely taxing (Cook & Shinew, 2014 p. 421). My experience is that most people have little to no appreciation for how difficult it is to get out and how isolating it is to stay in. Additionally, the countless challenges of navigating everyday life in disabling environments are routinely obscured by the internal and external pressures many disabled people experience to appear as "normal” and competent as possible (Saxton, 2016). The ubiquitous rhetoric of "overcoming” and "rising above” one’s disabilities frequently objectifies disabled people without any recognition or interest in the myriad access barriers that able-bodied people benefit from and perpetuate (Saxton, 2016). The term "inspiration porn,” coined in 2012 by late disability activist Stella Young, has been widely adopted by the disability community to describe how disabled people’s achievements are co-opted and hyped as "inspiration” for the feel-good benefit of the able-bodied (Kearney et al., 2019). One salient example of inspiration porn is the idea of the Super Crip, a disabled person who is praised for being "heroic” and "amazing” for surpassing the perceived limitations of their impairments, or accomplishing feats that are impressive of their own accord, not specifically because the person is disabled. Saxton (2016) explains:

The term [Super Crip] derives from the common experience for many disabled persons who have, at some point, been told directly, by insinuation, or through the media, that if one just tried harder, one would succeed and transcend the limitations of his/her disability, ultimately as if he/she could somehow function as non-disabled. (p. 6)

The inherent assumption is twofold: to be valuable and worthy disabled people must try as hard as possible to be "normal,” meaning non-disabled; and that regard for disabled people is so dreadfully low that ordinary accomplishments qualify as being elevated to hero status.The imposition of the Super Crip ideology also reinforces the public perception that the only legitimate disability is an apparent physical disability (Linton, 1998). For example, the expectation that people with mental health or chronic illness disabilities should be able to accomplish tasks and participate socially without consideration for or recognition of the seriousness of their impairments often results in people with unapparent disabilities being denigrated for not being able to conform to expectations of "normalcy,” and being denied accommodations or access support. Of how the Super Crip and inspiration porn directly intersect with justifying a lack of social accommodations and access priorities Linton (1998) writes:

If we, as a society, place the onus on individuals with disabilities to work harder to 'compensate’ for their disabilities or to 'overcome’ their condition or the barriers in the environment, we have no need for civil rights legislation or affirmative action. ...I don’t see working hard, doing well, or striving for health, fitness, and well-being as contradictory to the aims of the disability rights movement. ... however, we shouldn’t be impelled to do these because we have a disability, to prove to some social overseer that we can perform, but we should pursue them because they deliver their own rewards and satisfactions. (p. 18)

By emphasizing an individual’s perseverance and "grit” as what is necessary and rewarded, systemic discrimination, marginalization, and exclusion continue to be distracted from and encouraged. The hyper-focus on disabled people‘s "inspiring” accomplishments without equal attention to access barriers that marginalize disabled people promotes a skewed perception for both the public at large and disabled people themselves. If a disabled person cannot or does not want to parallel the capacities of non-disabled people, such as working a traditional job, commuting or traveling by oneself, and having a conventional family structure, it is considered a pity or a failure.When disabled people participate in leisure activities there is often an added pressure to be an exemplar and go above and beyond, which can serve as a deterrent to participation in leisure and recreation (Saxton, 2016). For example, in an interview one participant commented to Saxton:

Sometimes I'm afraid of even trying because I will fall so short of the super-crips in the Paralympics. Why risk looking like a dork with those amazing athletic guys all muscled and buff? Even though they are crips [term reclaiming “crippled”] like us, they are in a whole other league. (p. 14)

What many non-disabled people fail to understand is that leisure constraints are often not as much to do with the environment but rather with logistical, social, and emotional access. It is difficult to feel safe, included, worthy, and respected given all of the stigmas, prejudices, and barriers that disabled people are inundated with from multiple, often unavoidable sources on a daily basis.The internalization of the ideal of the Super Crip by disabled people permeates many spheres of leisure, even those that are not particularly physical and even among people whose disabilities are not apparent. For example, through interviews with multiple disabled middle-aged working adults Cook & Shinew (2014) noted that,

"[P]articipants reportedly found leisure engagement to be somewhat more stressful than work due to the need to plan ahead, the inaccessibility of leisure spaces, and the need for assistive devices or assistance from leisure companions.” (p. 431)

Furthermore, considerable advance planning to "scope out” the leisure environment and concern for bodily injury also poses significant stress.Although it was not present in any of the articles reviewed, I know many people who are neurodivergent or have mental health disabilities who have similar needs to scope out environments and plan ahead to make sure they will not be over-stimulated or overwhelmed. Likewise, these concerns also pose significant access barriers to leisure participation that regularly go unacknowledged or are doubted and mocked. Similarly, Cook & Shinew’s (2014) interviewees also noted that deterrents can be misunderstood or unappreciated by able-bodied people or disabled people who have differing impairments and access needs. I have often experienced people not believing me when I express a limitation or access need because it does not compute with what the person considers to be difficult or what constitutes an access barrier, such as difficulty sitting. The "invisibility” of my disabilities has also been cause for doubt, such as criticisms of "How could that possibly hurt you?” or "Come on, lazy. It will be good for you.”The conception that disabled people are only entitled to recreation if it is in service to "correcting” themselves in an effort to function more "normally” to therefore be more socially acceptable is also a detrimental leisure barrier (Saxton, 2016). Social hierarchies that place disabled people who most appear to reflect the expectations of "normalcy” at the top promote this notion of the need to correct oneself (Cook & Shinew, 2014; Kearney et al., 2019). Many people with impairments who can most easily "pass” as non-disabled in one way or another are also encouraged by this hierarchy and the shame it promotes to disassociate from disability community altogether (Brittain et al., 2019). Not being able to express one’s full self or having others to share common experiences with can be extremely isolating, which comes with its own health detriments.This hierarchy of "passability” that excludes and diminishes disabled people based on the extent to which the person does not meet imposed "normalcy” also extends to the status assigned to people as they age, particularly in leisure contexts (Gibbons, 2016). For example, the Successful Aging Movement, which encourages seniors to resist "becoming old” regardless of numerical age, "emphasizes health and functionality, absence of disease and disability, and active engagement” (p. 1). While "successful aging” may appear to promote laudable aspirations for older adults to stay active, it relies on the same cultural precepts of normalcy that cast embodying otherness, such as disability and fatness, as inferior and therefore unworthy and undesirable.According to cultural ideologies of compulsory youthfulness, remaining young in appearance and activity level is equated with personal and social success (Gibbons, 2016). Gibbons asserts:

The successful aging and healthy aging movements imply that, in addition to being youthful and non-disabled, old people should be White, wealthy, in a heterosexual marriage, retired, and those capable of seeking leisure in a variety of ways and remaining consumers in a capitalist economy. (p. 10)

This individualistic focus on successful aging neglects to account for the many psychosocial factors that influence illness and decreased capacity, such as discrimination and poverty, while simultaneously undercutting the need for government assistance for old and disabled people under the pretext that individuals are to blame for succumbing to disability or old age. Illness or decreased capacity is equated with disability and therefore cast as an individual failure in not choosing to "overcome” one’s age. Consequently, older adults who do not meet these standards are frequently neglected and marginalized by both younger people and their age peers.Like disability and old age, "overcoming” fatness is seen as an individual choice and leisure in the form of exercise is touted as "a panacea to the pathologized problems of 'obesity’ and 'overweight’” (Rich & Mansfield, 2018 p. 1) as though the only legitimate purpose of physical activity is to correct one’s fatness. Discrimination against fat people is viewed by many as socially permissible or even couched as being in the interest of health. Fat people are faulted for purposely failing to conform to what is considered socially acceptable appearance and "physical activity/exercise [is used] as a punishment for fat or as an instrument or tool to bring around weight loss and that generate affects of shame, displeasure, pain, and fear” (p. 6). Where this abuse of fat people as a "motivator” to lose weight is widely endorsed, fat people are frequently seen as undeserving of sedentary leisure such as going out to eat and seeing a movie or a show. Similar to the Super Crip or a person who dares to appear "old,” the reduction of fat people to only what one looks like and leisure only to what may "correct” the perceived transgression of fatness objectifies fat people instead of valuing them as a whole, worthy, and multifaceted.

Conclusion

The devaluation of disabled people, fat people, and aged people's lives has been particularly highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic in which, not so unlike the Eugenics Movement and widespread institution of ugly laws, treatment protocols target and de-prioritize access to medical care and equipment for disabled, chronically ill, elderly, and fat people. For example, in the No Body is Disposable campaign the fat activism organization Fat Rose aptly terms these policies as "ICUgenics” for the blatant and largely callous medical discrimination against people who are diminished as "non-normative” (Fat Rose, 2020). The federal government has made it clear that the economy and the entitlement of predominately young, white, able-bodied people to be able to enjoy work and recreation unencumbered despite the pandemic takes precedence over the lives and safety of those who are high risk.This glaring injustice is made all the more unconscionable given that in the U.S. people of color, particularly Black people, Latinx people, and Indigenous people, are disproportionately predisposed to chronic health issues and "obesity” as a result of oppression and myriad inequities including generational poverty, environmental racism, food insecurity, lack of access to competent and respectful medical care, persistent psychosocial stress, and intergenerational trauma, to name but a few critical factors (Strings, 2020). It is also worth noting that the so-called freedoms that many opponents of stay at home orders cite as being violated are privileges that many marginalized people do not have opportunities to enjoy even during non-pandemic times because of leisure constraints. One of the central rationalizations for de-prioritizing disabled people, fat people, and aged people if there is a surge in COVID-19 cases is the alleged likelihood of decreased "quality of life” among these populations if extreme medical measures are taken (Fat Rose, 2020). However, this justification for denying medical care on the basis of diminished "quality of life” begs the question of where the broader interest or investment in "quality of life” is with regards to these same populations receiving support and access to equitable social supports and leisure.As COVID-19 illustrates, it is critical to emphasize the intersectional nature of stigma and discrimination in which people who are multiply marginalized due to disability, race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and/or religion, economic and class status, fatness, age, and other factors experience concomitant negative effects that have detriments above and beyond being part of a single minority (Saxton, 2016). For example, anti-fat bias and fat phobia in the west are inextricably linked to anti-blackness, sexism, ableism, and poverty (Strings, 2019); and ableism is inextricably linked to foundations of racism, enforced poverty, economic inequality, and eugenics (Schweik, 2009). Who is and is not prioritized in leisure access both perpetuates stigma and exclusion, and enforces ideals of who is and is not considered worthy.In examining and potentially addressing leisure barriers for people with "non-normative” bodyminds it is crucial to address constraints from a comprehensive approach that places the context of this oppressive history at its core. While the history of how people with marginalized bodyminds illuminates the many impediments to leisure equality, it also demonstrates how leisure access can impel broader change. The potential of positively influencing people’s perceptions and understanding by pursuing common interests and enjoyment, whether in-person or remotely, should not be underestimated. Leisure and recreation hold great possibility of instituting meaningful change if the necessity of addressing not only constraints but also the foundation of these injustices is fully appreciated and acted on.ReferencesAbundant Travel. (n.d.). Retrieved August 01, 2020, from https://www.travelabundantly.com/AllGo. (2019, November 26). Retrieved August 01, 2020, from https://canweallgo.com/Brittain, I., Biscaia, R., & Gérard, S. (2019). Ableism as a regulator of social practice and disabled peoples’ self-determination to participate in sport and physical activity. Leisure Studies, 39(2), 209-224. doi:10.1080/02614367.2019.1694569Cook, L. H., & Shinew, K. J. (2014). Leisure, Work, and Disability Coping: “I Mean, You Always Need That ‘In’ Group”. Leisure Sciences, 36(5), 420-438. doi:10.1080/01490400.2014.912167Cruising With Special Needs. (2013, March). Family Circle.Disabled World. (2020, May 02). Disability Camps: Children, Teens and Adults with Disabilities. Retrieved August 01, 2020, from https://www.disabled-world.com/entertainment/camps/Ebba, A. (2019, May 03). The Stigma Of Fun When You're Disabled. Retrieved August 01, 2020, from https://folks.pillpack.com/the-stigma-of-fun-when-youre-disabled/Fat Rose. (2020, April 03). #NoBodyIsDisposable Campaign Against Discrimination in Triage. Retrieved August 01, 2020, from https://fatrose.org/2020/03/31/nobodyisdisposable-campaign-against-discrimination-in-triage/Gibbons, H. (2016, Sept. 1). Compulsory Youthfulness: Intersections of Ableism and Ageism in“Successful Aging” Discourses. Review of Disability Studies: an international journal, 12 (2 & 3).Kearney, S., Brittain, I., & Kipnis, E. (2019). “Superdisabilities” vs “disabilities”? Theorizing the role of ableism in (mis)representational mythology of disability in the marketplace. Consumption Markets & Culture, 22(5-6), 545-567. doi:10.1080/10253866.2018.1562701Labiak, L., & Trieglaff, M. (2016, August 1). Recreation and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Feature: Parks and Recreation Magazine: NRPA. Retrieved August 01, 2020, from https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2016/august/recreation-and-the-americans-with-disabilities-act/Lewis, S. T., & Puymbroeck, M. V. (2008). Obesity-Stigma as a Multifaceted Constraint to Leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 40(4), 574-588. doi:10.1080/00222216.2008.11950153Linton, S. (1998). Claiming disability: Knowledge and identity. New York: New York University Press.Mann, P., & Kelly, D. (2020, June 05). Inclusive playground for children with disabilities opens in Oakland County. Retrieved August 01, 2020, from https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2020/06/05/inclusive-playground-for-children-with-disabilities-opens-in-oakland-county/Martin, A. (2017, August 16). Weight Discrimination Is Legal in 49 States. Retrieved August 01, 2020, from https://time.com/4883176/weight-discrimination-workplace-laws/Miller, M. (2019, March 29). U.S. government weighs social-media snooping to detect Social Security fraud. Retrieved August 01, 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-miller-socialmedia/u-s-government-weighs-social-media-snooping-to-detect-social-security-fraud-idUSKCN1RA12RNewnham, N. (co-producer and director) & LeBrecht, J. (co-producer and director). (23 Jan. 2020). Crip Camp [Motion picture]. United States: Higher Ground Productions.PBS SoCal. (n.d.). S1 E34: Why it Was Illegal to be Ugly?: Origin of Everything. Retrieved August 01, 2020, from https://www.pbssocal.org/programs/origin-of-everything/why-it-was-illegal-to-be-ugly-c8ps4i/Rich, E., & Mansfield, L. (2018). Fat and Physical Activity: Understanding and Challenging Weight Stigma - Special Issue of Fat Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Body Weight and Society. Fat Studies, 8(2), 99-109. doi:10.1080/21604851.2019.1552823Saxton, M. (2016). Hard bodies: Exploring historical and cultural factors in disabled people’s participation in exercise; applying critical disability theory. Sport in Society, 21(1), 22-39. doi:10.1080/17430437.2016.1225914Schweik, Susan. The Ugly Laws: Disability in Public. New York: NYU Press, 2009.Strings, S. (2019). Fearing the black body the racial origins of fat phobia. New York: New York University Press.Strings, S. (2020, May 25). It's Not Obesity. It's Slavery. Retrieved August 01, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/opinion/coronavirus-race-obesity.html