Some things become part of the air, the room.

This is about what happens when something is taken
and never said out loud.

What Was Stolen

The door never creaked,
but I knew when it moved.

The hush of footsteps
on worn-out wood,
the weight of breath
that wasn’t mine
choking the air,
thick with dread.

I drew inward,
folded into the quiet,
prayed to disappear.
But the dark exposed my fear.

Shoulders tightened
before I could reach them,
mind already moving
without my permission.

Morning came like a lie,
sunlight spilling
over a world unchanged,
while I carried the ruin deep within,
a shadow stitched beneath my skin.

His presence should have meant safety.
His hands should have held kindness.
But monsters don’t live under beds
they sit at dinner tables,
smile in daylight,
pretend.

I did, too.
Wore those smiles like armor,
and answered to a name
that no longer felt like mine.

But the walls knew,
the sheets knew.
I had always known–
even when I didn’t want to.

Still,
the years passed in silence,
thickening into walls
where words should have been.

I swallowed it like acid,
burning through what was left of me.

It wore away at my bones
until all that remained
was ash,
an outline
of who I once was.

I built a life
around hollow spaces,
where trust should have lived,
and love should have grown.

I did not make it out whole,
but I did make it out.
Scared,
unbroken.

Still breathing in my own name.
And that will always be enough.

There are things that were taken.
That part is true.

But there are also things that were not.
Things that remained, even when you couldn’t feel them.

A name.
A self.
A life still unfolding.

Sometimes survival is simply this:

I am still here.

Leave a comment

Share

Luisa’s song “Surface Pressure” in Encanto hit me harder than I expected it to, but the lyrics were spot on for this chronic illness girlie.

“Who am I if I can’t carry it all?” and “I’m pretty sure I’m worthless if I can’t be of service.”

I spent much of my life believing that my value was tied to how useful I was to others. I was the dependable one, the competent one. The ultimate problem solver who could fix any situation because once you shared it with me, it became ours to carry. And carry it, I did. Long past when it was healthy for me to do so.

Because in making myself indispensable, I’d also inadvertently taught myself that any worth I held was directly related to if and how well I carried other people’s problems. So when chronic illness made it impossible to carry that weight, I had to learn how to put it down. And who I was without it.

Turns out, putting down the weight was the easy part and figuring out where my value came from now was much harder. Especially because I was still looking for it externally. I had spent so long measuring my worth by what I could produce, achieve, or provide that I didn’t know how to recognize value that existed simply because I did.

Rationally, I knew my worth wasn’t contingent upon what I could do for other people. And I would never look at another person, disabled or not, and decide they were less important because they couldn’t work or attend school. I recognize everyone has intrinsic value beyond their ability to serve others, but extending that same logic to myself was another matter altogether.

And that contradiction was hard to ignore. I had built an entire worldview around the inherent value of other people while maintaining an exception for myself. Chronic illness made that exception impossible to ignore.

When you can no longer perform, the evidence of your worth disappears, and you’re left with the uncomfortable task of reflecting on why you needed to prove it in the first place. Which is when shame set in.

Was I truly the kind of person whose value hinged on other people? Had everything I accomplished been less about what I wanted and more about collecting evidence that I was worthy of being here?

Frustratingly, the answer wasn’t quite that simple.

I genuinely cared about the people I helped. I was proud of what I accomplished and found meaning in being someone others could depend on. None of that became less true just because I was beginning to understand the role it had also played in how I saw myself. The problem wasn’t that being useful made me feel valuable. It was that somewhere along the way, I had stopped believing I could be valuable without it.

Learning to believe otherwise has required me to build an identity around who I am rather than what I can do. For the first time, I had to consider what remained when there was nothing to accomplish.

The question wasn’t whether I still had something to offer. Of course I did. It was whether I could finally stop treating what I offered as proof that I deserved to take up space. Because there is a difference between finding meaning in what I contribute and needing those contributions to justify my existence. One allows me to give from a secure sense of self and the other requires me to keep earning one.

And I was exhausted from living as though my worth came with conditions I had to keep meeting.

Chronic illness didn’t take my value from me; it exposed how little of it I had ever allowed myself to claim without qualification. I’m still learning that I don’t have to make myself indispensable to be worthy of being loved, included, or considered. That being needed and being valued are not the same thing, no matter how thoroughly I had confused the two.

Perhaps the harder lesson has been accepting that someone can value me even when there is nothing they need from me at all. That I can simply exist in someone’s life without constantly proving why I deserve a place in it.

There is a kind of freedom in that, but also a vulnerability I’m still learning how to tolerate. Because when usefulness has always made you feel secure, being loved without having to earn it can feel far more uncertain than it should. There is no task to complete, no standard to meet, no tangible evidence to point to and say, “See, this is why I matter.”

There is only the far less measurable truth that I mattered before I ever did anything to prove it. And learning to live from that truth, rather than merely agree with it, has been its own kind of unlearning.

Maybe that’s my answer to Luisa’s question.

Who am I if I can’t carry it all?
I’m still me.

I’m still compassionate and curious and stubborn about the things I believe matter. I still love deeply. I still want to contribute, accomplish things, and be someone others can depend on when I have the capacity to do so. Chronic illness didn’t require me to stop valuing any of those things. It required me to stop using them as evidence in a case for my own worthiness.

I can carry what I’m able to carry and put down what I’m not. Neither makes me more or less valuable.

Maybe the point was never to figure out what I’m worth without the weight.

Maybe it was finally understanding that the weight had nothing to do with it.

Leave a comment

Share

I can count on one hand the number of times I’ve cried in front of other people, all of which were at funerals. And I was proud of that for too long. It made me feel strong only because I’d been taught to equate crying with weakness, which is an altogether normal reality for many others, too.

Crying wasn’t simply a sign of weakness but vulnerability, handing a weapon over to be used against you. And used it would be. To shame or otherwise reduce you to the smallest shell of a person.

So, I learned to hold those emotions in and bury them so deep, if they tried to escape, I swallowed the sound using my own throat muscles. Not a single tear would fall, not on my watch. It felt that way because I lived in a state of hypervigilance, constantly on guard. Until eventually, I trained my mind and body not to cry at all.

Sjögren’s disease is an autoimmune disorder that attacks the glands that make moisture, like tear and saliva glands. This causes very dry eyes and a dry mouth, but also affects the joints, skin, and organs. It’s often called the sister to lupus because of its systemic nature and biological features that overlap, such as fatigue and joint pain.

While it usually affects women over 40, my symptoms began much earlier in my 20s. And by that point, I had spent years teaching my body not to make tears for reasons that had nothing to do with my autoimmune disease. Then Sjögren’s came along and made that lesson physical. The glands responsible for producing tears stopped working the way they were supposed to. Suddenly, crying wasn’t only something I refused to do. It became something my body struggled to do at all.

I spent so much of my life treating tears like self-betrayal and when I finally began to learn there was strength in vulnerability, my body learned another reason not to cry.

Now there are moments when I want to cry but my non-functioning tear glands won’t let me. I can feel the pressure behind my eyes. The familiar tightening in my throat.

But the tears won’t—can’t—fall.

Initially, it felt cruel. Finally giving myself permission to cry only to find it revoked? I thought healing meant I could cry freely with no more clenched jaws. That someone could witness my pain without me trying to contain it. But maybe I was still giving tears too much power. First, I treated their presence like evidence of weakness. And then their presence became a sign of growth. Either way, I was asking tears to prove something about me.

They don’t.

Strength used to mean feeling devastated but overcoming the need to cry. Now I understand what I often called strength was survival. It served me when I needed it, but I don’t have to keep living as though every emotion might be used against me.

These days, strength means allowing myself to feel what hurts without trying to conquer it. Letting my voice shake. Saying this hurt me instead of pretending it didn’t. Letting someone sit beside me when I would rather disappear to compose myself.

And sometimes it means crying without tears.

Maybe that’s another kind of vulnerability: trusting that what I feel is real even when I cannot perform it in the way the world expects. My body may not always be able to produce the outward evidence of what I’m feeling. But grief is still grief. Pain is still pain. And vulnerability is still vulnerability.

I no longer need tears to prove that I felt any of it.

Leave a comment

Share

Between Myself and the World

People see the teeth.

They build stories
from enamel and claws,
mistaking vigilance
for violence.

They imagine
I was born this way—
all edge,
all warning,
all mouth.

They never ask
what kept teaching me
that softness
was expensive.

Every battle
left something behind.
Not another scar.
A reflex.

A body
that forgot
how to greet the world
without bracing first.

I learned
to keep watch
long after
the danger
had passed.

Not because
I believed
every stranger
was an enemy,

but because
my nervous system
could no longer tell
the difference.

So if I look
like something
that bites,
know this—

I became
the guardian
of the parts of me
that had already
been wounded.

Do not mistake
my open mouth
for an appetite.

It is only
the shape
survival leaves behind.

I do not hunger for war.

I hunger
for the day
I can close my mouth,
soften my shoulders,
and discover
I no longer need
to keep my teeth
between myself
and the world.

Share

Leave a comment

In the first article of this series, I argued that disabled people belong in conversations about ownership.

Not because investing solves disability or because wealth erases injustice. But because disabled people deserve the opportunity to build, not just survive.

Before we talk about how to invest, we need to talk about what we’re actually trying to accomplish.

Because disability changes the math.

Not just the numbers. The equation itself.

Spend enough time reading about money, and you’ll notice that most financial advice is trying to optimize for the same thing. Grow your net worth. Maximize your returns. Retire earlier. Become financially independent.

Those are worthwhile goals. If that’s what you’re optimizing for, much of the conventional advice makes perfect sense.

But after becoming disabled, I found myself asking a different question.

What if maximizing wealth isn’t the only thing worth maximizing?

When I first became interested in investing, I assumed the hard decisions would be about what to buy.

An index fund or an ETF? Domestic or international? Lump sum or dollar-cost averaging? Instead, the decision that changed the way I think about money began with an unexpected $2,800 underpayment check.

Initially, I thought the question was simple. Should I invest it?

That’s what much of the financial world would recommend. The market has historically rewarded long-term investors, and time in the market generally matters more than trying to find the perfect moment to invest.

But as I sat with the decision, I began to see I wasn’t just deciding what to do with $2,800.

I was weighing uncertainty. I realized it wasn't a variable around the equation—it was part of the equation itself.

I’m currently living on long-term disability benefits, but I don’t know exactly when they’ll end. I hope to attend law school in the next couple of years. I have chronic illnesses that can change what I’m capable of from one month to the next. I have debt that isn’t charging interest today but eventually will. Every dollar I invest is a dollar that becomes a little less accessible if life takes an unexpected turn.

For the first time, I realized that the real question wasn’t:

“How do I earn the highest return?”

It was:

“What decision gives Future Me the most freedom?”

That question changed the math.

We often assume everyone is trying to maximize the same thing. Maybe we aren’t. Maybe our financial decisions reveal what we're actually protecting.

I wasn’t choosing between investing and not investing. I was choosing how much flexibility I wanted to preserve.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized I wasn’t optimizing for the biggest possible portfolio. I was optimizing for resilience. For margin. For optionality.

Traditional investing often treats cash as inefficient.

Money sitting in a high yield savings account isn’t earning the long-term returns that stocks have historically produced. From a spreadsheet perspective, that’s true.

But spreadsheets don’t account for uncertainty.

Cash can buy time.

It can buy the ability to say no to a job your body can’t sustain. It can buy the freedom to wait for the right accommodation instead of accepting the first option out of desperation. It can cover an insurance deductible, replace a broken transmission, or carry you through a month when your symptoms make work impossible.

Those aren’t investment returns. They’re life returns.

The same is true of an emergency fund. It’s easy to think of it as money that isn’t working. Maybe it’s working harder than we realize. Not because it’s growing quickly, but because it’s protecting everything else you’ve worked to build.

That realization also changed the way I think about risk.

The investing world often defines risk as volatility. Can your portfolio withstand a 20 percent decline? Can you tolerate watching your investments lose value without selling?

Those are important questions. They’re just not the only questions.

For many disabled people, the greater risks don’t come from the stock market. They come from losing benefits. A medication that suddenly stops working. An inaccessible workplace. An insurance denial. A hospitalization. A body that doesn’t cooperate with carefully made plans.

Those risks don’t appear in an asset allocation chart. Yet they shape almost every financial decision we make. Which means my portfolio isn’t just designed to survive market downturns.

It’s designed to survive life.

This doesn’t mean disabled people shouldn’t invest. Quite the opposite.

I believe we should invest.

I believe we should build wealth.

I believe ownership matters.

But I also believe our portfolios should serve our lives—not the other way around.

The goal isn’t to copy someone else’s allocation because it produced the highest historical return. The goal is to build a financial system that supports the life you’re actually living.

For one person, that might mean investing every extra dollar. For another, it might mean keeping a larger emergency fund because the ability to absorb uncertainty is more valuable than squeezing out another percentage point of return.

Those aren’t necessarily competing philosophies. They’re different expressions of stewardship.

Eventually, I realized I wasn't really building an investment strategy. I was trying to become a better steward.

I’ve come to think of stewardship differently over the past year.

I used to think stewardship meant making the financially optimal decision. Now I think it means caring well for every resource entrusted to us.

Money. Time. Health. Attention. Energy. Relationships.

Sometimes good stewardship means buying an index fund. Other times it means paying off debt. Or replacing worn-out tires before they become dangerous. Paying for therapy. Resting because protecting your capacity today may be worth more than maximizing your productivity this week.

Stewardship isn’t about extracting the maximum possible return from every dollar. It’s about aligning your financial decisions with the life you’re trying to build.

Disability has changed many things about my life.

It changed my career, my health, and my understanding of independence. And unexpectedly, it changed the questions I ask about money.

I’m still investing.

I’m still building.

I’m still thinking about the future.

But I’m no longer chasing the biggest portfolio for its own sake.

I’m trying to build a life with enough margin to weather uncertainty, enough flexibility to pursue what matters, and enough resilience that one setback doesn’t become a catastrophe.

Because I’ve learned something that no investing book ever taught me. The best portfolio isn’t always the one with the highest expected return. Sometimes it’s the one that gives you the greatest freedom to live the life you actually want.

In the next article, we’ll finally talk about the mechanics—brokerage accounts, retirement accounts, index funds, ETFs, and mutual funds.

But those are just tools.

Before choosing the tools, it’s worth deciding what you’re building.

The portfolio matters. The life it protects matters more.

Leave a comment

Share

Treading Water

Everyone else

seems to be standing

on something.

A shoreline.

A dock.

The deck of a passing ship.

They wave to one another,

make plans,

point toward distant horizons.

I am in the water.

Not drowning.

Not exactly.

Just never reaching land.

Every morning,

before the sun rises,

I begin kicking again.

Some days

the water is calm enough

that nobody notices.

They see my head above the surface

and assume

I am swimming.

They do not feel

the current pulling at my legs.

They do not feel

the weight tied to my ankles

somewhere below sight.

They ask why I am tired.

Why I move slower.

Why I cannot travel

as far as they can.

I want to take them underwater

for just a moment.

Long enough

to show them

what it costs

to stay where I am.

Long enough

to feel the burn

climbing through my muscles.

Long enough

to understand

that treading water

and floating

are not the same thing.

Years pass this way.

People build houses.

Change careers.

Fall in love.

Start over.

Reach destinations

I once imagined for myself.

I watch their ships

cross the horizon

until they become

small white dots

against the sky.

Still,

I keep kicking.

Not because I am strong.

Not because I am brave.

Not because I believe

the shore is close.

I keep kicking

because the water

does not care

whether I am tired.

And because

every now and then,

a cool wind arrives,

carrying the scent of rain.

The clouds gather.

The surface softens.

The world grows quiet.

For a moment,

the water holds me

instead of fighting me.

For a moment,

I remember

what it feels like

to rest.

Leave a comment

Share

The first time I opened a brokerage account, it felt strangely out of character.

Not because I lacked interest or didn’t understand the basics. But because somewhere along the way, I had absorbed the idea that investing was for other people.

People with stable careers and disposable income. People whose bodies cooperated with their plans. People whose futures felt predictable.

In hindsight, nobody explicitly told me disabled people could not invest. They just never seemed to be included in the conversation.

When people talk about disability, they usually talk about survival. Healthcare. Accommodations. Benefits. Employment discrimination. Medical debt.

Those conversations matter because the barriers are real.

Disability often comes with lower earnings, interrupted careers, additional expenses, and uncertainty that many non-disabled people never have to consider.

But I have noticed something else.

Disabled people are frequently discussed as recipients. Recipients of care, benefits, and services.

Rarely are we discussed as owners. As builders. As people making long-term plans. As people who expect to have a future worth investing in.

The assumption is subtle, but it is everywhere.

The goal is survival.

The goal is getting by.

The goal is making it through another month.

And for many people, survival is the immediate concern. I would never minimize that reality.

But survival cannot be the highest thing we are allowed to want.

For years, I assumed financial security would come primarily from work.

Work harder. Earn more. Get promoted. Advance. That formula makes sense until your body becomes unpredictable.

Disability changes your relationship with labor. People reduce their hours. Or leave careers they loved. Some lose jobs entirely.

Others discover that the amount of effort they put in and the amount they can produce are no longer perfectly connected. That realization can be frightening.

It can also force a different question:

If my ability to produce labor is limited, how else can I build security?

For me, that question eventually led to investing. Not because I expected to become wealthy or because I had a secret strategy. I didn’t suddenly have unlimited money available.

It simply occurred to me that ownership was not reserved for a different category of people.

I didn’t need to be healthy enough to work eighty-hour weeks or launch a business. I didn’t have to monetize every hobby. I could avoid becoming a productivity machine by owning a tiny piece of something larger than my labor. That idea mattered more than I expected.

To be clear, this is not an argument that every disabled person should invest. Many disabled people are fighting impossible financial battles. Many live on fixed incomes. They face benefit restrictions, medical debt, or expenses that leave no room at the end of the month. Those realities deserve acknowledgment.

This is not a moral argument. It is an inclusion argument. Disabled people deserve access to the same financial knowledge, opportunities, and conversations as everyone else. We deserve to learn about saving, investing, and ownership. Not because everyone can participate in the same way. But because nobody should be excluded before they even have the chance.

What strikes me most now is how rarely disabled people appear in conversations about wealth.

Not luxury.

Not excess.

Just security.

The ability to weather emergencies.

The ability to make choices.

The ability to imagine a future that extends beyond the next crisis.

There is something profoundly human about wanting that.

And there is something troubling about a culture that treats disabled people as though survival should be enough.

We deserve healthcare, accommodations, and support when we need it. But we also deserve futures.

We deserve the opportunity to build security, make plans, and imagine lives that are larger than the limitations imposed upon us.

Nobody told me disabled people could be investors.

I wish someone had.

Leave a comment

Share

I once sat in a doctor’s office trying to answer a question that sounded simple.

What accommodations are you requesting?

The room was cold in the way medical buildings often are. A laminated anatomy chart hung crooked on the wall. Somewhere behind me, phones rang at the front desk and someone coughed into the silence between appointments.

My mind stalled.

Not because I did not know what I needed.

I knew.

I needed flexibility on bad days. I needed the possibility of rest without punishment. I needed room for a body that did not behave predictably. I needed work to bend occasionally instead of requiring me to.

What I could not immediately answer was something else:

Which needs were safe to admit?

Which limitations sounded serious enough to deserve support but not serious enough to make me seem incapable?

Which truths would be interpreted as temporary struggle, and which would become permanent assumptions about my competence?

I remember realizing then that asking for help at work sometimes requires performing capability and impairment at the same time.

You must demonstrate enough limitation to justify accommodation while appearing well enough to remain employable.

I have thought about that contradiction often since.

Not because it is unusual.

Because I suspect many disabled workers know it intimately.

The Americans with Disabilities Act promises something important. Covered employers cannot discriminate against qualified workers with disabilities and must provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so creates undue hardship. Over time, protections expanded to include many chronic, invisible, episodic, and fluctuating conditions. The law increasingly recognizes what disabled people have long known: bodies and minds do not fail only in obvious or permanent ways. Disability can move. Symptoms can change. Capacity can fluctuate.

That matters.

The ADA changed lives. It created protections that did not exist before. Many people remain employed because accommodation exists. Many workers have kept stability, healthcare, income, and independence because rights were established.

But while reading about disability law and accommodation systems, I kept returning to the same uncomfortable realization:

Rights existed.

Access depended on something else.

That distance may be one of the least discussed realities of disability at work.

Because legal protection and practical access are not identical.

The law may provide entitlement.

Using that entitlement often requires stamina.

And stamina is unevenly distributed.

I keep thinking about what I have started calling the access gap.

The access gap is the distance between:

Having rights and having enough money, energy, documentation, healthcare access, time, emotional bandwidth, and safety to use them.

That gap shapes far more than individual outcomes.

It shapes who asks for help.

Who stays silent.

Who leaves jobs.

Who absorbs harm quietly because survival feels more urgent than justice.

The ADA says workers may be entitled to accommodation.

It does not provide specialist appointments.

It does not eliminate copays.

It does not create savings accounts large enough to withstand retaliation.

It does not shorten investigations.

It does not restore energy after months of illness.

It does not guarantee a worker can risk being perceived differently afterward.

Those things sit outside the statute.

Yet they often determine whether rights become usable.

A reasonable accommodation sounds straightforward in plain language. It is simply a change allowing a disabled worker to perform essential job duties or access equal workplace opportunity. That could mean altered schedules, remote work, breaks, written instructions, ergonomic equipment, leave, or flexibility around symptoms. The law also imagines an interactive process: an ongoing conversation between employer and employee about what support might work. In theory, accommodation is collaborative rather than adversarial.

But conversations do not happen under equal conditions.

They happen inside workplaces shaped by productivity expectations, managerial discretion, staffing shortages, healthcare dependency, and unequal bargaining power.

A worker deciding whether to disclose illness is rarely making that decision in abstraction.

They are calculating rent.

Insurance.

Children.

Debt.

Medication costs.

The possibility of unemployment.

Disabled workers already experience lower employment rates, weaker labor-force attachment, and higher poverty than nondisabled workers. Those conditions alter risk tolerance. Asking for accommodation does not happen outside economic reality.

Choice changes when consequences become expensive.

One contradiction sits near the center of disability rights:

Requesting accommodation is protected activity.

Retaliation is illegal.

An employer cannot lawfully punish someone for asserting disability protections.

And still, fear persists.

Not irrational fear.

Observed fear.

Strategic fear.

Fear shaped by seeing what happens after disclosure.

Because retaliation is not always explicit.

Sometimes it’s nearly imperceptible.

The promotion that stalls.

The project reassigned.

The changed tone.

The assumption that flexibility means lower commitment.

The subtle movement from promising employee to complicated employee.

Public data measures formal complaints more easily than informal penalties. Yet absence of measurement is not evidence of absence. Some consequences leave no clear record.

Having a right and being able to survive using it are not always the same thing.

The same pattern appears again around documentation.

Accommodation systems often require proof when disability or need is not obvious. Employers may request reasonable medical documentation describing limitations and support needs. On paper, this sounds practical. Reasonable. Neutral.

But reasonable assumes access.

Access to physicians. Insurance. Transportation. Time away from work. Specialists willing to document fluctuating illness. Continuity of care. Diagnosis.

Not everyone possesses these equally.

The result is difficult to ignore:

Civil rights frequently become routed through healthcare access.

Protection exists.

Proof becomes prerequisite.

Researchers have argued documentation requirements can become time-consuming, costly, and humiliating, particularly for people with fewer resources.

What is presented as verification functions as gatekeeping for others.

Protection becomes conditional when access depends on endurance.

Invisible and fluctuating conditions create another tension.

The law increasingly recognizes episodic disability. Autoimmune disease, ADHD, chronic pain, depression, migraine disorders, and other fluctuating conditions can qualify for protection when substantially limiting. Legally, many invisible illnesses are visible enough.

Socially, the situation is less settled.

Someone with rheumatoid arthritis may function well until a flare.

Someone with ADHD might excel with structure and struggle without it.

Someone with chronic illness can appear highly capable while privately calculating recovery after every demand.

Bodies fluctuate.

Workplaces often reward consistency.

The friction is not always disbelief.

Sometimes it’s nuanced:

Systems built around predictability encountering bodies that cannot promise it.

The law may recognize fluctuating illness long before workplaces recognize fluctuating capacity.

The strongest critique of disability rights enforcement is not symbolic.

It is procedural.

Most employment discrimination claims require filing with the EEOC before reaching court. Deadlines exist. Investigations often take months. Workers must document, disclose, follow up, persist, and continue functioning while pursuing protection.

Ten months is ordinary bureaucratic time.

It is not ordinary chronic illness time.

Ten months can contain medication changes, financial instability, worsening symptoms, caregiver responsibilities, insurance loss, grief, or simple exhaustion.

Complaint-driven systems reward persistence but persistence is unevenly distributed.

That does not make rights meaningless.

But it changes who can continue long enough to use them.

I do not think the uncomfortable conclusion here is that disability law failed.

The ADA matters. The protections matter. Many people are safer because those rights exist. What unsettles me is less obvious.

Equal rights often exist inside unequal conditions. And when that happens, protection reaches people differently. Not because their need is smaller or their claims are weaker. But because healthcare access, savings, occupational status, education, flexibility, and stamina alter who can remain in the process.

When access depends on stamina, the people most in need of protection are the least able to reach it.

Rights may be universal. Persistence rarely is.

I keep returning to a possibility I find difficult to ignore:

The ADA changed who is protected. It did not fully change who can endure seeking protection. And perhaps that is the elusive question beneath disability rights at work.

Not whether accommodation exists.

Not whether rights matter.

But how many people are still paying for access with proof, persistence, money, and stamina.

Having a right is not always the same as safely using it.

The distance between those things is where inequality survives.

Leave a comment

Share

You are a city

where every traffic light
turns green at once.

Every street insists
it is the most important street.

Sirens sing from every direction.

Construction begins
before the blueprints are printed.

Half-built bridges
reach for each other
across impossible distances.

Some days,
an entire parade
marches through downtown
for a thought
that disappears
before it reaches the next block.

The electrical grid
works overtime,

dispatchers answer
a thousand calls,

engineers keep
the whole thing standing
with wire,
hope,
and muscle memory.

You are air traffic control

for a sky
that never closes.

Leave a comment

Share

No evidence.

No defense.

No presentation.

Just recognition.

Before my partner, I spent years explaining myself.

Explaining why I was tired. Why I canceled plans or forgot things. Why some days my body felt forty years older than it was. Why my brain could hold a thousand ideas and still lose track of where I put my keys.

Living with disability often means becoming fluent in self-advocacy. You learn how to translate symptoms into language other people can understand. How to justify limitations. How to prove that what cannot be seen still exists.

Doctors ask for evidence. Employers ask for documentation. Insurance companies ask for proof. Sometimes friends and family ask for reassurance that things are really as difficult as you say they are.

Over time, the habit follows you everywhere.

You stop answering questions and start preparing arguments.

You learn to anticipate skepticism before you encounter it. To collect examples. To keep receipts. To explain yourself before anyone asks.

The hardest part is that eventually you begin presenting evidence to yourself.

Maybe you’re not that tired.

Maybe you’re exaggerating.

Maybe everyone else is struggling this much and handling it better.

When your reality is questioned often enough, self-doubt starts to sound like reason.

Which is why being loved by someone who believes you can feel so disorienting.

Not because they solve your problems.

Because they remove the burden of proving they exist.

What I appreciate most isn’t grand gestures. It’s the absence of interrogation.

I don’t have to convince him that fatigue is real. I don’t have to explain why an ADHD symptom that sounds funny can still be disruptive. I don’t have to prove that a bad day is actually a bad day.

He starts from trust instead of suspicion.

That sounds small until you’ve spent years living in a world that often does the opposite.

He doesn’t treat my illnesses as character flaws. He doesn’t see my ADHD as laziness, my fatigue as a lack of effort, or my limitations as something I should be able to overcome if I wanted it badly enough.

He sees the reality of my life and somehow still sees me.

Not the diagnosis.

Not the symptoms.

Not the accommodations.

Me.

I think that’s why being understood feels so different from being accommodated.

Accommodation says, “I acknowledge your limitations.”

Understanding says, “I believe your experience.”

One changes circumstances.

The other changes how alone you feel.

There is something profoundly healing about being loved by someone who doesn’t require constant proof.

Someone who knows your struggles without reducing you to them.

Someone who understands that needing support and being worthy of love were never mutually exclusive.

For a long time, I thought being understood would feel intense.

Instead, it feels safe.

Like finally being allowed to put down a weight you forgot you were carrying.

Leave a comment

Share

I have been thinking about a sentence that appears harmless on the surface.

“But you’re still working.”

Most people mean it as encouragement. Sometimes it sounds admiring. Sometimes it sounds hopeful. The speaker may genuinely be trying to acknowledge effort or express relief that things have not become worse.

Still, the sentence lingers.

Not because it’s unkind, but because of the assumption hiding underneath it. If someone is still working, still parenting, still attending school, still answering texts, still showing up to family gatherings, what exactly are we supposed to conclude from that? That they are coping? That they are capable? That they are resilient?

Or that they’re not as disabled as they claim to be?

The more I think about it, the more I wonder whether many of us carry an unspoken definition of disability. We rarely articulate it directly, but it appears in the questions we ask and the conclusions we draw. Disability, in the popular imagination, is often visible. It is obvious. It is severe. Most importantly, it is consistent. A disabled person is someone whose limitations are readily apparent and remain relatively stable over time.

The problem is that many disabilities do not behave the way people expect them to.

Capacity changes. Symptoms fluctuate. Someone may function reasonably well one week and struggle significantly the next. Others maintain one area of life only by sacrificing another. Work gets done, but friendships disappear. Children are cared for, but the parent collapses afterward.

From the outside, what remains visible is the functioning.

The cost rarely is.

I suspect this is where many misunderstandings about disability begin. We tend to notice outcomes more easily than effort. We see the employee who arrived at work, not the three hours they spent trying to gather enough energy to leave the house. We see the parent who made it to the school event, not the weekend spent recovering from it. We see the student who earned good grades, not the elaborate systems required to compensate for ADHD, chronic pain, brain fog, anxiety, or exhaustion.

This misunderstanding becomes especially powerful in workplaces. Modern employment rewards consistency. Employers need people who can reliably perform tasks, meet deadlines, and fulfill responsibilities. There is nothing inherently unreasonable about that expectation. Organizations cannot function without a certain degree of predictability.

Yet those expectations are built around consistency, and many disabilities are not.

Many continue working because they have no realistic alternative. Rent is due regardless of symptoms. Health insurance is often tied to employment. Children still need food, transportation, supervision, and care. Bills do not pause during flares.

The choice is not always between working and resting. Often it is between working and facing consequences that feel even more dangerous.

A person who stops working may lose income and health insurance. They may jeopardize housing, stability, or the ability to care for their children. For many people, rest is not simply a medical decision. It’s an economic one.

We often talk about rest as though it were available to anyone who needs it. In reality, rest is unevenly distributed. Some people can step back temporarily without losing their livelihood. Others carry far more risk.

This is what often gets lost in conversations about disability and productivity. We tend to assume that continued functioning reflects capacity. But sometimes it reflects necessity.

People don’t continue because they can. Sometimes they continue because the alternatives are unacceptable.

The result is a paradox. The very actions people take to protect themselves from financial instability, social consequences, or professional repercussions can later be interpreted as evidence that they never needed protection in the first place.

The person who forces themselves through the workday becomes proof they can handle the workday. The parent who continues caregiving becomes proof they are managing. The employee who develops complex strategies to compensate for limitations becomes proof there are no limitations.

Success at adaptation can undermine recognition of need. The better someone becomes at navigating a disability, the easier it can be for others to overlook the disability itself.

This creates an unusual incentive structure. We praise people for overcoming barriers, finding workarounds, and remaining productive. Yet those same accomplishments can make support seem less necessary.

Modern life often rewards disabled people for functioning despite disability, then uses that success as evidence they do not need support.

Promotions, praise, independence, reliability, and self-sufficiency are all valued traits. The employee who develops systems to manage ADHD is seen as organized. The parent who pushes through exhaustion is seen as dependable. The chronically ill worker who continues showing up is seen as capable.

None of those assessments are necessarily wrong. What they fail to capture is the cost.

What often remains invisible is the effort required to sustain those appearances. The planning. The recovery. The tradeoffs. The symptoms that emerge behind closed doors.

The adaptation becomes visible. The cost does not.

What fascinates me is how often we treat visible collapse as the moment disability becomes legitimate. A person can struggle privately for years. They can live with pain, fatigue, cognitive difficulties, executive dysfunction, or fluctuating symptoms that shape every decision they make. Yet the social response frequently changes only when those struggles become impossible to hide.

When work stops.

When grades fall.

When caregiving becomes visibly difficult.

When the adaptation strategies fail.

When the cost finally becomes public.

At that point, people often say they had no idea.

I believe them.

The problem is not necessarily cruelty. It may be the way we have been taught to recognize disability in the first place. We are accustomed to looking for interruption rather than effort, collapse rather than cost, incapacity rather than adaptation.

That framework works reasonably well for conditions that are visible and stable. It works far less well for conditions defined by variability.

Perhaps that is why conversations about disability so often become conversations about proof. People with fluctuating conditions are asked, directly or indirectly, to reconcile contradictory facts. How can you be disabled if you worked last week? How can you be struggling if you attended the event? How can you need support if you appear capable?

The question assumes that disability and function are opposites.

For many people, they are not.

Function may exist alongside pain. Productivity may exist alongside exhaustion. Achievement may exist alongside impairment. Sometimes what looks like capability is actually the result of constant negotiation, sacrifice, and calculation occurring just outside the frame.

The more interesting question, then, may not be whether someone is still functioning.

It may be what functioning is costing them.

We often treat support and productivity as opposites, as though needing help must always look like visible incapacity. But meeting expectations and needing support are not mutually exclusive.

If disability only becomes visible once productivity fails, I cannot help wondering how much suffering remains hidden among people who are still meeting expectations.

Leave a comment

Share

What if disabled people were allowed to be more than resilient?

It is exhausting to be known solely through limitation.

Appointments. Symptoms. Paperwork. Accommodation requests. Insurance denials. Medication changes. Functional capacity. Eligibility criteria. Productivity lost.

Over time, disabled life can become translated almost entirely into administration.

Even care is contingent upon assessment.

Can you work?
Can you lift?
How long can you stand?
How often do you need help?
What can’t you do?

The questions are often necessary. But repeated enough, they can narrow a person until their life becomes organized around deficits.

Not Who are you?
Not What delights you?
Not What are you building?
Not What makes you laugh until you forget pain for a moment?

Just: What is wrong, and how wrong is it?

I have been thinking lately about the phrase disabled joy, partly because it sounded unfamiliar to me at first.

Joy felt too large a word.

Too polished.

Too easily mistaken for optimism.

I think many people assume joy in disabled life must mean extraordinary triumph. Recovery stories. Inspiration. Perseverance despite impossible odds.

But perhaps disabled joy is softer than that.

Maybe disabled joy is a symptom flare easing enough to think clearly.

Enough energy to read.

To study for an exam.

To write something honest.

Maybe it is a doctor believing you without persuasion.

A body cooperating for one ordinary afternoon.

An accommodation approved without resistance.

Finding people who do not require explanations before offering care.

Maybe joy looks like realizing your worth was never supposed to depend on constant output.

Because much of what gets praised in modern life (discipline, productivity, consistency, endurance) assumes a body that’s predictable.

And many disabled people spend years learning how to survive systems designed around predictability.

There is grief in that.

Real grief.

Disabled joy does not erase grief any more than joy after loss means loss disappeared.

Both can exist.

A person can mourn what illness altered and still experience relief.

Anger and tenderness can coexist.

Exhaustion and delight.

Fear and hope.

The body can hurt while something inside remains capable of wonder.

Disabled joy is, in part, the refusal to surrender personhood.

The refusal to become only resilient.

Only inspiring.

Only compliant.

Only evidence of suffering.

Maybe disabled joy is saying:

I am still allowed softness.
I am still allowed pleasure.
I am still allowed ambition.
I am still allowed rest.
I am still allowed an ordinary life.
I am still allowed to become.

Not after recovery.

Not after improvement.

Now.

As I am.

Because disabled people have always created beauty, humor, art, intimacy, scholarship, families, movements, faith, and futures.

The world often documents disability through burden.

Disabled joy documents something else:

Presence.

Attachment.

Community.

Relief.

Meaning.

The quiet miracle of remaining fully human in systems that repeatedly ask you to prove it.

Perhaps that is what disabled joy means.

Not happiness without pain.

Not gratitude for suffering.

But the insistence that disabled life contains far more than survival.

And maybe that insistence is a form of freedom.

What has joy looked like for you during periods when your life or body felt constrained? I’ve been thinking about whether joy changes shape under limitation, rather than disappearing entirely.

Leave a comment

Share

People love to say money is about discipline.

Budget better. Save more. Stop buying unnecessary things. Build an emergency fund. Invest early. Increase your income.

The implication sits just beneath the advice: if you struggle financially long enough, eventually it becomes a reflection of your choices. Your habits. Your priorities. Your effort.

For disabled people and chronic illness, that assumption can become its own kind of harm. Because much of what gets framed as poor planning is often adaptation. And much of what gets praised as financial discipline quietly depends on having a body that cooperates.

Most financial advice assumes stability.

Stable employment. Stable energy. Stable cognition. Stable transportation. Stable access to healthcare. Stable productivity. Stable capacity to work more when money gets tight.

The assumptions are so embedded they become invisible.

Which means when disabled people can’t follow the same timeline—saving aggressively, increasing income, advancing professionally, investing consistently—the difference is often interpreted as irresponsibility rather than constraint.

Not enough savings. Too much debt. Insufficient retirement contributions. Low earning potential.

The measurements remain the same. The conditions do not.

People often ask why disabled adults experience disproportionately high rates of poverty, as though the answer must be hidden somewhere inside spending habits or financial literacy.

But disability poverty is expensive long before someone looks at a bank account.

It’s expensive to need medication and treatment or recovery. To require accommodations or to lose work. It is expensive to have a body that sometimes refuses the timeline capitalism expects.

The cost appears everywhere: in careers abandoned, promotions declined, reduced hours, delayed education, insurance battles, transportation needs, specialized care, and opportunities turned down because the cost to health is too high.

The burden accumulates until people mistake survival for poor financial choices.

This is one reason conversations about emergency savings often feel detached from reality.

Emergency funds assume emergencies are occasional. Save enough for a layoff. A major repair. An unexpected expense.

For many disabled people, instability is not unusual.

The emergency is often built into ordinary life.

A flare. A medication change. Reduced capacity. A denied accommodation. An unexpected recovery period. A body requiring more than systems are willing to give.

That changes what financial security means.

The question becomes less How much should I save? and more How much money would it take before my survival stopped feeling fragile?

I think this is where mainstream financial advice fails most.

Not because budgeting is useless or investing is bad.

But because the conversation often ignores variability while moralizing outcomes.

People with enough stability are called disciplined.

People navigating instability are called irresponsible.

As if those conditions are interchangeable.

Much of what gets praised as financial discipline depends on having a body that cooperates.

A body that can sustain consistent work. Recover quickly. Increase output when money gets tight. Function predictably enough to follow the timelines financial advice assumes.

When those conditions disappear, the same behaviors often become harder, slower, or impossible. Yet the expectations rarely adjust.

The measurements remain.

The judgment remains.

The systems remain.

Only the body changes.

Disabled people frequently become extraordinary planners because unpredictability requires it.

Many calculate constantly: energy, symptoms, transportation, healthcare costs, work schedules, recovery time, benefits, risk.

Contingency planning becomes second nature.

Not because disabled people are financially careless, but because survival often requires precision.

I used to think financial security meant accumulation.

A large emergency fund. Investments growing quietly in the background. Numbers increasing over time.

Now I think security looks different.

Security is margin.

The ability to rest without immediate catastrophe. To lose work without losing housing. To experience illness without entering crisis. To make decisions without urgency.

Enough breathing room that survival stops dictating every choice.

That is wealth, too.

Maybe not the version people post online.

But real.

And for many people, much harder earned.

Most financial advice asks: How do you build wealth?

A question I return to more often is: What does financial security look like when a functional body isn’t guaranteed?

The answer changes everything.

Because then success may not look like optimization.

It may look like reducing debt before investing. Choosing liquidity over aggressive growth. Working less to preserve health. Building systems around capacity instead of shame. Protecting margin instead of maximizing output.

None of that reflects failure.

It reflects adaptation.

And adaptation inside systems that were never built for you is its own form of labor.

Disability poverty is not always the absence of effort.

More often, it is the accumulation of barriers.

The cost of surviving inside structures designed around people who can assume tomorrow will look like today.

Many of us cannot say the same.

And maybe that’s the piece financial conversations miss most.

For some people, money is a tool for building wealth.

For others, money is a tool for building safety.

Enough to weather a flare.

Enough to absorb lost income.

Enough to rest.

Enough to recover.

Enough to survive without every setback becoming catastrophe.

Because when your body has never been predictable, financial security stops meaning abundance.

It starts meaning margin.

And margin—the space between hardship and crisis, between instability and collapse—may be one of the most overlooked forms of wealth there is.

Leave a comment

Share

Most people think financial security looks like excess.

A large balance. A cushion so wide it absorbs anything.

That’s what I thought, too.

Until the day I lost my job and realized what actually mattered wasn’t how much I had, but how long it could hold me over.

The first thought wasn’t panic.

It was gratitude.

Thank God for my savings.

Then calculation.

I opened my budget and did the math. How long could I live on what I had? What were my fixed costs? What could be reduced immediately? What would happen if I eliminated my debt entirely instead of carrying monthly payments?

Within hours, I had an answer.

Four months of expenses. A small emergency buffer. Enough margin to breathe.

Not indefinitely. But enough to avoid panic.

And that distinction matters more than people think.

Financial advice often centers on accumulation.

But in a crisis, the question changes.

Not how much do you have, but:

How much time does it buy you?

I had spent years saving—slowly, inconsistently at times, but intentionally.

Not because I was wealthy. I wasn’t.

I had worked in public service my entire career. There were months where saving felt unrealistic. But I built the habit anyway.

Small deposits. Tax refunds. Bonuses. Overtime. Anything that felt “extra” got removed from circulation and placed somewhere it couldn’t be casually spent.

At the time, it didn’t feel transformative.

It felt incremental.

Five years later, it became the difference between stability and survival mode.

What people don’t understand is that crisis doesn’t arrive cleanly. It doesn’t come with immediate support.

It comes with delay.

I applied for short-term disability. Technically, I had access to it because I’d been paying for the benefit for years. In reality, access meant paperwork, then more paperwork, then waiting. Doctors on different timelines. Additional fees for documentation. Requests for clarification. Reviews by a separate medical team. More delays.

Even after approval, there was no immediate relief—just another waiting period until the next pay cycle. Weeks turned into months. And during that entire time, there was no income. Just expenses continuing as normal: rent, utilities, food, healthcare. Especially healthcare.

Losing my job meant losing my health insurance. My rheumatologist was suddenly out of network. It took months to find a new provider. My care, which should have been monitored every three months, stretched into an eight-month gap. Treatment stalled. My health regressed. And I had to start over.

This is the part financial advice doesn’t account for.

Not just the loss of income but the compounding instability of everything connected to it.

Income, healthcare, treatment continuity, administrative burden.

All at once.

People talk about emergency funds like they’re a box you check.

Three to six months. Done.

But no one talks about what those months actually have to carry.

Not just your bills.

But your time waiting for systems to respond.

Because even when support exists, it’s not available when you need it. It happens later. Sometimes much later.

I made one decision early that shaped everything that followed:

I refused to go into survival mode.

I reduced expenses, yes. Cut subscriptions. Lowered my monthly costs by a few hundred. Eliminated debt where it made sense to reduce ongoing obligations. But I didn’t strip my life down to the point of instability. I prioritized predictability. Because when your health is unstable, your finances cannot be.

I had a 401k. It wasn’t large—just a few thousand dollars. I considered withdrawing it. In a different situation, I might have. But when I ran the numbers, the penalties and taxes outweighed the immediate benefit. So I rolled it into an IRA and left it intact.

That decision wasn’t about discipline.

It was about understanding tradeoffs under pressure.

Financial advice often assumes abundance.

Six figures. Large margins. Disposable income.

But that wasn’t my reality.

And still—

I was okay.

Because financial security isn’t about having excess.

It’s about having enough structure to withstand disruption.

Years earlier, during COVID, I was stuck in bed for weeks. Finally, I had the time—and the mental bandwidth—to learn about finances. I realized how much I didn’t know. High-yield savings accounts. Stocks. How to use credit strategically instead of reactively.

What started as research turned into a system. Not perfect. Not optimized. But consistent.

That system didn’t make me rich. It made me prepared.

There was a moment, somewhere in the middle of all of this, where I realized: I’m going to be okay. Not because everything was resolved, but because nothing was collapsing.

And that’s when my definition of financial security changed.

It’s not about how much you have. It’s about whether your life can absorb chaos without forcing you into desperation.

The goal isn’t to be rich.
The goal is to be free.

Most people prepare for disaster. I prepared for peace.

And that preparation didn’t look like perfection. It looked like reducing fixed costs before I needed to, saving money I pretended didn’t exist, making savings a non-negotiable line item—even when it was small, and letting consistency compound over time instead of waiting for surplus.

None of that felt life-changing when I was doing it. Nor did it feel like it would matter so much.

Until it did.

Financial advice assumes you need hundreds of thousands of dollars to be secure. But in reality, what you need is something much more practical: enough margin to wait, enough structure to stay steady, enough discipline to build it before you need it.

Because when systems delay, when income stops, and when your health is unstable, what you’re really buying isn’t comfort.

It’s time.

And time is what keeps everything else from falling apart.

Leave a comment

Most people think losing a job is a loss of stability.

A loss of income, routine, identity. A force that unravels you all at once. There’s an assumption that the structure holding your life together is external, and when it disappears, everything else follows.

That’s what I expected, too.

But when I lost my job while on medical leave, that’s not what happened.

The first thought I had wasn’t alarm. It wasn’t even fear.

It was certainty.

This is wrong.

Not a mistake. Not a miscommunication. Not an unfortunate but understandable outcome. There is something deeply unethical about a company that claims to value its employees, then lets someone go because their body stopped cooperating long enough to become inconvenient to accommodate.

That recognition came quickly, almost instinctively. It wasn’t something I had to reason my way into. It was immediate.

And that matters, because it set the tone for everything that followed.

After that came a disorientation—not rooted in self-doubt, but in a failure of expectation.

I kept returning to the same question: how could they do this to someone who had been loyal for more than a decade?

I had operated under a certain logic, one that many of us are taught early and reinforced over time. If you show up consistently, if you do your job well, if you are reliable and committed, then in return you are treated with a baseline sense of security. Not special treatment, not immunity from consequences, but a kind of professional reciprocity. A sense that your effort and your presence matter in a way that isn’t easily discarded.

That logic no longer applied.

And what broke wasn’t just professional. It was relational at its core. It exposed that what I thought was a mutual understanding was, in reality, conditional.

There was a brief moment where I tried to turn it inward.

It didn’t dominate the experience, but it was there, almost automatic. Maybe I should have gone back to work sooner. Maybe if I had pushed through a little longer, before it became an issue, this wouldn’t have happened.

That line of thinking wasn’t rooted in truth so much as in a need for control. If the outcome was something I caused, then it was something I could have prevented. And that’s a much easier reality to hold than the one that was actually in front of me.

Because the alternative is this: sometimes systems fail you regardless of how well you perform inside them.

I took action in the ways I could.

I responded, asked questions, tried to understand what had happened and whether anything could be done to correct it. There was a part of me that was still operating inside the original framework, trying to resolve what felt like a breach in the agreement.

But eventually, it became clear that nothing I did was going to alter the outcome.

And once that settled, the tension gave way.

The shift wasn’t immediate. It didn’t happen in the moment the job was lost, or even in the days right after. It came later, after the initial response had run its course and there was nothing left to do but sit with what was true.

That’s when I felt it.

Relief.

It wasn’t a surge or a sense of excitement. My body simply softened. I wasn’t bracing in the same way. The pressure to hold everything together lifted, even if the circumstances hadn’t improved.

And that’s when I understood what I hadn’t been able to see clearly before.

I wasn’t grieving the job.

I was responding to the injustice.

That distinction clarified everything.

Because grief would have meant I lost something that was aligned—something I would have chosen to keep.

But that’s not what this was.

What I lost was a structure I had learned to survive within. One that provided consistency, yes, but also required a level of endurance I had normalized over time.

And more importantly, it was a structure I would not have left on my own.

That part is harder to admit.

I would never have walked away from that job.

Not because I loved it, or because it fulfilled me in some deep way, but because of what it represented.

For disabled people, employment isn’t just work. It’s access.
Access to care, to paid time off, to a version of security that isn’t otherwise guaranteed.
Losing a job doesn’t just remove income—it destabilizes the systems that make survival possible.

It meant predictability in a life where my body isn’t.

And I had come to believe, consciously or not, that I needed that specific structure to stay afloat.

Losing it forced a question I had been avoiding.

What is actually keeping me afloat?

The answer wasn’t what I expected.

It wasn’t the job.

It was me.

It was my ability to assess a situation quickly and without distortion, even when it’s uncomfortable. My ability to make decisions under pressure, to recalibrate when circumstances shift, to build new structure when it has been removed.

It was the pattern I had been living out long before this job, and one that would continue long after it.

The job was never the source of my stability.
It only looked like it was.

And that realization didn’t come with panic.

It came with a grounded clarity.

Because by the time this happened, a part of me had already settled into my skin. My identity was no longer rooted in performance, achievement, or maintaining the appearance of having everything together.

There was a time when it was.

A time when being “someone who has it all together” meant meeting expectations, maintaining consistency, and proving, both to myself and to others, that I could handle whatever was placed in front of me.

But over time, that definition changed.

My sense of self moved away from performance and toward something more durable. My character. My judgment. My ability to move through complexity without abandoning myself in the process.

So when the system let me go, I didn’t collapse with it.

Not because it didn’t matter.

It did.

We live in a world where access to basic infrastructure is often tied to employment, and losing that has real, material consequences. That is especially true for those of us navigating disability in systems not designed with us in mind.

This is not a story about minimizing that reality.

It’s a story about understanding what remains when those structures fail.

I used to believe my survival depended on staying inside the system.

Now I understand it has always depended on how I navigate it.

And that doesn’t change just because I’m no longer inside it.

Leave a comment

Share

It isn’t.

It’s a sequence of transitions that all happen at once.

You have to stop what you’re doing, start something new, move into a different environment, and shift your body into a completely different sensory experience.

And once you’re in the shower, there are more demands.

Water hitting your skin. Temperature regulation. Pressure from the shower head. Different textures. Different sounds.

Sometimes your body is under strain.

Your lower back aches before you even step in.
You’re calculating how long you can stand before it becomes too much.
Reaching for the body wash isn’t automatic—it’s calculated.

Not excessive. Just…costly.

Then when you get out, the shifts continue: warm to cold again, wet to dry, damp skin that lingers longer than it should, clothes that don’t sit the way they normally do.

These aren’t small adjustments. They’re repeated sensory shifts happening in quick succession.

For some people, that’s enough to dysregulate the entire system.
For others, it’s not just sensory—it’s physical.

There are days where the simplest solution is obvious: a shower chair.
A place to sit. A way to remove one layer of effort.

Not because the task is hard in theory but because your body is already doing more than it should have to.

There’s also the part that gets missed most often: starting.

Showering requires initiation. You have to interrupt what you’re doing, decide to begin, and move through a sequence without losing momentum.

For many people, the hardest part isn’t doing the task, but beginning it.

And when your body already feels behind before you start, initiation isn’t neutral, it’s weighted.

Then there’s pressure.

The sense that you should shower, that someone is waiting, that you’re taking too long, that it’s expected.

When a task carries pressure, it stops feeling neutral. It starts to feel imposed. And once a task feels imposed, resistance increases, even if nothing about the task itself has changed.

And when that resistance shows up, it rarely gets read as capacity, but instead as something else.

Laziness. Procrastination. Giving up.

So now the task isn’t just a task. It’s something you’re behind on and should have done already.

And it quietly turns into shame before you’ve even started.

Then there’s capacity.

Your ability to do everyday tasks isn’t fixed. It fluctuates based on what your system is already holding—stress, work, time of year, life load, and for some people, illness.

When your body is already dealing with fatigue, pain, or other symptoms, your available capacity is lower.

The task hasn’t changed.
But what it costs you has.

So the same shower that felt manageable one day can feel impossible the next. Not because anything is wrong, but because the conditions are different.

Because some days, standing long enough to wash your hair is the task.

And other days, finishing the shower isn’t even the end of it.

You’re already tired. Already done.
But now you have to brush your teeth.

A small, separate task that suddenly feels like too much.

Not because it is.
But because nothing exists in isolation.

This is where most advice breaks down.

It treats the task like it exists in isolation, as if making the shower easier (or building a better habit) should solve the problem.

But the difficulty isn’t coming from one place.

It’s coming from the interaction between transitions, sensory load, task initiation, pressure, and available capacity.

All happening at the same time.

And yet, once you’re in the shower, the experience often shifts. Water is predictable. Repetitive. Consistent. There’s a clear cause and effect.

For many people, that becomes regulating.

Which creates a kind of paradox:

The hardest parts are getting in and getting out.

So the question isn’t:

“Why can’t I just do this?”

It’s:

“What is this task asking of me and what am I already carrying?”

Because when you look at it that way, the response changes.

Instead of forcing the task, you adjust the conditions around it.

Reduce the number of transitions where you can.
Make the sensory experience more predictable.
Lower unnecessary pressure.
Simplify the steps.

Some days, you do less.

Or you don’t do it at all.
Not as avoidance.
As an accurate response to capacity.

Because what looks like inconsistency from the outside is often your system adjusting in real time.

And when those demands exceed what your system can hold, it stops being simple.

Showering isn’t a simple task.

It just looks like one.

Leave a comment

Everyone is watching me.

I squeeze my toes inside my shoes, like if I press hard enough, I can keep everything contained. Like nerves are something you can hold in your body if you don’t let them reach your face.

The bridge feels too small for everything happening in my head. Too exposed. I look down at the lake, so still and unreal. It doesn’t feel like something you fall into. It feels like something you disappear over.

They strap me in.

“Trust the cord.”

I nod, but my body doesn’t believe them. My shoulders are tight, pulled up like I’m bracing for impact—not the fall, the aftermath. The part where people look at you differently.

Because this isn’t about bungee jumping. It’s a decision about who I’m allowed to be.

If I jump, I’m careless. Reckless. Too much.
If I don’t jump…then I stay who I’ve always been.

And that version of me is familiar. Predictable.

I had done that before. I chose the safe college. Stayed close. Didn’t disappoint anyone.

Safe, for me, meant not being seen.

It meant editing myself before anyone else could. Anticipating reactions, softening edges before they could be called sharp, keeping things just contained enough that no one would ever say I was too much. Too intense. Too needy. Too shaped by things I didn’t choose.

I learned that early. Automatically.

Stay small, stay safe.

And it worked—until it didn’t.

Because over time, staying small doesn’t just protect you. It erases you.

I shake my shoulders, like I can interrupt the thought before it settles in. I don’t count down. I don’t think it through. I jump before I can reason my way out of it.

The drop is immediate. There’s no transition, no gentle easing into it, just a sudden absence of ground.

My eyes roll back from the force of it. Everything hits at once. I inhale, shaky and sharp, like my body forgot how to breathe.

And then I exhale.

Slow. Deep. Controlled.

And something releases.

I had been holding tension I didn’t even know took up space in my head.

My shoulders drop. My body loosens in a way that feels unfamiliar enough to notice. I’m not bracing anymore. I’m not holding anything up.

I’m just there.

Suspended, upside down over a lake, and somehow more at peace than I’ve ever been standing on solid ground.

That’s when it clicks.

It wasn’t about bravery. It was about removing the version of me that believed she had to be managed to be acceptable.

Mid-air, there’s nothing to edit. No one to anticipate. No version of me to perform.

Just me.

And I don’t disappear because of it.

That part stays. That part is what changes everything.

Because the fear was never really about the jump. It was about being seen and what it would cost me. Love. Security. Belonging.

So I learned to move carefully. Measured. Controlled. Leaving parts of myself out, just in case.

But after?

After looked like saying things without rehearsing them first. Letting people see my reactions in real time instead of editing them into something more palatable.

It meant not softening every opinion or shrinking every emotion to keep the room comfortable. It meant asking for what I needed without packaging it in a way that made it easier to say no to.

It meant being honest, even when my voice shook. Letting people misread me sometimes and not rushing in to correct it. Trusting that the right people would stay without me having to perform for it.

I didn’t wait to feel safe first. I showed up as myself and let safety be determined after.

And nothing collapsed.

No one left because I was fully myself.

That was new.

The jump wasn’t about falling. It was about letting go of the version of me I built to survive—the one who believed visibility was dangerous.

I almost didn’t jump. And I know exactly why.

Because if I didn’t, I could’ve stayed intact in the way I understood, predictable and unquestioned. No need to confront the possibility that I was never too much—just too visible for the environments I grew up in.

But I jumped anyway.

And once you experience yourself without the guard, you can’t unknow it.

Which is why I bungee jumped in every country I visited.

Not for the thrill. For the reminder.

Some people leave behind stories.
Others leave atmospheres.

The strange thing about loss is how ordinary the world remains around it. Morning still arrives. Conversations continue. Traffic lights change on schedule. And yet something essential is missing from the architecture of the day.

This poem is about that absence and the outline someone leaves behind.

Michael

My brother was tall
in the way trees are tall.

When he walked into a room
the air didn’t tighten.
It loosened.

Laughter followed him
like it had signed a lease.

He could split the tension
with one sentence.
Perfect timing.

Like he carried scissors
for seriousness
and refused
to let it harden.

He would put a hand on my shoulder—
not heavy,
not solemn—
teasing.

Like,
don’t take yourself so seriously.
Like,
I see you winding up.
Like,
I dare you to stay mad.

And I never could.

He was strong in the obvious ways—
steady.

He gave easily.
Laughed loudly.
Showed up.

He challenged me
the way only someone who knows your shape can—
pushing, but smiling,
calling me higher
without stepping on me to do it.

Some days
it feels like a limb is missing—
and I look down
half-expecting blood.

Something severed
without anesthesia—
and the world should be stained
by what’s no longer attached.

But there is no red.
No visible wound.

Just shock.

An outline
where he stood.

The world did not shatter.
It simply kept going—
traffic lights.
Emails.
Morning.

Four years
and I still turn
like he’s about to say something sideways
that will fix the mood.

The quiet after him
is too clean.

I miss the weight of his laughter.
I miss the hand on my shoulder
that meant
I’ve got you
and
You’re ridiculous
at the same time.

He was vast.
He was kind.
He was funny.

The world keeps going.
Smaller.

Grief does not always arrive as noise.
Sometimes it lives in the space where a voice used to be.

The first time I left the country, I also got lost.

Not metaphorically.
Geographically.

Two hours of wandering through Salamanca, Spain, trying to retrace my steps back to the university where I had been studying.

At the time, it felt like a mistake.

But when I think of Salamanca now, that is not the part I return to first.

I think of gelato melting faster than we could eat it as my friends and I walked to a movie, laughing our way through streets that had already started to feel familiar. I think of my host mom, who cooked like feeding people was its own form of tenderness. Every meal felt like an event. At breakfast there were Spanish plums, sweet and bright. Later there was paella, pizza, dishes so good we looked forward to them all day. I think of the beauty of the city itself, full of trees and flowers, sunlight warming the stone, a place that felt both ancient and alive.

I was twenty-one, studying at a centuries-old university renowned for its rigor, and I felt awake in every part of myself.

I had grown up with Spanish in my life, but Salamanca sharpened it. It taught me grammar in a way I had never formally learned before. It taught me how to conjugate verbs. It even taught me Castilian. The coursework demanded more of me, and I loved that it did. There was something holy in walking to class each day knowing I was there not by accident, but by effort. I had worked for that life. I had chosen it. I had earned it.

No one in my family had ever done anything like that before. People who came from my circumstances were not expected to go halfway across the world and build a life there. And yet I did. I won a scholarship from the U.S. Department of State and another from my university to make it possible. What felt sacred about Salamanca was not that it was easy. It was that it had once seemed improbable.

And then I was there.

Living it.

Thriving inside it.

My international roommates made the unfamiliar feel less lonely. We were all learning a new country together, discovering what delighted us, what confused us, what reminded us of home. There was comfort in that shared not-knowing. There was also kindness. After I got lost one day, one of my roommates waited for me the next afternoon so we could walk home together. It was such a simple gesture, but I have never forgotten it. That was part of what Salamanca gave me too: the reminder that home is not only a place. Sometimes it is a person who notices your fear and chooses to meet you inside it.

The day I got lost began innocently enough. One turn too many. One street that curved differently than I remembered. Soon the landmarks I thought I knew dissolved into rows of warm stone buildings and narrow streets that folded into one another. Salamanca is beautiful, but beauty can become disorienting when you no longer know where you are. Every street seemed to echo the last. The same pale stone. The same corridors of sky. The same growing awareness that I might be farther from the familiar than I had realized.

I remember the shift before I remember the panic.

The moment when your mind stops assuming everything will work itself out and starts quietly rehearsing what happens if it does not.

I was not in danger. Nothing extraordinary had happened. I was just a young woman far from home, walking unfamiliar streets alone, trying to find her way back. But for two hours, I had to keep moving through uncertainty without anyone solving it for me. I had to trust that eventually something would become legible again.

And it did.

Piece by piece. A detail I recognized before I could explain why I recognized it. A street I had passed earlier. A turn that felt familiar in my body before it registered in my mind. Then the university came into view.

I was relieved, yes.

But more than that, I was changed.

Not because getting lost had transformed me in some grand and cinematic way. Spain had already been transforming me long before that afternoon. I had already learned how to build belonging in unfamiliar places. Discovering that joy could meet me almost anywhere. I had already become someone more at ease in her own skin.

What shifted that day was not my capability, but my trust in it.

Until then, I do not think I fully understood what it meant that I was there. That I had crossed an ocean. That I was making friends from around the world. That I was wandering off on my own to meet a friend from South Korea or skipping scheduled activities to make my own fun with locals. That I was not just surviving this new life, but inhabiting it. The proof had been accumulating all along. Getting lost only made me see it.

Salamanca gave me something I had not known how to name before: peace.

Not because life there was perfect or free of difficulty. But because for the first time, I felt a certainty living inside me that did not depend on circumstances staying easy. More than confidence, it was freedom. The kind that comes when you stop waiting for the world to tell you who you are and begin discovering what you can carry within you.

I went to Spain seeking independence and adventure. I found those. But I also found proof that I could build a life bigger than the one I had known.

Travel changes your scale. It makes the world feel wider, but it also reveals how much more capacity lives inside you than you realized. You leave home thinking you are going somewhere new and return with the unnerving, beautiful realization that you have been larger than your life allowed you to see.

I thought this essay was about the day I got lost in Salamanca.

It isn’t.

It is about the season I was found there.

I found peace there. I found freedom there. I found the version of myself who trusted her own instincts and move through the world with wonder.

And maybe that is why I still return to it now, not just as memory, but as reclamation.

Because some places do not simply show you the world.

They show you yourself.

I waited until the night before every deadline.
Then I wrote the entire paper in a few hours.
For most of my life, I assumed everyone else was doing the same thing.

It never occurred to me that the pattern itself might be unusual.

When you grow up surrounded by high achievers, ability fades into the background.
Reading quickly is natural.
Finishing assignments is effortless.

It feels like water to a fish.
You don’t notice it because it’s everywhere.

For years I carried a habit that, in retrospect, should have raised more brows.

I procrastinated.

Relentlessly.

Papers written the night before they were due, projects completed only after the deadline finally felt real.

At the time, I had a simple explanation for the habit.

“I just work better under pressure.”

It sounded reasonable enough. Plenty of people say that. Deadlines create urgency. Urgency creates focus. Focus produces results.

So, the story held.

And because the work was good, the habit never caused much trouble.
I graduated high school near the top of my class.
I made the dean’s list in college.
None of it felt unnatural at the time.

It wasn’t until graduate school that someone finally pointed out the pattern.

We were sitting around a long seminar table after class, half the room still holding notebooks and coffee cups, talking about deadlines and time management. At some point the topic of procrastination came up.

Someone asked whether it had ever affected my grades.

I said no.

They paused.

“How is that possible?”

I shrugged and explained what felt unremarkable to me: I usually waited until close to the deadline, worked for a bit, and submitted the assignment.

They looked confused.

“How are you finishing something in a few hours that’s supposed to take weeks?”

I remember answering without much thought.

“I’ve always done that. In childhood. In high school. All through college.”

That was just how school operated for me.

The conversation stalled for a moment. I could feel the shift in the room, that subtle moment when other people realize something about you that you have never examined closely yourself.

It was the first moment I wondered whether this might not be normal after all.
Sometimes the most revealing patterns are the ones we never think to question.
What feels ordinary from the inside can look very different from the outside.

In graduate school, that same routine continued. Research synthesized rapidly. Projects completed in short bursts of focus.

And semester after semester, the grades came back the same.

A’s.

Even then, I didn’t consider it proof of exceptional ability. It simply felt like the continuation of something familiar.

Looking back now, what interests me isn’t the label of giftedness itself.

It’s the way environments shape our perception and expose how limited our sense of what’s typical can be.

When your environment is full of capable students, ability stops drawing attention.
Everyone writes competently.
Everyone seems to grasp ideas quickly.

But when you step into a different setting—a workplace or a graduate program—the contrast appears.

Habits that once blended in suddenly stand out.

Sometimes that realization arrives quietly.

An offhand question.

“How do you do that?”

And suddenly you’re seeing your own mind from the outside for the first time.

But even that moment isn’t about recognizing brilliance.

It’s about recognizing difference.

Some people plan meticulously and work steadily over long periods of time. Their strength is consistency.

Others move in bursts. Ideas gathered slowly and then assembled promptly when attention sharpens.

Some minds work like factories.
Others work like slow laboratories.

Neither approach is inherently superior.

Understanding which one you have changes how you move through the world.

My brain had already been working on the problem long before I sat down to write.

By the time I finally opened the document, the structure was already there.
The outline appeared almost immediately.

I’ve started calling this stretch of time an incubation period.
Once I had a name for it, I began noticing something else.

Perhaps what we call procrastination is a misunderstanding of how certain minds work.

Many systems assume progress should be evenly distributed across time.
The expectation is steady effort, visible movement, incremental results.

But not every mind produces work that way.
Some ideas need space before they take shape.

The mistake is assuming that only visible effort counts as thinking.
When effort is invisible, it’s easy to misinterpret how a mind is working.
And that misunderstanding shapes what we call normal.

We all grow up inside small ecosystems of expectation.

Within those spaces, our habits and abilities appear standard because they resemble the people around us.

Only later do we discover the edges of those assumptions.

The interesting question isn’t whether the word gifted applies.

The more interesting question is what else about the way my mind works I have mistaken for normal simply because it has always been there.

For most of my life, I assumed everyone experienced thinking the same way I did.

It took a single conversation to realize that might not be true.

“How are you finishing something in a few hours that’s supposed to take weeks?”

Until that moment, it had never occurred to me that the answer might not be ordinary.

Leave a comment