Dismantling Ableism Survey: Experiences of those Identifying with Systemically Marginalized Genders

Introduction

The Dismantling Ableism: Institutional Action and Accountability survey (DAS) was administered in November-December 2023 to University of Manitoba students, faculty, and staff who self-identified as disabled or as having chronic health conditions.1,2 

Disability is not a singular experience, nor are disabled people a homogeneous group. People encounter different barriers and forms of ableism. Moreover, two people with similar impairments will also experience disability differently as personality, circumstance, privilege, and intersectional identities contribute toward their complex identity. 

“Experiences of inequities are particular to the type of chronic health issues [or] disability. When paired with intersectional issues such as race, class, etc., these inequities become more pervasive.” 

This results report is one in a series highlighting student, staff, and faculty experiences of ableism and inaccessibility at UM. It is intended to diversify understandings of ableism in academia through the presentation of disaggregated results that indicate differences among those who may share one or more broad socio-demographic characteristics such as Indigenous, racialized, or disability identities, gender, or sexuality.3 We emphasize disaggregated data to acknowledge intersectional marginalization to decenter Whiteness, colonialism, patriarchy, heteronormativity, and cisnormativity within anti-ableism action. 

Comparing the experiences of intersectionally marginalized groups is not intended to set these groups in competition with one another or to focus only on barriers and the ways in which they are “disadvantaged”, rather than their agency and vast array of achievements and skills. Rather, disaggregated analysis emphasizes experiences and voices that are often overlooked to pinpoint the concrete actions that will have the most widespread positive impacts on the entire UM community.

Language

The DAS used identity-first language (disabled persons) rather than person-first language (persons with disabilities) to acknowledge the disabling effect of social, environmental, and institutional barriers which hinder disabled individuals’ full participation in society, including university life.4

Similarly, the survey also used the term “chronic health conditions”, broadly defined as any condition, including mental health conditions, that is continuing or that occurs again and again over a long period of time, which in interaction with various barriers, may hinder full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.5

Positionality

Researchers bring their experiences, identities, and biases to their work. The DAS team members identify with various systemically marginalized identities, including disability and chronic health-related identities. These lived experiences are assets, but we recognize that our personal intersections of privilege also influence our work. Our commitment to research quality includes an openness to concerns and criticisms. Please feel free to send feedback on the DAS results to the Office of Equity Transformation at Equity@umanitoba.ca.

Footnotes

1. The survey was funded by the Robbins-Ollivier Award for Excellence in Equity.
2. The final sample size for the DAS, after data cleaning, is 544.
3. For example, do those who identify with cognitive disabilities feel more or less safe at UM than those identifying with physical or sensory disabilities? Do those who identify as disabled and as either bisexual or pansexual encounter more ableist microaggressions than their heterosexual counterparts?
4. Language choices were explained in the survey introduction; nevertheless, the DAS project team respects that members of disability and chronic health communities have diverse language preferences, including person with a disability, chronically ill, and episodic disability, for example. The team is grateful for all of the feedback we received regarding language and it will inform our work going forward.
5. Adapted from Bernell, S., & Howard, S. W. (2016). Use your words carefully: What is a chronic disease? Frontiers in Public Health, 4, 159. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2016.00159 and the United Nations.

Report content

This summary explores the intersection of gender and disability and chronic health identities, regarding experiences of ableism at UM.

We strive to highlight the experiences of minoritized gender respondents, which refers specifically to respondents who identify with systemically marginalized genders6 (e.g., trans or transgender, non-binary, agender, genderfluid, genderqueer, or another diverse gender identity, etc.). 

Footnotes

6. “Woman” and “man” can also be marginalized genders in particular contexts. For the purposes of the DAS results, however, “woman” and “man” are considered majoritized genders.

Methodological note

The gender question on the DAS invited respondents to select all the genders that apply to them. To conduct statistical comparisons, the gender variable was recoded into three categories – women, men, and minoritized genders. However, this artificial re-grouping does not necessarily mean respondents only selected the gender corresponding with the category of the same name. It is possible that respondents who selected a minoritized gender (e.g., trans) also selected another gender, such as woman, for example. 

Accordingly, respondents in the minoritized gender group identify with at least one non-man or non-woman gender. Because some overlap between the three categories remains, the statistical results should only be considered one piece of evidence describing differences in men, women, and minoritized gender respondents’ experiences.

Gender

The DAS sample is characterized by considerable gender diversity, particularly amongst students. 

  • 10% identifies as non-binary7 (14% students, and 7% of staff and faculty) 
  • 6.5% identifies as genderfluid, genderqueer, or another diverse gender (9% of students, and 4% of staff and faculty) 
  • 4.5% identifies as trans or transgender (7.5% of students) 
  • 2.5% identifies as agender (4.5% of students) 
  • 2% identifies as Two Spirit 
  • Respondents specified many additional diverse genders other than woman or man, but low case counts prohibit disaggregated reporting 
  • 69% of the sample identifies as women (65% students, 75% staff, and 69% faculty) 
  • 15% identifies as men (15% of students, 15% of staff, and 19% of faculty)

Footnotes

7. The total sample size for the DAS is 544.

Descriptives and intersecting marginalized identities

Minoritized gender respondents in the DAS sample are significantly more likely to: 

  • Be under 25 years of age (52%), compared to women (24%) and men8 (22%) 
  • Identify as disabled (41%), compared to men (29%) and women9 (24%) 
  • Identify with cognitive disabilities and chronic health conditions (73%) than men (44%) and women10 (43%) 
  • Indicate their disability or chronic health condition is sometimes noticeable to others (56%) than women (46%) and men11 (42%) 
  • Identify with marginalized sexualities besides bisexual or pansexual12 (57.5%) than men (18%) and women13 (14%) 
  • Participate in work or studies at UM mostly or fully in-person (66%), compared to men (54%) and women14 (44%)

Footnotes

8. X2 (4, 517) = 46.4, p =<.001, V = 0.21
9. X2 (4, 507) = 13.9, p =<.01, V = 0.12
10. X2 (4, 513) = 32, p =<.001, V = 0.18
11. X2 (4, 518) = 14.9, p =<.01, V = 0.12
12. They are also more likely to identify as bisexual or pansexual than men and women, but cell counts are very unevenly distributed, prohibiting detailed reporting for both results.
13. X2 (4, 503) = 127.6, p =<.001, V = 0.36
14. X2 (4, 516) = 14.4, p =<.01, V = 0.12

Experiences at UM

“As an intersex individual who is currently managing sexuality-gender related condition, I can say for sure that it difficult to share my condition. I did a few times, and I could feel and see the distancing from the person(s) I spoke with. […] In my opinion, many people fear [or] discriminate against what they do not understand: an impulsive culture shock based of sexuality [or] gender differences.” 

Respondents identifying with minoritized genders: 

  • Are less satisfied with their level of participation at UM than women and men15 
  • Feel less safe (personally) than women and men16 
  • Perceive their primary campus to be less safe for disabled people in general than women and men17 
  • Perceive less equity than women and men (student-specific finding)18 
  • Perceive more negative attitudes toward disability at UM than women and men19 
  • Perceive UM to be less engaged with dismantling ableism than women and men20
  • Experience institutional barriers more often than women and men (e.g., getting around campus and accessing appropriate work or study spaces, etc.)21 
  • Report more IT barriers than women and men22
  • Experience significantly more in-person ableist microaggressions than women and men (e.g., someone assumed they needed help or that their disability impacted all their capabilities, etc.)23 
  • Experience more exclusion, incivility, and harassment in-person than women and men (e.g., excluded within one’s home unit or across UM in general)24 
  • Perceive more additional costs associated with disabilities and chronic health conditions than women and men (report they do more unpaid labour, specifically)25 
  • Report more emotional exhaustion than women and men26
  • Report more negative interactions with their peers than women and men (student-specific finding)27

Footnotes

15. F (2, 520) = 5.4, p =<.01, η2 = 0.02
16. F (2, 508) = 7.1, p =<.001, η2 = 0.03
17. F (2, 482) = 9.9, p =<.001, η2 = 0.04
18. F (2, 252) = 3.4, p =<.05, η2 = 0.03
19. F (2, 521) = 3.1, p =<.05, η2 = 0.01
20. F (2, 497) = 4.0, p =<.05, η2 = 0.02
21. F (2, 521) = 7.8, p =<.001, η2 = 0.03
22. F (2, 520) = 7.4, p =<.001, η2 = 0.03. The DAS was administered in November-December 2023. As such, the results may not capture recent (and ongoing) accessibility improvements to specific information and communications systems at UM, including those undertaken to meet the Accessibility for Manitobans Act Information and Communications Standards (AMA-IC), and WCAG 2.1 standards.
23. F (2, 498) = 3.7, p =<.05, η2 = 0.02
24. F (2, 495) = 8.9, p =<.001, η2 = 0.04
25. X2 (4, 492) = 19.7, p =< .001, V = 0.14
26. F (2, 521) = 8.0, p =<.001, η2 = 0.03
27. F (2, 229) = 6.6, p =<.01, η2 = 0.06

Dismantling Ableism Survey (DAS) Keep reading

Download the full Dismantling Ableism Survey report (PDF)